Half-Life was an awesome game. Half-Life 2 was merely a good game.

I hate how people run around on the Internet claiming that "Half-Life 2 is the greatest shooter of all time."

They even claim it's better than the original Half-Life!

When I read such statements, my reaction is, "What? Really? Are they serious?"

I was ten years old when I played Half-Life, and of course, from my little ten year old mind, it certainly constituted awesomeness. So, that is why I still think it's awesome. Its main innovation, a cohesive narrative, was its defining trait. In the year 2000, good games tied together with excellent narratives were very few, and for that, I credit Half-Life as being one of the greatest shooters of all time. It manage to tie a story into a shooter when games like Doom and Quake simply failed in that department.

Which brings me to Half-Life 2. Half-Life 2, beyond the introduction of a physics engine (which my thirteen year old mind at the time recognized as pretty cool) and some pretty graphics, did not push the boundaries of the video game narrative as far as Half-Life did. We had all the Half-Life trademarks: a silent protagonist, lack of cuscenes, etc. Add on the weak gunplay, and Half-Life 2 constitutes as one of the weakest sequels of all time.

So, to conclude: Half-Life was awesome, but Half-Life 2, while good, was certainly not as awesome as the original Half-Life was. Its fabled reputation amongst gamers is directly related to its Half-Life pedigree, not to the game itself.

Anyone agree? Anyone want to challenge me? There, I said it! Half-Life > Half-Life 2!

I thought the AI was pretty crappy in HL2. A lot of enemy maneuvers seemed scripted.

Recently played through HL2 again and i agree that HL1 is superior.

HL2 has more personality and more variety

but i actually liked HL1 more than HL2, the whole experience felt more connected together and the ending is better, but it's not really a knock on HL2 at all

They were both pretty generic shooters.

got bored of HL1 never actually completed it. I completed HL2 and the extra episodes. Much better IMO.

You were ten when you played Half Life 1 in 2000, but you were 13 when you played Half Life 2 no earlier than 2004. Something isn't quite right here.Skittles_McGee

Oh, did I say ten? I meant nine.

Sorry, my math isn't very good.

They were both pretty generic shooters.

Darkedge34

what's generic about 'em?

[QUOTE="Darkedge34"]

They were both pretty generic shooters.

88mphSlayer

what's generic about 'em?

Go from point A to point B in a linear fashion shooting zombies and maybe a couple marines. ORIGINALITY AT IT'S BEST.

People who generally dislike Half Life 2 seem to completely miss the story. The variety in HL2 alone blows my mind... I can't grasp why anybody wouldn't enjoy it, yet enjoy a pubescent type game where the main characters face is molding into a scowl, who shouts alot, and tries so hard to include gore that even skeletons gush blood like a fountain. :? Half Life 2 earned all the praise it gets in my book. Likeable characters, check, unrivaled level design, check, unrivaled atmosphere, check, more then 2 enemy types, check, vastly different gameplay (one minute you're driving a hovercraft, trying to escape the combine, then you enter a town reminiscent of Resident Evil, then you're controlling antlions in an assault across a beach), check. If you don't agree about the atmosphere part, try playing it again with your eyes open. Half Life 2 doesn't ram its story down your throat, it intricately weaves it into the surroundings. Of course this is just my opinion though. :P I honestly enjoyed them both equally.

I've never been a big fan of Half-Life 2, but there will most likely be those that disagree and those that agree. Like with everything else.

[QUOTE="88mphSlayer"]

[QUOTE="Darkedge34"]

They were both pretty generic shooters.

Darkedge34

what's generic about 'em?

Go from point A to point B in a linear fashion shooting zombies and maybe a couple marines. ORIGINALITY AT IT'S BEST.

Like I said before...

GOLDENEYE 007 for the N64 did much of what Half Life 1 did...and it did it first too.

In some/many respects, GOLDENEYE was better. Half Life 1 was sterile in comparisson because Valve doesn't have the production values. Totally my opinion, of course, but HL1 bored me when I got around to it in late 1999. Not that HL1 was a bad game nor did I not think the game was good, but yeah...totally bored, never even bothered to finish it.

I did like HL2 though.

Like I said before...

GOLDENEYE 007 for the N64 did much of what Half Life 1 did...and it did it first too.

In some/many respects, GOLDENEYE was better. Half Life 1 was sterile in comparisson because Valve doesn't have the production values. Totally my opinion, of course, but HL1 bored me when I got around to it in 2000.

I did like HL2 though.

Persistantthug

Dude, no it never. Duke Nukem 3D did more then Goldeneye. Half Life 1 REWROTE the rulebook of FPS.

i liked hl1 better. hl2 had more variety but some of that variety was outright awful (the watercraft parts?). hl1 was much creepier, more atmospheric, and a little more interesting overall.

episode 2, however, is by far the best part of the half life franchise. the end where youre driving the car around planting bombs on the striders is like the most epic thing ever.

Dude, no it never. Duke Nukem 3D did more then Goldeneye. Half Life 1 REWROTE the rulebook of FPS.

Dataleak

That's what lots of people keep espousing,

But I played GOLDENEYE in like, 1997...no...early 1998, and I clearly remember the fun, awe, and strange feeling I got when I shot relatively real looking people in their faces.

Half Life1 was a bit more advanced with the blood and a few other features, but it didn't do anything really revolutionary to me...it just seems people have always wanted to dismiss Goldeneye N64 for some reason because a console game usurped PC games.

Go figure
*shrug*

While I like HL2, I still enjoy HL1 more and I think it is the best FPS ever made in my opinion. The reason is that I enjoy the setting of Black Mesa more then City 17, and also I like fighting the Soldiers more then the Combine to be honest. And I liked how it use to be only Gordon Freeman by himself and fights on his own rather then what we see in HL2. But don't get me wrong, HL2 is still a great game.

i liked half life 2 quite a bit more then half life 1...

and it is astounding how half life 2 still looks good even to this day..

[QUOTE="Dataleak"]

Dude, no it never. Duke Nukem 3D did more then Goldeneye. Half Life 1 REWROTE the rulebook of FPS.

Persistantthug

That's what lots of people keep espousing,

But I played GOLDENEYE in like, 1997...no...early 1998, and I clearly remember the fun, awe, and strange feeling I got when I shot relatively real looking people in their faces.

Half Life1 was a bit more advanced with the blood and a few other features, but it didn't do anything really revolutionary to me...it just seems people have always wanted to dismiss Goldeneye N64 for some reason because a console game usurped PC games.

Go figure
*shrug*

[QUOTE="Dataleak"]

Dude, no it never. Duke Nukem 3D did more then Goldeneye. Half Life 1 REWROTE the rulebook of FPS.

Persistantthug

That's what lots of people keep espousing,

But I played GOLDENEYE in like, 1997...no...early 1998, and I clearly remember the fun, awe, and strange feeling I got when I shot relatively real looking people in their faces.

Half Life1 was a bit more advanced with the blood and a few other features, but it didn't do anything really revolutionary to me...it just seems people have always wanted to dismiss Goldeneye N64 for some reason because a console game usurped PC games.

Go figure
*shrug*

i didn't play either game (Goldeneye/HL1) until years after they both came out

when i did eventually play Goldeneye, i thought it felt generic, i mean compare the enemies to enemies in Quake 1, and the level design was very basic as well

when i played HL1, i thought it was great, the controls were solid, the platforming was fun, the level design never broke up the experience - you felt like it was one long level and not arbitrary video-game jumps between locations, and the situations where you eventually got to shoot something were paced out and were fun to get through (not to mention, crowbars)

that's just me, i never played the goldeneye multiplayer, so whatever

I agree. I loved Half Life, but Half Life 2 was just extremely mediocre and forgettable. I've tried so many times to get into it, but I just can't. It's one of the most overrrated games ever made imo.

Half Life1 was a bit more advanced with the blood and a few other features, but it didn't do anything really revolutionary to me...

Persistantthug

The biggest advancements were the skeletal animation system and the AI. The AI cheats, just like FEAR's, but the effect is still impressive today.

[QUOTE="Persistantthug"]

[QUOTE="Dataleak"]

Dude, no it never. Duke Nukem 3D did more then Goldeneye. Half Life 1 REWROTE the rulebook of FPS.

Skittles_McGee

That's what lots of people keep espousing,

But I played GOLDENEYE in like, 1997...no...early 1998, and I clearly remember the fun, awe, and strange feeling I got when I shot relatively real looking people in their faces.

Half Life1 was a bit more advanced with the blood and a few other features, but it didn't do anything really revolutionary to me...it just seems people have always wanted to dismiss Goldeneye N64 for some reason because a console game usurped PC games.

Go figure
*shrug*

I've actually heard that arguement before, regarding alot of games and just games in general....But I have to come clean, it's an aspect of gaming that's always been trivial to me.

Like, I couldn't care less if a game jumps to cutscenes. In actuality, I think I might prefer cut scene cinematics if their well done. Scratch that...I DO like cut scenes. Always have. I've always liked the big explosions, epic music scores and Hopefully, good voice acting. I typically BUY games like that, assuming they are good.

Hmm...maybe that's just me.

*shrug*

I agree that first Half-Life was better than it's sequel, still though I don't think it was THAT much better at least not as much as to make an issue out of it. They were both awesome.

Did you play HL2 when it was released? If not you can't be making such statements.

I hate posts like this. You admitted you were young when you played HL1. Nostalgia is extremely powerful. Saying HL2 was merely a good game only exemplifies the power that nostalgia has over you. The graphics, gameplay, story telling, pacing (not matched to this day), length, and sound all contributed to its greatness. It set the bar in almost every aspect and is still a great game even with modern standards.

For these reasons HL2 is a great game. So was HL1, just don't let nostalgia get the better of you, mmkay?

Half Life 2 was far better. The only thing I think Half Life 1 nailed on the head was the atmosphere.VALikimlav

THIS

TOTALLY THIS

Half-Life turned the FPS genre on its head, Half Life 2 introduced arguably the greatest weapon of all time, the Gravity Gun. It proved that the new graphics are more than just a shiny coat of paint. That said, both are great games, and although Half-Life's influence can be felt far and wide, Half Life 2 gets the edge simply for the use of gravity as a weapon and the dynamic relationship the player has with Alyx Vance.hiphops_savior

definitely

go back to 2003/2004, Doom 3 gets released, it's t3h graphics king and all

but what do they give you? a shotgun with a tiny flashlight on it, ugh

Half Life 2 was king for a reason, proving that everything else should be up to the standards you place on graphics

I thought the AI was pretty crappy in HL2. A lot of enemy maneuvers seemed scripted.

The_Capitalist

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]Half-Life turned the FPS genre on its head, Half Life 2 introduced arguably the greatest weapon of all time, the Gravity Gun. It proved that the new graphics are more than just a shiny coat of paint. That said, both are great games, and although Half-Life's influence can be felt far and wide, Half Life 2 gets the edge simply for the use of gravity as a weapon and the dynamic relationship the player has with Alyx Vance.88mphSlayer

definitely

go back to 2003/2004, Doom 3 gets released, it's t3h graphics king and all

but what do they give you? a shotgun with a tiny flashlight on it, ugh

Half Life 2 was king for a reason, proving that everything else should be up to the standards you place on graphics

Anyone who calls HL1 generic has no idea what they are talking about. When it came out the entire industry praised it as "revolutionary". Carmack and ID said as much about HL1. All other FPS games are copying the formula of HL1. PS Goldeneye did nothing new at all. It was a good FPS on consoles but there was nothing revolutionary about it. Everything it did had already been done on the PC years before.Materia_Ashes

In terms of gameplay, Half-Life 2 > Half-Life.

In terms of narative, Half-Life 2 > Half-Life.

Like I said before...

GOLDENEYE 007 for the N64 did much of what Half Life 1 did...and it did it first too.

In some/many respects, GOLDENEYE was better. Half Life 1 was sterile in comparisson because Valve doesn't have the production values. Totally my opinion, of course, but HL1 bored me when I got around to it in late 1999. Not that HL1 was a bad game nor did I not think the game was good, but yeah...totally bored, never even bothered to finish it.

I did like HL2 though.

Persistantthug

I thought the AI was pretty crappy in HL2. A lot of enemy maneuvers seemed scripted.

The_Capitalist

While the narrative may have (debatable) been superior in HL, Half Life 2 had better level design, tighter gameplay, and of course the later release brought better tech including superior AI, physics, and of course graphics. The physics system alone allowed for some out of the box thinking when it came to the game play and solving puzzles or getting around tough to beat enemies. HL2 is arguably better than HL one in just about every way.gamer620

HL1 has better A.I. than HL2 and it's episodes and imo the level design was better also. im certainly not saying HL2 had bad level design and A.I. but i think HL1 did it better.

[QUOTE="Persistantthug"]

Like I said before...

GOLDENEYE 007 for the N64 did much of what Half Life 1 did...and it did it first too.

In some/many respects, GOLDENEYE was better. Half Life 1 was sterile in comparisson because Valve doesn't have the production values. Totally my opinion, of course, but HL1 bored me when I got around to it in late 1999. Not that HL1 was a bad game nor did I not think the game was good, but yeah...totally bored, never even bothered to finish it.

I did like HL2 though.

Materia_Ashes

Eh, I don't think so. I think that was the natural progression of FPSs and most other games besides RPGS at the time: to make things look more REAL and to have cohesive STORYS. That's not revolutionary, it's simply innovative for the FPS genre. Just because Half-Life did it first (and very poorly, at that. but given it's development era, forgiven.) doesn't mean it's revolutionary. The fact is, Half-Life did not withstand the test of time, it's completely dated now... if you play it now, you can see that the narrative was presented poorly and that it wasn't very interesting. It was all done within the game's engine, and it was very uninteresting to watch. I mean, Half-Life 2 was released in 2004 and it's still a fresh game to play, and it looks great to boot.

[QUOTE="88mphSlayer"]

[QUOTE="Darkedge34"]

They were both pretty generic shooters.

Darkedge34

what's generic about 'em?

Go from point A to point B in a linear fashion shooting zombies and maybe a couple marines. ORIGINALITY AT IT'S BEST.

Goldeneye was revolutionary for a console FPS, not just a good console FPStomarlyn