Man, I finally beat HL2 yesterday. I bought the game on the day it was released, and ever since, I struggled to play it. I don't see the things people praise. I thought the puzzles were absolutely outrageous- they tried to incorporate physics into everything!

for example:

The part where you're on an airboat and theres a fence in the way that prevents you from crossing. Conveniently, p there is a raft that has a pivot point in the middle and a metal cage underneath. It looks like this:


--------------------------------------------------------------
| | / \
| |


Gets even better, somehow, there are random rubber canisters that are filled with air so you can place them underwater in this metal cage. Via air pressure, you lift up the rift, creating a ramp. Then you proceed to "fly" over the fence.

I love it....

Anyway, the gameplay was nothing I havent really seen before. Although I must say that the striders are good enemies and the gravity gun makes things a bit more interesting.

Also, I don't see where the kickass graphics. They look just like any other game in its generation.

The music is also out of place and not to mention, just kills the little atmosphere that the game has.

Over all, I think that HL 2 is just another shooter.

Fair enough, but I have to take issue with the graphics thing. In some ways you're right, but the lighting was phenomenal. The lighting in general was great, but one of the things that really struck out at me was the ambient blue skylight, which is something I haven't seen in any other game.

The art direction was also great. I loved the look and feel of the Combine technology and buildings, and Valve captured the feel of an Eastern European city perfectly (even though some of the signs were in English :))

Oh yea, I forgot to mention that. The background and sky boxes are attractive, I dont deny that.

The graphics are nuts, the facial animations just added to the realism.

If you can run it at full detail, full shaders, etc. with a DirectX 9 card at 1600x1200, it's quite a beautiful thing.

Lots of little details that you don't really notice but make the game look very realistic.

I run it at 1280 x 1024, with 16 x AF, 4x FSAA with everything maxed out.

Were you on pot while playing it... it has way better graphics than most things in it's generation. And about the physics-incorperated-into-everything accusation... ummm... if you have the goods why not flaunt them? I mean, what other game has physics that advanced? Yeah.

Im saying that they try too hard to incorporate physics into everything. Like that scenario i gave above. And for graphics, I dont find it special.

I'm quite certain he'd have to be on something much more potent to be unimpressed by HL2's visuals.

Try finding a game with better graphics. It was really the high-res textures and the mapper's attention to detail that did it. I didn't find the puzzles very hard at all. I don't think any puzzles took longer than 10 min. to figure out, and there weren't that many of them. It was a sold SP fps. HL2 DM is pretty fun too.

I'd have to say D3 has somewhat more impressive visuals, but that's only because everything was bump-mapped very well (which the harsh lighting really accentuated), and the setting allowed for more curvy, impressive interiors. HL2 does what it's supposed to do extremely well graphics-wise, in my opinion.

And no, I am NOT turning this into a D3 Vs. HL2 war. :p

I have yet to complete a level.

I had HL2 beat 11pm the day it came out. I played it for 13 hours, with only 2 extra hours in there for meals and some work.

Of course that was easy. I beat it on hard only a few weeks ago.

Check out that shotgun texture...




That's the one thing that bugged me most about HL2. They took shortcuts. They made faces and stuff look extraordinary, becasue that's what people will focus on. But they made a whole crap load of other textures look like they were drawn in MS Paint.

Let's not forget about all the whirt-shirt, blue-jeans, headcrab zombies.

External models and textures like that have never been all that detailed in games.

1 texture buck. Basing your opinion on one minor aspect is all the rage these days.

There are LOTS of textures like that...

Someone needs to go through and make high res ones..

Wow, from an external perspective, that shotgun doesn't look much better than something out of UT '99.

Yet again, what was so wrong with that puzzle? It was actually a very clever puzzle I thought - so it happens to be slightly unrealistic that a cage is under it. Still, it is true that a empty canister like that will float. And throughout the game - if you noticed - those canisters were in other places too. So it wasn't like they just came out of the blue. I think Valve was trying to make interesting puzzles - ones you wouldn't experience in another game. If you think that's trying to hard, then go back to key finding.

Do you think its realistic for all the other games to have important keys just lying around on desks?

You act like Valve making use of the physics is a crime, when that's one of the best parts of the game. I'd rather have physics puzzles then repetitive find the key, open the locked door, etc.

And the graphics look like any other this generation? Maybe next generation - but not this one. The game looks great - and the details is where it really shines.

Shame they pulled the barge puzzle out, where you had to find a bunch of gas canisters and put them on the barge, then place them in an angled trough and fire them at a helicopter by smacking the valve off. THAT was fun.

I liked the puzzles in HL2, they were similar to HL1, only difference was that HL2's engine allowed them to do things that they couldn't with the Quake 2 engine. If HL1 had the HL2 engine when it came out, the puzzles would be almost identical.

Graphically, I can't stand Doom 3. It's a good looking game, but everything looks like plastic, and I found the wall textures to be less of what HL2 was. Both engine's have their strong points, I personally like HL2's better, Doom 3's was good, just something I myself didn't like a whole lot.

Story wise, DOom 3 was been there, done that. HL2 had a good story, and was new. Doom 3 was the same old "Aliens/demons take over earth, fight them off" thing.

Gameplay wise, Doom 3 was utter ****. No offense to the Doom 3 fan's, but a game where you find yourself running from room to room (while unable to see at the same time) shooting baddies, hit this switch, more baddies pop out of nowhere, kill them, run to next room, repeat.... It's just not fun. HL2 might had been the same style, but at least they mixed a lot of other fun implementations into it.

I was disappointed by HL2's ending.. But I guess it'll be cleared up in HL3, so I won't get too disappointed.

The only thing I didn't like about HL2's physics (concerning the puzzles) was how easy it was to carry those floating blue barrels underwater... it didn't change your buoyancy at all. Anyone who's tried to submerge a beachball knows what I'm talking about.

Heres a game that looks just as good in HL 2's generation:




And my question is, why do people always forget about MP2?

That doesn't hold a candle to the detail in the HL2 engine. It looks pretty ood, but Source it is not.

"But they made a whole crap load of other textures look like they were drawn in MS Paint."

Read the post

THat's funny, I don't remember that shotgun texture being low-res or out of place when I played through it. Twice. I think I'll go play again and look at it again.

Yeah, I thought HL2 could look really amazing, but at times it was just like "Why, valve?" It's not consistent. One moment it looks amazing, the next it looks like JK. The lighting was nice, but it was mainly just a lot of effects. Valve didn't pioneer anything with HL2 except the facial movement system. Physics were outsourced, graphics were really just a compilation of everything everyone else had done, nothing really amazing there, etc. I liked how the models moved though. I must admit they moved very smoothly, but there were times when there were...problems.

I just got bored with the game :p

Because it didn't look half as good as they primised. Wooooh, SHADERS! That's all it had was some nifty shaders, and havoc2. That certainly didn't warrent the steam hardcore fans wanted it to have. I personally hated the MP games and became bored immediatly. The gameplay falls horribly short of what it's supposed to be. The gimmicky corner jumping and slowmo got useless after a while until it all boiled down to the bad collision detection (in 1 at least), the completelly linear and uneventful level designs, the uselessness of slowmotion/diving (Other than looking cool), and the overly scripted events. Yeah, HL2 was scripted. At least I was moving through that scripted environment. A cutscene every 3 seconds made the game look like a really bad Rush Hour 2.5 movie, not a submersive and interesting game.

There, I got a chance to rant about one of the games that doesn't deserve the hype it gets. I feel better.

I personally thought the gameplay was solid, but not pioneering. Everyone agrees there (at least about MP2). But the real reason I play Max Payne is the story...damn does Rockstar own at making stories.

My question is, how "innovating" can the FPS genre can be? It seems that most FPSers eventually starts to use average FPSer elements (which seems to bore people). WWII FPS games have lost their edge as being unique tie-ins with history and considered now by many as average shoot 'em ups. Max Payne brought cinamatic storytelling to gaming, but no one seems to care. Half-Life 2 used physics to add to gameplay, but still it doesn't escape the title as an ordinary shooter. Probably, the new S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game will introduce a detailed, open environment with great interaction with characters, and it will still fall short of being "innovating" by everyone.

Then what would be "innovating" for a genre that basically involves the player going around nice-looking places to shoot, shoot and shoot? Nowadays, great graphics doesn't seem to make a FPS game anything more than just another FPS title. Good usage of shaders and physics doesn't seem to push a game to become one-of-a-kind title. Even if the AI was fantastic and the story rocked, the FPS game will never become "a pioneer in new material" in this genre by the public imo.

I disagree. I think AI and ability to have an unlimited amount of variable in a firefight will be innovation. Instead of just fighting in an arena, games will have destructable worlds that can be used to a skilled warrior's advantage. And NOT scripted or pre-set balconies MADE for breaking and falling on enemies, but a world that is open ended and allows for a fast thinker to turn the tides in his favor by shooting through a water container and washing some of his enemies away.

And AI for god's sake is crap now adays. I've only played ONE game with anything near inovative AI and that was farcry. Everything else has been absolute crap.

JediKirby

*smacks you for playing the Half-Life 2 leak*

It'll probably be in the expanded areas being released soon. No, not the expansion. The boat dock area thingy they talked about in an update not too long ago.

Smack me more for playing it multiplayer at a LAN ages ago. HL2DM with the Physics gun 4 teh win.

Hey, do you have HL2? If so, look up a command to change the combine soldiers hp to like 150 or so, and then fight them. Since you can't kill them instantly, they now have time to actually go for cover, flank you, and lob grendes at your feet while rushing your poor ***. Since I've done this, fighting the combine is much more of a rush then it was before, since they now have time to think before you destroy their entire squad in 2 seconds.

^^^ Thats me BTW, I forgot to log out of my old account while making a clever post.

HL2's enemies are SOMEWHAT smart, but nothing like farcry. I HAVE done what you suggest Sol, and more often than not, I can trip up the AI and get behind them and kpwn.

JediKirby

MP2 is nice looking (and hella fun!), but it doesn't have the attention to detail and facial animations that HL2 has.