Originally posted by Gameloading

Yes it had a good story and its visuals were amazing for its time. No complaints there, but from a gameplay perspective, Half Life 2 did nothing that pushed the genre forward.

It had no aiming down the sight for precision targeting, it still required you to manually select a melee weapon which made it useless and it also required you to manually select grenades, it didn't have dual wielding either. in a post halo realm, this was just outdated.

The vehicle sections were also mediocre at best and the weapon selection was varied but lacked originality with exception of the gravity gun.

I didn't really like the puzzles in Half Life 2. They are physics based but that never really did anything for me. It was usually put this in in that which raises the platform, allowing you to carry on. You could use the physics as a weapon, but I found it to be pointless.  It's much faster to just shoot enemies with normal weapons without the risk of blowing yourself up with an explosive because the enemy got near you.

Nonononono.

1. You obviously don't understand how First Person Shooters work in the least. First of all, duel-wielding in real life is retarded, so why should it be encouraged in a game? People use two hands to shoot, because it's hard enough aiming like that. Unless your arm is made of steel and can lock in place then duel wielding is pointless. Also, what do you mean "Manually"? Halo (the game you apparently think is more revolutionary) had you "manually" pick weapons too. You pressed a button to cycle through weapons. All Halo did was limit how many you can have. Also, the grenade thing. Choosing grenades as a weapon all it's own is not only realistic, but just made more sense. Because of the physics in the game, Grenades were not only incredibly powerful but could also make the environment do things to kill everyone on certain occasions.  It was more of a gameplay choice than a traditional one. Also, aiming down the sights of your gun is kind of over-rated. It It really doesn't make that much of a difference. If you think that the ability to hold two weapons and spam grenades with no consequence is the pinnacle of our advancements in the FPS genre, then I would have to disagree vastly.

2. Also, platforming in half life was fun because unlike most shooters at the time, you were given a very large area and could go wherever you wanted and do anything you wanted inside that space given the limits of the tools available. I've climbed on top of every building and even gotten onto a mountain once. That's why it's fun. Because you actually feel like you're exploring and having a challenge. Fun =/= fast gameplay jumping from thing to thing. You think. That's not bad. Same with the puzzles. It was the first game that I know of to have all this and gravity-based puzzles thrown in.

3. Vehicles weren't the focus of the game in the least, which is a good thing for many reasons. Weapons selection was better than most games. Especially at that time period. And the gravity gun was great, and even better when you ran out of ammo. I like chucking barrels like donkey kong.

HL2 is sitll awesome even in 2010.

Its like giving shit to starcraft, we all know there are more advanced games but sometimes having more advanced features or options dont make a game better.

SC was the game of the 90s for me just like HL2 was the game in the 2000s.

Sometimes polished gameplay, perfect balance mean more than robust features and innovation.

Originally posted by Vexe

Originally posted by Gameloading

Yes it had a good story and its visuals were amazing for its time. No complaints there, but from a gameplay perspective, Half Life 2 did nothing that pushed the genre forward.

It had no aiming down the sight for precision targeting, it still required you to manually select a melee weapon which made it useless and it also required you to manually select grenades, it didn't have dual wielding either. in a post halo realm, this was just outdated.

The vehicle sections were also mediocre at best and the weapon selection was varied but lacked originality with exception of the gravity gun.

I didn't really like the puzzles in Half Life 2. They are physics based but that never really did anything for me. It was usually put this in in that which raises the platform, allowing you to carry on. You could use the physics as a weapon, but I found it to be pointless.  It's much faster to just shoot enemies with normal weapons without the risk of blowing yourself up with an explosive because the enemy got near you.

Nonononono.

1. You obviously don't understand how First Person Shooters work in the least. First of all, duel-wielding in real life is retarded, so why should it be encouraged in a game? People use two hands to shoot, because it's hard enough aiming like that. Unless your arm is made of steel and can lock in place then duel wielding is pointless. Also, what do you mean "Manually"? Halo (the game you apparently think is more revolutionary) had you "manually" pick weapons too. You pressed a button to cycle through weapons. All Halo did was limit how many you can have. Also, the grenade thing. Choosing grenades as a weapon all it's own is not only realistic, but just made more sense. Because of the physics in the game, Grenades were not only incredibly powerful but could also make the environment do things to kill everyone on certain occasions.  It was more of a gameplay choice than a traditional one. Also, aiming down the sights of your gun is kind of over-rated. It It really doesn't make that much of a difference. If you think that the ability to hold two weapons and spam grenades with no consequence is the pinnacle of our advancements in the FPS genre, then I would have to disagree vastly.

2. Also, platforming in half life was fun because unlike most shooters at the time, you were given a very large area and could go wherever you wanted and do anything you wanted inside that space given the limits of the tools available. I've climbed on top of every building and even gotten onto a mountain once. That's why it's fun. Because you actually feel like you're exploring and having a challenge. Fun =/= fast gameplay jumping from thing to thing. You think. That's not bad. Same with the puzzles. It was the first game that I know of to have all this and gravity-based puzzles thrown in.

3. Vehicles weren't the focus of the game in the least, which is a good thing for many reasons. Weapons selection was better than most games. Especially at that time period. And the gravity gun was great, and even better when you ran out of ammo. I like chucking barrels like donkey kong.

I don't understand? Thats pretty funny because from what you posted you clearly show you don't know how fps work.

Dual wielding in real life is retarded? Newsflash: Half Life 2 is a video game, and a very unrealistic one at that. If we go over all the things where Half Life 2 is not realistic, we have a whole laundry list to go over through. Having dual wielding can add a lot to a game if its done right like it is in Halo. You can have two very different weapons which compliment each other and offer new strategies.

What I was refering to manually having to pick a melee weapon is that you can melee at any time with any weapon in Halo. In Half Life 2, you have to select the crowbar first and it does almost no damage. Halo's combat is much better designed in my opinion. You always have to make quick strategic decisions. Do i just shoot, or perhaps throw a grenade whiles shooting? Or should I run in guns blazing and melee whenever i get near? In Half Life 2, this just isn't the case. It's run and gun and little else.

Platforming in Half Life 2 was awful. It's just too frustrating to having to coordinate each jump. It was nothing more than time filler to lengthen the experience.

Vehicles may not have been the focus, but they weren't the focus in Halo either, yet Halo did them much better than Half Life 2 did, despite the fact it came out 3 years before Half Life 2 did.

Originally posted by Zzulu

Yup, I agree with the sentiment.

 

Half-life 2 had too many amazing features not to call it the game of the decade. The characters in HL2 still feel more alive than in many many other modern releases. The people who say that HL2 didn't do anything for the genre are ignorant at best. Go play the most anticipated FPS of the time (Doom3) and compare it with HL2 and you'll see just how much further ahead HL2 was in every single area as a virtual experience.

 

It came in 2004 and still feels like a fresh experience.

 

 

Yeah these people are ignorant because they have differing opinions on the subject matter. Great logic!

Originally posted by ixthiles

Originally posted by Zzulu

Yup, I agree with the sentiment.

 

Half-life 2 had too many amazing features not to call it the game of the decade. The characters in HL2 still feel more alive than in many many other modern releases. The people who say that HL2 didn't do anything for the genre are ignorant at best. Go play the most anticipated FPS of the time (Doom3) and compare it with HL2 and you'll see just how much further ahead HL2 was in every single area as a virtual experience.

 

It came in 2004 and still feels like a fresh experience.

 

 

 

Yeah these people are ignorant because they have differing opinions on the subject matter. Great logic!

You need to learn to read more carefully. People said that HL2 didn't contribute anything and offered nothing new in any area of gaming. This is not just an 'opinion' ,  it was stated as a fact. And it is an ignorant statement as such.

 The following statement:

"It did nothing new and didn't improve the genre in any way or form. In fact, it actually refused to keep up with the times."

Is an ignorant one, no matter how you twist it. 

And you need to pick up that dictionary again and check the definitions of "opinion" and "fact". Here I'll help you.

opinion
–noun
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

fact
-noun
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

"This is not just an 'opinion' , it was stated as a fact. And it is an ignorant statement as such." The irony is that this applies to your sentiments towards your "game of the decade" too.

"It did nothing new and didn't improve the genre in any way or form. In fact, it actually refused to keep up with the times." - Maybe because they felt that way, the same way you thought that HL2 "had too many amazing features"? Maybe to them, these amazing features weren't that amazing after all? Don't get me wrong, I don't deny that some of these comments sound like self-actualizing statements, but it just comes across as a case of pots and kettles when you call others ignorant.

I fear your idea that HL2 "had too many amazing features not to call it the game of the decade" has been masquerading as an "opinion" all this while too. Unless, of course, you beg to differ and will provide some concrete examples of how the genre has changed because of it, thereby actualizing your sentiments. For instance, Battlezone invented the first person genre; Ultima Underworld encouraged first person cRPGs for half a decade.

Otherwise, the only ignorance I see here is from one who, rooted in his own beliefs and overwhelmed by excitement towards the game, refuses to see out of the well and accept the fact that his agreements are just as subjected to tastes as well as those on the disagreeing side.

Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.

/endthread

Originally posted by Varny

 gameloading is a known pc hater on the gametrailer forums

You do realize that Half Life has been on consoles since Half Life 1, right?

I have to say its amusing to see how Half Life 2 fans claim Half Life 2 was innovative and had a huge impact on the genre, but when asked what that impact was they can't come up with more than a good story and physics based puzzles.

So exactly what features Half Life 2 came up with can be seen in other FPS games today?

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Varny

 gameloading is a known pc hater on the gametrailer forums

You do realize that Half Life has been on consoles since Half Life 1, right?

I have to say its amusing to see how Half Life 2 fans claim Half Life 2 was innovative and had a huge impact on the genre, but when asked what that impact was they can't come up with more than a good story and physics based puzzles.

So exactly what features Half Life 2 came up with can be seen in other FPS games today?

I know its pointless to discuss with you since you think that your opinions are facts but Ill do it anyway...

Half life was designed for the PC and was ported over to consoles while Halo was designed for consoles and later ported to PC, I dont think we need to argue about that. HL2 was pretty much the last big PC fps released and Halo was the first big console fps. Its  no denying that HL2 is a old school fps since it have the same basics as  the first half life and there is no need to add features just because some bland console shooter added them. Thats not innovation.

When it comes to storytelling, use of physics (not just puzzles like you seem to believe), characters, level design and actual gameplay, 6 years later HL2 still stands as one of the greatest of its genre.

Originally posted by Papadam

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Varny

 gameloading is a known pc hater on the gametrailer forums

You do realize that Half Life has been on consoles since Half Life 1, right?

I have to say its amusing to see how Half Life 2 fans claim Half Life 2 was innovative and had a huge impact on the genre, but when asked what that impact was they can't come up with more than a good story and physics based puzzles.

So exactly what features Half Life 2 came up with can be seen in other FPS games today?

 

I know its pointless to discuss with you since you think that your opinions are facts but Ill do it anyway...

Half life was designed for the PC and was ported over to consoles while Halo was designed for consoles and later ported to PC, I dont think we need to argue about that. HL2 was pretty much the last big PC fps released and Halo was the first big console fps. Its  no denying that HL2 is a old school fps since it have the same basics as  the first half life and there is no need to add features just because some bland console shooter added them. Thats not innovation.

When it comes to storytelling, use of physics (not just puzzles like you seem to believe), characters, level design and actual gameplay, 6 years later HL2 still stands as one of the greatest of its genre.

First of all Halo was not the first big console FPS. There was a little game called Goldeneye 007. You might have heard of it, it sold 8 million copies.

It doesn't matter if a game was released on consoles or PC. That's completely irrelevant when its the same genre. When we look at the amount of impact a game like Halo had when compared to Half Life 2 both culturally and in the genre, its clear that Halo has done more for the genre than Half Life 2 did, not that I'm suggesting that Halo should be game of the decade, I just used it as an example because it also happens to be an FPS.

If Half Life 2 is an old school and plays it safe, that's fine. I'm not suggesting that Half Life 2 is by any means a bad game, its a great game. However when you label a game best game of the decade, better than thousands of other games over the past decade, it better be more than just great. It not only needs to be great, it also needs to be ground breaking and influential, which Half Life 2 is not.

I have already commented on storytelling and characters. Half Life 2 does a great job on that, no complaints here. Physics, I'm going to have to disagree with. Actual gameplay? The problem with mentioning gameplay is that gameplay is a very broad statement. When you say to someone  the gameplay of a game is great, you really haven't said anything about the actual gameplay. What makes the gameplay in Half Life 2 so good that it deserves to be the game of the decade?

Originally posted by gerhard45

best game ever for me System Shock and System Shock2

ayyye,wtb Sir System Shock 3 online

It is a sad day when a sequel gets best game of the decade. Not a bad game but not nearly as good as the first game was at release.

Neverwinter nights is my vote from 2002, that was a great game. 

Ya not really for HL2, that is some skewed list and voting.

CoD MW2 - broke all entertainment sales records not just gaming sales all entertainment sales. So just by that fact alone how can it not be the best game of the decade?

Anytime you have a small web site it attracts specific types of people. Those peoples opinions are not going to represent the majority. That is why I hate when those small sites then have a vote off, it never ends up with what the result would be if all people were polled.

But there are many games that rank above HL2 for both gameplay and sales.

Halo made things easier.

Though I'm inclined to agree that the genre accepted the features Halo brought to the playing field, and while that can be seen as improving the genre, It was picked up as more of a "Oh yeah... we can do that. Guess we should start putting it in our new games".

I feel Half Life 2 made a better game than Halo, and that is mainly based on the fact that I've replayed Half Life 2 more than Halo. As to what Half Life 2 brought...

Achievements, life-like characters, variety of paces and changes in speed, and the reminder that while new things are great, people still have yet to perfect old styles... The old control system didn't seem to bother too many people, and I believe that is based on the idea that people adapt quickly when they are interested.

Playing Halo was like watching a heavy metal band. Music kept the same pace and you kind of knew what to expect throughout it all.

Playing Half Life 2 was like watching an orchestra perform Antonio Vivaldi's Four seasons... There was change in the flow and speed of the game while making sure it all fit.

Certainly Halo has it's place amongst top games in the FPS genre, and certainly many games made use of the features and ideas it brought to the playing field... but I felt it still failed to make the people awe as Half Life seems to do.

There is no doubt that the games come neck and neck, but Half Life is older with more experience... and longer neck.

Halo inspired competitors... but Half Life 2 cowed them.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Because it used gameplay mechanics that were already outdated when the game was released.

Yes it had a good story and its visuals were amazing for its time. No complaints there, but from a gameplay perspective, Half Life 2 did nothing that pushed the genre forward.

It had no aiming down the sight for precision targeting, it still required you to manually select a melee weapon which made it useless and it also required you to manually select grenades, it didn't have dual wielding either. in a post halo realm, this was just outdated.

The vehicle sections were also mediocre at best and the weapon selection was varied but lacked originality with exception of the gravity gun.

I didn't really like the puzzles in Half Life 2. They are physics based but that never really did anything for me. It was usually put this in in that which raises the platform, allowing you to carry on. You could use the physics as a weapon, but I found it to be pointless.  It's much faster to just shoot enemies with normal weapons without the risk of blowing yourself up with an explosive because the enemy got near you.

And also, will somebody please inform Valve that platforming in first person does not work? The only company who ever got first person platforming right was DICE, and they had to design their entire game around it with Mirrors Edge

I'm being harsh on Half Life 2 but I don't think its by any means a bad game. I think it wasn't as innovative as some people say it is and didn't do much for the genre.

Having aiming down the sight isn't a requirement for a good FPS, sorry. It's in a recipe for cookie cutter games, though.

Dual wielding is also not mandatory. So if Battlefield Bad Company 2 won't have it according to you it sucks? Seriously. Just because some games have them they don't have to be copied forever, that would be a terrible idea.

Having a instant throw-grenade button is also an option, I think being able to hold the grenade and aim with it was a good choice, plus you could lob it, gives you more choices of how you can use your weapons, again it's not as bad as you claim it to be, just get to cover and switch weapons. You have a point with shoving enemies with your weapon as Halo does have, but honestly I never understood how hitting anything  with the butt of your weapon would do so much damage as Halo implied. I think the damage of the crowbar is balanced, one hit melee kills to me aren't reasonable, unless it's against a weak enemy.

I also enjoyed how they were faithful to the hit points health instead of bending over to the regen-health that is also a cookie cutter move nowadays. Nothing against it I just don't want all the games in the world to work exactly the same way.

Yeah there wasn't a huge amount of weapons, but I guess they covered the main aspects of it. Pistols, shotgun, assault rifle, sniper, RPG, grenades.

Halo had a vehicle focus in both single player and mainly multiplayer. I remember I really disliked the first game's weapons yet the vehicles were very fun and they did make multiplayer fun (maybe because I could not stand that assault gun that would shoot everything but the place I was aiming at). I always thought vehicles were the best part of the first Halo game myself. In HL2 they weren't stellar yeah, they just did their job right.

The gravity gun was useful and you needed to use it in the game, there was a level with small amount of ammunition yet plenty of toys to use with the Gravity Gun, also some enemies required you to use it to get rid of them. There are many uses for the gun to be honest, using objects as a shield to deal with those machine gun sentries was one of them.

What are the platforming sections you speak of? Compared to Half-Life the second game had almost none of it. The more I read the more it sounds like you barely played the game.

Maybe HL2 shouldn't be the game of the decade but it feels like you want all games to follow the same model according to your claims. Then people will wonder why some games lack originality.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Ya not really for HL2, that is some skewed list and voting.

 

CoD MW2 - broke all entertainment sales records not just gaming sales all entertainment sales. So just by that fact alone how can it not be the best game of the decade?

 

Anytime you have a small web site it attracts specific types of people. Those peoples opinions are not going to represent the majority. That is why I hate when those small sites then have a vote off, it never ends up with what the result would be if all people were polled.

 

But there are many games that rank above HL2 for both gameplay and sales.

Because the GOTD is supposed to be something special.
MW2 is worse than Crysis/Crysis Warhead in all aspects.

Originally posted by Routver

Originally posted by Gameloading

Because it used gameplay mechanics that were already outdated when the game was released.

Yes it had a good story and its visuals were amazing for its time. No complaints there, but from a gameplay perspective, Half Life 2 did nothing that pushed the genre forward.

It had no aiming down the sight for precision targeting, it still required you to manually select a melee weapon which made it useless and it also required you to manually select grenades, it didn't have dual wielding either. in a post halo realm, this was just outdated.

The vehicle sections were also mediocre at best and the weapon selection was varied but lacked originality with exception of the gravity gun.

I didn't really like the puzzles in Half Life 2. They are physics based but that never really did anything for me. It was usually put this in in that which raises the platform, allowing you to carry on. You could use the physics as a weapon, but I found it to be pointless.  It's much faster to just shoot enemies with normal weapons without the risk of blowing yourself up with an explosive because the enemy got near you.

And also, will somebody please inform Valve that platforming in first person does not work? The only company who ever got first person platforming right was DICE, and they had to design their entire game around it with Mirrors Edge

I'm being harsh on Half Life 2 but I don't think its by any means a bad game. I think it wasn't as innovative as some people say it is and didn't do much for the genre.

 

Having aiming down the sight isn't a requirement for a good FPS, sorry. It's in a recipe for cookie cutter games, though.

Dual wielding is also not mandatory. So if Battlefield Bad Company 2 won't have it according to you it sucks? Seriously. Just because some games have them they don't have to be copied forever, that would be a terrible idea.

Having a instant throw-grenade button is also an option, I think being able to hold the grenade and aim with it was a good choice, plus you could lob it, gives you more choices of how you can use your weapons, again it's not as bad as you claim it to be, just get to cover and switch weapons. You have a point with shoving enemies with your weapon as Halo does have, but honestly I never understood how hitting anything  with the butt of your weapon would do so much damage as Halo implied. I think the damage of the crowbar is balanced, one hit melee kills to me aren't reasonable, unless it's against a weak enemy.

I also enjoyed how they were faithful to the hit points health instead of bending over to the regen-health that is also a cookie cutter move nowadays. Nothing against it I just don't want all the games in the world to work exactly the same way.

 

Yeah there wasn't a huge amount of weapons, but I guess they covered the main aspects of it. Pistols, shotgun, assault rifle, sniper, RPG, grenades.

 

Halo had a vehicle focus in both single player and mainly multiplayer. I remember I really disliked the first game's weapons yet the vehicles were very fun and they did make multiplayer fun (maybe because I could not stand that assault gun that would shoot everything but the place I was aiming at). I always thought vehicles were the best part of the first Halo game myself. In HL2 they weren't stellar yeah, they just did their job right.

 

The gravity gun was useful and you needed to use it in the game, there was a level with small amount of ammunition yet plenty of toys to use with the Gravity Gun, also some enemies required you to use it to get rid of them. There are many uses for the gun to be honest, using objects as a shield to deal with those machine gun sentries was one of them.

 

What are the platforming sections you speak of? Compared to Half-Life the second game had almost none of it. The more I read the more it sounds like you barely played the game.

 

Maybe HL2 shouldn't be the game of the decade but it feels like you want all games to follow the same model according to your claims. Then people will wonder why some games lack originality.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I never once said or even implied that a game without these features would suck. What I have said is that Half Life 2 uses outdated gameplay mechanics that were not innovative or groundbreaking. Its a 2004 shooter that plays like a 1998 shooter. That doesn't mean its by any means a bad game, there is nothing wrong with being old school, but when you declare a game game of the decade, a game needs to be a bit more ambitious in my opinion.

You can aim with a grenade in games that have an instant grenade option. The big difference is that you don't first have to swap out your grenade in order to use it. You simply aim and press the grenade button. Using a grenade in a game like Half Life 2 is such a chore. You first have to let go off one of your movement buttonts to select it or you have to scroll your mouse wheel till you reach the grenade. In modern games, usually all you have to do is press one button and you throw a grenade.

I think the old health pack system is annoying. Its annoying when you just finished a battle. You won, but you might as well have died because there is no health between the last confrontation and the next. and you're about to die. It also takes away a layer of strategy. You never have to worry about cover as much as you do in health regenerative games.

I don't remember that many areas where you truly needed to use the gun. I remember the last level where it got all powered up, but thats it. Also, I have played through Half Life 2 and both of its episodes.

The platforming I was referring to are the places where you have to pick up objects, throw them into some toxic waste and jump across them.

Meh, Half-Life 2 wasn't too exciting for me, but I'm sure Half-Life being my favorite game of all time may have had something to do with it.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Half Life 2 is one of the overrated games of all time.

It did nothing new and didn't improve the genre in any way or form. In fact, it actually refused to keep up with the times.

be honest here, did you ever play it?

nothing new? Gravity Gun.. i await your reply.

HL2 is the core of most of the games I've played for a bunch of years now, so prob DAOC aside (being my fav game) I'd like to thank HL2 for being created.