StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I bought the original Half-life pack with the various extras, and enjoyed it. I've kind of been leery about Half-Life 2, though.

For starters the stuff I've read indicates the crossbow is back, and apparently no longer a semi-practical tranqgun. Weapons descriptions otherwise almost make it seem you're more likely to spend most of the game messing around with this funky gravity gun, and the rest are rather limited. Personally I'd rather not spend most of an FPS having to mess around with some bizarre weapon just because the developers decided to cut down on the effectiveness of other weapons.

So seems as how I know other people have played it I was hoping they might alleviate my fears, and expound some on what it's good points actually are.

Aside from the very end of the game, and the Ravenholm levels, the grav-gun has limited usefulness in a fight. The crossbow is the game's one-hit sniper weapon; I love impaling people with it. When I play, I rely mainly on the magnum and the shotgun, since the assault rifle and SMG chew through ammo. Don't worry, HL2 has some well done weapons, and excellent gameplay.

It is worth buying for the great airboat section alone. The rest is bonus material. Then, even after finishing it, you have CS:S and HL2: Deathmatch which will get you hours of enjoyment.

Weapons-wise, the mix is good in the main game. Starting with Thy Hallowed Crowbar and going from a 9 mm USP to an MP7 all the way to the Colt Python in .357 Magnum and the Combine assault rifle with the Glowing Balls Of Doom.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It is worth buying for the great airboat section alone. The rest is bonus material. Then, even after finishing it, you have CS:S and HL2: Deathmatch which will get you hours of enjoyment.

Um, I don't know about you, but I'm not the sort of person who's willing to shell out $50 for 10-20 minutes of gameplay, no matter how good it is.

That said, it is a very fun game. Fun physics, enjoyable combat dynamic, etc. so forth and so on. My one complaint is that some guns are way too inaccurate, and some have just too little ammo. As you progress, you will find yourself switching weapons as you run out of ammo, because you can only carry a few reloads for most of the better guns.

Mods will vastly expand the life of the game, both for singleplayer and multiplayer. CS:S and HL2:DM are nice and all, but variety is the word of the day. It's a little early for a true mod explosion, but DOD:S and Dystopia are both quality mods that are quite enjoyable.

The gravity gun, while fun, is really only useful in certain situations, like against headcrab zombies or picking up grenades to toss back to the bad guys. Other than that, it's pretty much utility.

When you move on to HL2 Deathmatch, remember that the Crowbar is second to none.* The only thing that comes close is the Heavy Object Pushed From the Roof.**

*Mainly because most players will attempt some kind of evasive maneuver when rushed, and their accuracy will suffer somewhat. Be prepared to look the fool, however, if they are steady and just hold their SMG/Rifle/Shotgun fire on you as you charge. The other scenario in which the Crowbar is useful is in diving on people from above or from around corners. Sure, an actual projectile weapon would be more effective, but that is not honourable!

**Granted, I've only ever killed one player that way.

I was unimpressed by the straight-line corridor nature of the level design and disappointed by the weapons, textured on doors, ridiculous storyline and that bastard headcrab. But it's really just more HL, so if you liked that you'll probably like HL2.

The game has a shitty plot, but its otherwise excellent. I can let the largely linear levels split by, because the graphics of what they do have, which is quite a bit, are just aweosome.

I honestly can't say the plot is any shittier than every other FPS out there that has been a cult hit (lone marine in Hell, macho dude with gun fetish, secret research facility on island), so really, alien invasion with resistance is hardly Shakespeare, but these games aren't on major plots anyway (unless you want something that offers plot like XIII but less on gameplay).

Stark: What exactly would you have done? Honestly, you come off as someone who is never impressed by anything. To do such a large game while being non-linear is a gargantuan task, and I'm not about to condemn a game because of friggin' door textures.

Hotfoot wrote:Um, I don't know about you, but I'm not the sort of person who's willing to shell out $50 for 10-20 minutes of gameplay, no matter how good it is.

No, the book and the T-shirt that came with the tin made it worth it more and the hours of online entertainment.

The gravity gun, while fun, is really only useful in certain situations, like against headcrab zombies or picking up grenades to toss back to the bad guys. Other than that, it's pretty much utility.

We all know there's a point when the grav gun comes into its own, but that would spoil it.

HL2 is a very "on rails" FPS, almost exactly opposite of FarCry. It is certainly not the revolutionary FPS some make it out to be, tech-demo Havok physics aside. However, the texture work, music, and voice acting make the single player game a worthwhile experience.

Hamel wrote:HL2 is a very "on rails" FPS, almost exactly opposite of FarCry. It is certainly not the revolutionary FPS some make it out to be, tech-demo Havok physics aside. However, the texture work, music, and voice acting make the single player game a worthwhile experience.

HL was the revolutionary stuff, HL2 is just more of HL1, which is not a bad thing. Like I said with XIII, try to be too different and it doesn't always pay off. FPS games work on core principles and execution of that jazz. These games come into their own online in teamplay scenarios, that adds another layer to these things which was lacking in the early '90s.

Aside from the Combine Assault Rifle (90 shots, on three clips of 30? Are you on the crack?) the weapons are very well implemented. Amo conservation is the most trouble in Ravenholm, but thats also the place where there are unlimited traps/Gravity Gun toys to save your ass.

Speaking of Ravenholm, there are few more ominous locales in any game I've ever played. The moment Alex says "That's the tunnel that used to go to Ravenholm. We... don't go there anymore." is eerie enough. When the level name pops up, you experience a moment of pure "Aw, shit." And who doesn't love Father Grigori?

Airboat level is awesome. Taking the buggy down Highway 17 was better, though. Fewer physics puzzles, and more creepy psuedo abandoned houses to nearly die in.

And there is nothing funnier than assaulting Nova Prospekt with your new friends. Except maybe the fun toy from the Citadel.

Dr Breen's Monologues kick ass as well.

"You've destroyed so much Dr. Freeman. Tell me, what is it you've created?"

Sorry, I'm not buying into this. HL2 was the most hyped (yes, more than Doom3) anticipated game of the year. When I walk around an environment with exactly ONE way to do anything, covered in the incredibly weak illusion of depth (how many rooms/buildings could you enter? How many were just boxes in front of the skybox?), it's not very impressive. When it's in a game heralded as the second coming that everyone froths at the mouth over, it's even worse.

As noted, a non-super game like FarCry can do flexibility - it's still linear, but you don't get stuck on EXACTLY ONE pile of boxes to climb, ladder that works, openable door, etc etc etc. It's weak level design, and I'm not going to be insulted because I'm unimpressed with something independent unpaid mappers can beat. Nobody whines when I criticise FEAR for being alarmingly linear: I guess HL2 is just a sacred cow. Indeed, even FEAR had areas with more flexibility than HL2.

Further, saying 'every game has a crap plot' is NOT a counterargument to 'HL2 has a crap plot'. HL2 has a crap plot, the end. FS2 has a crap plot too, but it can make up for it. Next I'll be insulted for declaring Doom3 a one-dimensional, on-rails, predictable scarewanking graphics demo.

Stark wrote:Sorry, I'm not buying into this. HL2 was the most hyped (yes, more than Doom3) anticipated game of the year. When I walk around an environment with exactly ONE way to do anything, covered in the incredibly weak illusion of depth (how many rooms/buildings could you enter? How many were just boxes in front of the skybox?), it's not very impressive. When it's in a game heralded as the second coming that everyone froths at the mouth over, it's even worse.

As noted, a non-super game like FarCry can do flexibility - it's still linear, but you don't get stuck on EXACTLY ONE pile of boxes to climb, ladder that works, openable door, etc etc etc. It's weak level design, and I'm not going to be insulted because I'm unimpressed with something independent unpaid mappers can beat. Nobody whines when I criticise FEAR for being alarmingly linear: I guess HL2 is just a sacred cow. Indeed, even FEAR had areas with more flexibility than HL2.

Further, saying 'every game has a crap plot' is NOT a counterargument to 'HL2 has a crap plot'. HL2 has a crap plot, the end. FS2 has a crap plot too, but it can make up for it. Next I'll be insulted for declaring Doom3 a one-dimensional, on-rails, predictable scarewanking graphics demo.

Is there any game which is up to your standards by any chance? Because I'd love to play it...

InnocentBystander wrote:Is there any game which is up to your standards by any chance? Because I'd love to play it...

Are you familiar with Coconut Monkey's Gravy Trader by any chance?

Christ. HL2 has problems, suffers from weak map design, and has a silly plot. Seriously, if you think that linear map design is fine, thats great. However, the fact that I play many games - probably more than the 'lolz hype is good' idiots do - puts a tiny, tiny little dent in the hilarious outpouring of personality assassination that occurs whenever I criticise a game. No game is perfect, thus any game can be criticised. I'm a negative guy.

I also play the likes of fricking Spellforce (low-budget roleplay/RTS), Kohan and Gothic 2 - hardly amazing or even impressive games. If you're so blinkered and black and white that you can't see the flaws in games you enjoy, then frankly you're fucking morons.

But hey, since you just quoted my entire post then essentially said 'lolz meanie', you're zero-contributing and I should probably just ignore you.

Worthless commentary:

Holy shit!

Looks like someone woke up in bed with a 240 lb. gorilla named "Buba" and a sore asshole. Have some coffee and a smoke to calm down before a vein pops or something...

And yes HL 2 was very overhyped. I consider FEAR to be a better investment myself but HL2 is fun for nostalgia reasons.

HL2 gives you _just enough_ freedom.

You can do things the obvious way, or sometimes there'll be some wildassed alternative plan that has the potential to work.

My favorite part was cruising down the cliff road in the buggy, stopping in towns to fight the Combine troopers. It was like one of those TV series where the main characters show up, save the town, and ride off into the sunset.

Strangely, I just reinstalled FEAR to test my new speakers (its the newest FPS I've got, which surprised me). I'm much easier on games when the wave of semen - I mean hype - has faded. It's pretty lame that when Fattel knocks you out, I was quick enough to shoot him twice *the first time*. Lucky he's invincible!

The lack of freedom struck me within minutes of playing HL2. I'm in a town square, and ALL THE HOUSES ARE FAKE. Just like in UT98. I'm in a rundown/sewer area, and I'm constantly blocked by impenetrable barriers like chainlink fences, pine boards and piles of crates. Just like in all manner of oldscore FPSs, and people were calling HL2 'revolutionary'. I remember 'gravity gun fever', and I'm glad it's passed.

FEAR totally didn't impress me. I played 30 minutes and just dropped it. Boring enemies, hallways with boxes. Yawn. Oh no. Another bullet time fight.

HL2 had a very, /very/ good atmosphere. Although not the most creative map-flow, it had great scripted moments, a balanced combat feel, and plenty of fun on the way. It's hyped, but meets pretty much all of it.

When was the last time you expected great things from a modern FPS? Everything's been done. I'm just personally waiting on a new incarnation of System Shock (such as the upcoming Bio Shock).

It doesn't make it a bad game just because every single gun battle is fought with slow-mo on. I was surprised the game didn't have penetration physics too, but hey, as you say it's the FPS genre and it's been stale for a while. Hence my surprise: I wanted to play a neat FPS, and the last one I bought was FEAR? Bah - you're allowed to not like FEAR, I nearly got castrated when it came out and I thought it was lame.

I'm quite biased against scripted stuff, unfortunately. Neat scripted events in the middle of a game - regardless of how intruiging - don't impress me unless the game allows such events to arise naturally, which of course is too difficult for most developers. I'm not counting FEAR-esque 'you get hit in the head now' or 'BOO a scary face' stuff in this - but I always found it lame when you could know a certain box onto enemies below... that one box. In that one case. Never again. I remember a video of HL2, where Valve said 'and it's not scripted, it's all the physics engine'. Then HL2 got leaked, and no, it really was scripted. HL2 for the lose.

It was not bad, but I expected more. It had something lacking but I can't really tell what. A lot of levels were simply boring. All I remember is that I had more fun with Far Cry (better atmosphere I guess)

They did a good job on those new headcrabs tough. Creepy son's a bitches gave some tense times

I'm tempted to get FEAR when I get a new GPU, as it is, I've not seen a real good reason other than graphics that kill a 6600 GT with a gig of RAM. Sure, pretty, but I want something more than that, else I'd just buy the Doom 3 bumper pack. The slow-mo thing bugged me, if it's overly common then it'll be as annoying as some of the stuff in Max Payne (which I'm well aware isn't an FPS). There's only so much innovation you can do with a game that's basically a guy going around shooting shit.

As for Hype, I'd have to say that Halo 2 wins over HL2 for that. Yes, HL2 had a few years head start, but then going by that, Duke Nukem Forever is the king. Halo 2 I simply couldn't see why there was so much raving over it. Sure, on a console a decently playable FPS is a miraculous thing, but I play on the PC, so having decent controls is a fact of life.

And scripted stuff is often necessary to further the game plot. Until we get some revolutionary AI, you're stuck with having the game takeover no matter how briefly to further something. Unless it's just a brainless shooter, which requires no silly cutscenes.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I'm tempted to get FEAR when I get a new GPU, as it is, I've not seen a real good reason other than graphics that kill a 6600 GT with a gig of RAM. Sure, pretty, but I want something more than that, else I'd just buy the Doom 3 bumper pack. The slow-mo thing bugged me, if it's overly common then it'll be as annoying as some of the stuff in Max Payne (which I'm well aware isn't an FPS). There's only so much innovation you can do with a game that's basically a guy going around shooting shit.

Eum, you don't have to use the slow-mo if you don't want to. I finished FEAR on hard and I rarely used slow-mo, simply because doing it oldskool gave some very intenste firefights

But it is a feature that is getting wanked about too much in FPS and similar shooting games now. It was a fun novelty in Payne, but I like intense gunfights.