Tweet
Bear in mind, this was the first FPS ive played, and so I dont know precisely how it compares to the rest of the genre. So my reactions mix reactions to HL, and to the genre in general.
1. I can see the appeal. Of shooting things, running, immersion, etc. Its definitely different from other games ive played, and captures far more than the arcade shooters (mechanical and electronic) of old.
2. The ingame plot stuff is reminiscent of Starcraft. Frankly Im not sure what the big deal of having it all ingame is - the few games with cutscenes ive played it didnt bother me - but then I guess if youre playing this game fast (As i did not) the cutscenes could be more destructive of immersion.
3. The plot stuff wasnt THAT overwhelming, compared to RPGs or even a RTS like Starcraft, or a TBS like SMAC. But I suppose it was good for the genre, and theres certainly an element of immersion that you dont find in an RTS or TBS or third party RPG.
4. The game did a lot to create atmosphere. Im thinking particularly of the tramride at the beginning (I suspect folks whove played the game several times and go back and look at the tram ride see all kinds of clever things) the bureucratic/scientific atmosphere before the cascade, etc. Now an underground govt scientific complex is NOT necessarily where Id LIKE to be immersed, but it worked very well for the plot.
Xen I thought didnt work as well. The floating planetoids seemed silly, and the caves seemed a lot like standard RPG dungeons.
5. I really didnt like the jumping puzzles, but I guess many FPS games arent as heavy on them.
6. I did like some of the tactical puzzles, especially the ones that involved the soldiers. I guess those had smarter AI, whereas the monsters relied more on "uber" powers of various types, or lots of hit points.
7. It would have been interesting to be able to explore more. Ive read enough to have heard that HL is a more "on rails" type of FPS then some, but I think I might have figured that out on own. I might likes something less linear, esp for an immersive world.
8. I can see why thi kind of game is more graphics demanding. While this was good for its time, IIUC, on numerous occasions I was close enough to a wall, etc, that it took on an unrealistic (pixellated?) appearance that could break immersion. Harder to cover that sort of thing up than in a 3rd person game.
9. My general sense is that while I can see the draw of this genre, its not for me. I probably WILL play another FPS at some point - but I suspect it will take a setting I really like, or another game I "need" to know to understand the forward march of the genre. Im inclined to a historical-war type FPS, of which I understand there are many WW2 shooters. However you need not suggest any now, as I thats not next on my list.
1. I can see the appeal. Of shooting things, running, immersion, etc. Its definitely different from other games ive played, and captures far more than the arcade shooters (mechanical and electronic) of old.
2. The ingame plot stuff is reminiscent of Starcraft. Frankly Im not sure what the big deal of having it all ingame is - the few games with cutscenes ive played it didnt bother me - but then I guess if youre playing this game fast (As i did not) the cutscenes could be more destructive of immersion.
3. The plot stuff wasnt THAT overwhelming, compared to RPGs or even a RTS like Starcraft, or a TBS like SMAC. But I suppose it was good for the genre, and theres certainly an element of immersion that you dont find in an RTS or TBS or third party RPG.
4. The game did a lot to create atmosphere. Im thinking particularly of the tramride at the beginning (I suspect folks whove played the game several times and go back and look at the tram ride see all kinds of clever things) the bureucratic/scientific atmosphere before the cascade, etc. Now an underground govt scientific complex is NOT necessarily where Id LIKE to be immersed, but it worked very well for the plot.
Xen I thought didnt work as well. The floating planetoids seemed silly, and the caves seemed a lot like standard RPG dungeons.
5. I really didnt like the jumping puzzles, but I guess many FPS games arent as heavy on them.
6. I did like some of the tactical puzzles, especially the ones that involved the soldiers. I guess those had smarter AI, whereas the monsters relied more on "uber" powers of various types, or lots of hit points.
7. It would have been interesting to be able to explore more. Ive read enough to have heard that HL is a more "on rails" type of FPS then some, but I think I might have figured that out on own. I might likes something less linear, esp for an immersive world.
8. I can see why thi kind of game is more graphics demanding. While this was good for its time, IIUC, on numerous occasions I was close enough to a wall, etc, that it took on an unrealistic (pixellated?) appearance that could break immersion. Harder to cover that sort of thing up than in a 3rd person game.
9. My general sense is that while I can see the draw of this genre, its not for me. I probably WILL play another FPS at some point - but I suspect it will take a setting I really like, or another game I "need" to know to understand the forward march of the genre. Im inclined to a historical-war type FPS, of which I understand there are many WW2 shooters. However you need not suggest any now, as I thats not next on my list.
Though they do indeed vary greatly now.
Comment