half-life 2 sucks

[Asher]

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. The reason Halo can get away without complaints about being rather linear is it doesn't make you feel stupid by making it so -- in an entirely open city -- you can only access one stupid back alley, conveniently placed with a see-saw and cement bricks near by to get over the "puzzle".

That's the difference. It's the "giant city funnels down to this one obstacle with a trivial puzzle with convenience objects nearby" gameplay that's infuriating. The game treats you like a child or a ******. The puzzles they put in at the bottlenecks are never fun nor interesting nor challenging.

[Wiglaf]

Halo has some wide open spaces, but then HL2 has the boat and highway levels which are the equivalent mix of open space between required travel bottlenecks that every Halo wharthog sequence is.

I remember the boat level required you to somehow take huge but conveniently located cans of compressed air to an underwater box to weigh down yet another see saw so your boat could fly over to another platform. The problem is these retarded puzzles, not the fact that it is linear.

[Quillan]

Wig, yes the physics puzzles are somewhat simplistic. Do you know why you don't have simple physics puzzles in some other FPS games? Because they have no physics at all. At best, the majority of games have ragdoll physics for interesting (and unrealistic) death effects.

[Asher]

That's a flat out lie, Quillan. Half-Life 2 has actually the exact same physics engine as Halo 2 and Halo 3 (Havok). The thing is, the other games don't make physics the central part of gameplay because it shouldn't be.

Even Halo (1) had good physics. Don't you remember all of the fan-made videos of grenade fun with Warthogs?

Every recent FPS game I can think of has good physics. Bioshock as well, for instance.

[Wiglaf]

That is just such a bunch of bull****. Even RTS's like Company of Heroes use a physics engine (havoc). Virtually every FPS has grenades bouncing off walls and bodies reacting to their environment, and you're acting like Valve has invented the idea.

The difference is that HL2 hits you in the face with it FOR NO REASON. It's not a benefit to have it hit you in the face with retarded puzzles that completely disrupt the believability of the environment. This is not a positive.

[Asher]

Titles that use the exact same physics engine as HL2:

* Dawn of Mana [Playstation 2]
* Saints Row [Xbox 360]
* The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
* Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy
* 3DMark
* 3ds Max
* Adobe Atmosphere
* Adobe Shockwave
* The Source Engine
* Halo 2 and Halo 3
* Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
* Company of Heroes
* Max Payne 2
* Super Smash Bros. Brawl
* Half-Life 2
* Half-Life 2: Deathmatch
* Half-Life 2: Episode 1
* Half-Life 2: Episode 2
* Counter-Strike Source
* Team Fortress 2
* Motorstorm [Playstation 3]
* World in Conflict
* BioShock
* Heavenly Sword [Playstation 3]
* Folklore [Playstation 3]

[Patroklos]

I am not argueing with you about the mundaness of HL physics puzzles at bottlnecks. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that both HL2 and Halo are basically large rooms that funnel to bottlenecks.

The only really differnece is that in HL2 sometimes those large rooms actually look like rooms, while in Halo they use canyon walls, coast line, and cliffs to make things feel bigger. But if you go into the water you drown (or just hit an invisible wall), if you go over the cliff you die, if your try and climb the canyon wall it is just steep enough to not let you. There is no real difference in scale. HL doesn't make you play the same level twice (sometimes four times!) to give you the illusion of length either.

So there is your big differnece, Halo has the illusion of scale down pat, but they screwed that up with shameless level reruns. That also goes away with EP2 where they achieve the illusion of scale as well.

I would love to play a Halo that was really open like say WWII Online. I really don't se why they don't. A couple virtual square miles to hunt elites, sounds like fun

[Asher]

I'm not talking about scale. I'm talking about level design, period.

HL2 had far more funnels than Halo. And each one was exacerbated due to puzzles. It's the compound effect, and you ignore this.

[Patroklos]

HL2 had far more funnels than Halo. And each one was exacerbated due to puzzles. It's the compound effect, and you ignore this.

I ignored it by mentioning it over and over again myself?

[Wiglaf]

A) No one said Halo wasn't linear. The claim is that canyons are slightly more convincing than seesaws as barriers to progression, and that's pretty obvious.

B) The puzzles in HL2 are the main problem because they are a completely unrealistic barrier to progression that kills whatever believability they hoped to have.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I ignored it by mentioning it over and over again myself?

You only mention it to reiterate you are not talking about the puzzles at all.

[Quillan]

Halo does not have a physics system, Asher. Halo has some programmed physics applied to certain things, like the vehicles and grenades, but that's it. Nothing else in the world reacts. Not the water, not the terrain, not the scenery, nothing. The games list you posted is far from the majority of games out there, it's far from the majority of FPS games even, but not all games use Havoc either and admittedly you only posted a list of those that do.

What I found significant was that HL2 was the first game to have (what I felt was) a really good implementation of physics into the game. For the first time I could interact with objects in the world in some meaningful way. In the same way that Portal is showcasing what is possible with portals, HL2 showcased what was possible with physics. Yes, they went overboard with it, but I don't take it as personally or seriously as either you or Wiglaf seem to. Neither of you seems to be able to go beyond the physics based puzzles. Aside from them, what did you think of Half Life 2?

[Asher]

HL2 was a ho-hum shooter in every way. Poor Enemy design, bad AI, crap multiplayer, plodding story, boring level design. There's just not a whole lot to like unless you're someone easily amused by the fact that the physics in the game are almost like real life!

LOOK I CAN STACK BOXES IN HL2! GOTY!!!!!

If you're referring to Halo 1, then you're right that it doesn't have a global physics system. Physics was applied only in cases where it was necessary.

Halo 2 and Halo 3 certainly do have real physics systems. The exact same one in HL2.

[Asher]

Why do I prefer Halo to HL2?

1) Multiplayer. Co-operative play rules. Metascoring rules. Even deathmatch/team play is great. Awesome MP level design.
2) Enemy AI. The Combine is pretty frickin retarded in HL2. Also, they're boring. Halo 3 on Legendary has much more impressive AI.
3) Sense of humour. The game doesn't take itself too seriously. I love the little shouts the grunts give out.
4) Pacing. HL2 is slow from start to finish. There's lots of "intermissions" of nothing but exploring a confined space.
5) One-trick-ponyism: Gravity puzzles. Infuriatingly common. Infuriatingly dull. Infuriatingly simple. If I wanted to stack blocks and play with see-saws, I'd re-enroll in preschool. No thanks.

[Quillan]

Asher, almost every one of the reasons you posted why HL2 was a "ho-hum shooter" are subjective judgements. I know you don't like the game; that's fine. My opinion is different than yours, and we'll likely never agree on this subject.

But:
» Poor Enemy design -- this is a judgement call. I happen to like the Combine. I am assuming you're referring to them as a choice of enemy rather than your second point.

» bad AI -- this is the one that is not subjective. The AI in HL2 is ok. Compared to the AI in some games it's poor, and in others it's great.

»crap multiplayer -- Now you're back into judgement again. Personally, I don't care about multiplayer. Bioshock has none at all, and I don't judge it lower than other games because of this lack. Definitely don't judge the single player game based upon multiplayer.

»plodding story -- again, subjective. Personally, I loved the pacing and the story of HL2. It gave me a little of everything, without going so fast I was overwhelmed or so slowly I was bored.

»boring level design -- Again, this is your opinion. I happened to like the level design of HL2. Yes, it was linear. most FPS games are, and have to be in order to make a coherent game. I thought the urban blight environments of City 17 were some of the best I'd seen at the time. I loved Ravenholm, and I loved the Citadel.

None of these are valid reasons to say "HL2 sucked" like Kuci did in the first post, while all are perfectly valid reasons to say "I couldn't stand the game". Your second post detailing the reasons you prefer Halo to HL2 is a great explanation of why you like one better than the other. I happen to prefer HL2.