Am I the only one that thinks Half-Life 2 is a little overrated? - Games

I will always call Half Life 2 my favorite game ever. That said, I barely play it anymore because I've played it to death. It has little replay value so each playthrough is more or less the same thing. I could recount the steps Gordon takes from the Black Mesa trams to [sp]Eli's Death[/sp] off the top of my head, though in my case it's just a testament to my love for it than a sign of it's blandness (it's far from bland for me). So I don't blame you for thinking Half Life 2 is overrated. Although I do find it surprising that someone would admit it in a forum built around one of it's greatest mods. Then again, said forum has kinda expanded beyond GMod in the past few forevers, right guys?

the game is seven years old bro

Half-Life 2 is a great game, it just has a very low replay value. I find myself becoming bored incredibly quickly any time I attempt to play through it again. I won't deny that it is amazingly solid for an FPS though.

Yes it is overrated, but by no means is it a bad or even mediocre game. Its flaws were merely overshadowed by the amazing physics and other technology that Source had to offer at the time. Obviously it's an outstanding game, but by no means is it the best thing to ever happen. At least they found a way to incorporate the tech into the gameplay (well, it is Valve after all), a brilliant move with the gravity gun and the physics puzzles.

I agree HL2 was a great game, but in terms of story it's pretty average Half life fans give Halo fans shit and say it's generic, well at least halo has a cool universe and a backstory to everything [editline]9th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RG4;27947842]My opinion all them are great[/QUOTE] The first game didn't have a really interesting story. But then it picked up big time [editline]9th February 2011[/editline] They're both just games after all

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;27946920]You can't judge Half Life 2 six years after it's come out. It just doesn't work that way. If you do, you have to judge it from the mindset of someone in 2004. Everything about the game was revolutionary at the time.[/QUOTE] Hell, the graphics still look okay today.

Half Life 2 provided a platform for people to build on and that is what puts it in PC history. There's few other games where people can go so far as to design their own off the engine. TF, CS, DoD, all these were mods before full out games.

I agree, they're still really good Gameplay has nothing to do with how a game looks, it's how it plays. And you tell me what "revolutionary" features HL2 had aside from vehicle elements, outstanding graphics and SOME squad based combat Face it, it'd be done before. Even when it was released. It was a first for HL game, but not in reality.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27946161]Sure bioshock was good but the respawn tanks took out the realism or challenge. Half-life was different because it was the first to use story in the way it did and I would say best story I have seen in a game. deep does not always = good when it comes to story.[/QUOTE] Bioshock takes place in an underwater city. You can shoot shit out of your hands. I think you kinda lost the realism when the game started.

The story is amazing, but the gameplay's kinda boring imo.

There are some problems but it's still an amazing game, but not the best ever. I preferred Half Life 1 to 2, but I love them both. I don't quite get how it annoys you though.

OP obviously did not play the game back when it was released, when no other games were CLOSE to being like it. The physics puzzles and gravity gun were revolutionary and is still nearly the only game to use physics for gameplay.

I don't think HL2 is one of the best games ever because it's extremely innovative or anything. I think it's one of of the best games ever because it does what every other FPS does, except a lot better. Every part of it has been polished to a mirror shine, and it shows (in my opinion).

[QUOTE=X-Neon;27949481]I don't think HL2 is one of the best games ever because it's extremely innovative or anything. I think it's one of of the best games ever because it does what every other FPS does, except a lot better. Every part of it has been polished to a mirror shine, and it shows (in my opinion).[/QUOTE] True. Valve does have a serious OCD problem when it comes to polish.

All games are overrated. Look at Super Mario and Zelda.

[QUOTE=zombojoe;27949207]Hell, the graphics still look okay today.[/QUOTE] Have you played it recently? They're not [i]bad[/i] or anything but like when you look at any game from several Direct Xes ago at any time 6 years on the level geometry is blocky as fuck. Almost everything is done with textures on completely flat surfaces. This is perfectly fine apart from the parts where it's trying to be impressive graphically and isn't. The game was incredible years ago, in my opinion it hasn't aged well and part of the reason it even lasted so long is the moddability of the Source engine. Now we've got Facepunchers judging it 'fresh' years later because they were about 7 when the game actually came out.

The game was good back in 2004 but now it's REALLY behind the times. Old style FPS games aren't really made anymore.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;27949544]All games are overrated. Look at Super Mario and Zelda.[/QUOTE] People say Ocarina of Time is so amazing because they want to look like they have "great tastes" because it got amazing reviews It got amazing reviews because it was basically the first non-text action/adventure which was done well, it's overwhelmingly mediocre compared to current action/adventure giants like GTA and Just Cause [editline]9th February 2011[/editline] Waiting for someone to say "it's mediocre because of the old technology not cause its bad!!!" so I can say "yeah"

Half Life 2 isn't godly, it's a good shooter - not perfect. What it brought with it however was the amazingly moddable and stable Source engine. :v: All hail Source!

half life 2 isn't arma it's not meant to be realistic i agree though there's not really a lot that separates it from other games of the genre but the story was great

Overrated? Half of the guys in my school have no idea what Half-Life is.

Yeah that means virtually nothing Xylem Just like half the people in my school don't know what music is

[QUOTE=geogzm;27949633] i agree though there's not really a lot that separates it from other games of the genre[/QUOTE] Aside from the fully working physics engine allowing almost complete interaction with the world, the ridiculous graphics (in 2004 this was like what Toy Story was in the 90s), arguably the best story and telling of the story in video games, the incredible atmosphere, the amazing moddability and optimization of the engine, and the intense sense of drive (did you EVER notice yourself slowing down to look at shit aside from in puzzles and in calm moments like in Kleiner's lab? there's always a sense of purpose making you go, "wow, this is a video game but I would feel guilty if I stopped right now because X bad thing would probably be happening with me dicking around".) aside from just those things

I loved HL2, but it was strange that the alien force that took over the world in 7 hours got defeated by some rebel force.

[QUOTE=Thechuz1337;27949713]I loved HL2, but it was strange that the alien force that took over the world in 7 hours got defeated by some rebel force.[/QUOTE] Who says it was defeated? Eli is dead and there's obviously still an enormous Combine presence on Earth

[QUOTE=Thechuz1337;27949713]I loved HL2, but it was strange that the alien force that took over the world in 7 hours got defeated by some rebel force.[/QUOTE] Can't beat the local forces, man. [editline]9th February 2011[/editline] I never really payed attention to the story much. It was only after I played through it again did I really care.

I've heard a few people mention that a 'band of untrained rebels took down a force that took over the Earth in 7 hours'. It wasn't the rebels. It was Gordon. Rebels were, more or less, at a stalemate with the Combine before you showed up. If not at a stalemate, then losing to the Combine. It was only your actions at Nova Prospekt and at the top of the Citadel that gave the rebels any chance of making progress.

Games were different in 2004 and it was a really good game for its time. Why don't you review Doom and compare it to Call of Duty.

It was good because it's a good fps.

I hold HL2 in such high regard (and still do) because it manages to combine standard FPS skills, puzzle solving, innovative application of technology (IE: the Source engine), and excellent storytelling without feeling "schizophrenic" (as Yahtzee put it), and without sacrificing one element for another. I also liked how it presents the story, it doesn't directly give it to you like most games through cutscenes and loading screens, but slowly feeds you bits of information through NPC interactions and rewards those willing to explore the levels with little tidbits of info to help you put together the puzzle. I would say that most people can at the very least enjoy the game, but it really does click with a certain type of gamer.