Haha, I remember Heretic. That game was neat, I really enjoyed it. Like you, Ush, I had the little shareware demo version, never got the full game but I remember playing the demo shareware version quite a bit.
And yes, Lana. You should definitely play Half-Life. It changed the FPS genre forever, and is still a damn fun game, even now almost a decade later.
Hmmmm, I must say that FPSs tend to not hold my attention for very long and they bore me fast, which is generally because of the lack of plot (say what you will about an FPS having a great plot, it's still not going to be terribly involved or a large part of the game, and that's just because of the nature of the genre), and it's plot that usually keeps me with a game.
It's not really about the plot, more about how the developers told the story that makes it damn good.
I have to disagree about some of the things that Ush has said. More of personal preference really. I loved HL2 setting because it was more unique throughout the whole game and each level was pretty spetacular on its self. In HL1, near the end, I got the feeling of seeing the same things over again, and Xen is gotta to be one of the worst levels out there. It felt like Valve put it in there just to have something different.
What I really like about HL2 is all the small details in the world that brings it to life. Posters, sounds of distant battles, strider's over in the horizon, NPC's that bring life to the game rather than take away the experience like so many other NPC's in games.
Too me, there isnt any weaknesses that Half Life 2 had while it was better in terms of presentation. Its only problem is that its the sequel to one of the best games ever made. You cant fault Valve for that. You have to admit, it wasnt an disappointment and it lived up to the original.
Err... (looks at my review)... frankly... no. I CAN fault Valve for it because they deliberately chose to take a less ambitious approach compared to what HL had been in development. As I said in my review, it is perfectly fair comment to point out that its vision was limited compared to HL's- and that other games have shown that it is perfectly possible for this to not be the case when making a sequel. I believe it would be objectively weak to score it the same, this being so. Half-Life advanced the very concept of the FPS genre; HL2 tried nothing but to tinker with what HL did. HL simply must be seen as the better achievement in that light, and indeed history holds it to be so. Hence I would entirely dispute your comment that it lived up to the original. Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time- here were sequels that lived up to the true impact of earlier works. They were much more fundamental and ambitious achievements than HL2 was. Not only did they improve all the presentational aspects of the original just as Half-Life 2 did, they also continued to fundamentally improve the genre, and I'll be damned if I rate HL2 on the same level on that when it did nothing even close.
All those things you mention about the background being nice- again, these were developments of things that Half-Life had already started, just done better. And part of the point is that lots of FPSs were doing that sort of thing by then, because they were also desperately copying Half-Life by then. In fact, there is an argument- with which I hold some sympathy- that Half-Life may have actually started a negative trend of FPSs looking to do flashy one-off set pieces at the expense of general gameplay; some of the Call of Duty style games were used as examples.
I also do not think I am alone in not liking the setting as much. I will admit finding it very hard to understand a point of view that puts HL2 on a higher pedestal as a gaming achievement than HL.
Game scoring is not something that can be seen as an absolute scale based on the same qualities, else I would have to score everything now out of 5 because the marks 6 to 10 would have to be saved for all the better games coming in future. If HL2 had come out at the same time as HL, if you can twist your head around that logic, then it would get the better score, sure. But it didn't, it came out later at a point where expectations had changed and certain things had already been experienced and already been done. My reviews, certainly, take this kind of thing into account- and with changed expectations comes changed enjoyment. HL2 did not do anything to make me enjoy it, or more precisely to engage me, quite as much as Half-Life did. And I am always going to rate a game based around the quality of gaming experience it provides relative to its situation because, frankly, that is the only important factor. A measure of pure technical achievement would be of little value and would discount the true value of earlier works.
It is simply not the gaming achievement the original was. Therefore it does not score as much. Simple as that. Frankly, it is irrelevant whether it is a sequel or not. It could be a totally different game with the same gameplay and I would score it the same. I'm a tough marker and I already gave it an 8; it should be damn happy with that.
Well, I got something competely different than you did in terms of HL2.
I dont really care what you give it as a score, or really didnt find it enjoyable as much as HL. All I'm saying is that I found HL2 more enjoyable, better to play and thats the reason I like it more than the original.
Is it as original as the first, no, but when has an FPS came out that has changed the way the genre is being played, but I dont take in account how much the game is original, all I care about is how fun it is. The last one FPS to be different has been the System Shock series/Dues Ex and Battlfield series in terms of MP.
Well, I certainly think it is a big mistake to ignore the impact a game has on the medium of gaming itself, and not award kudos to a game for that. I think it is a very laudable thing for a game to do that, and games that do it deserve recognition for that. As the two Half-Life games were similar in all other ways, that HL2 lacks that particular kudos is the deciding factor in the original, objectively speaking, deserving a higher mark.
It's not about being original, it is about extending vision. Some games do it and some don't. Games that do it get the credit for it.
You damn well should have found it better to play. Companies that make sequels that are actively worse to play- especially after so much time- deserve bankruptcy. But that's par for the course. Like I say, take that line and I can't give any game a high score now because games might be more enjoyable in future. It's a ridiculous way to rate games. The bare minimum I would expect of a sequel like HL2 is that it has enhanced graphics and gameplay.
But it's all relative to time going by. For its time, Half-Life was a much better achievement than Half-Life 2 was for its time. It also achieved much, much more. People should want more games to be like the first than the second, because without such innovation gaming will die. You can't just keep refining.
So yeah, I find a mark down for that absolutely and 100% justified.
Dont you find to a point that its harder and harder to innovate in the genre FPS than before. What really innovating ideas has companies produced in the FPS genre since the original Half Life?
I think in this month, Valve is going to release info about a new game than are publishing from Arcane Studio's about a game called The Crossing? It's suppose to be the new idea to come into the FPS genre in a long time.
Then good luck to them!
And if it is genuinely impossible to have done something novel along the lines of HL, then they have my sympathy and as I said in the review, I'm not even saying they SHOULD have done something new because it might have been crap.
I am simply saying that I cannot avoid the fact that Half-Life was a greater achievement in that way, whatever the circumstances of that being true are.