Its not like half life, its borring, some levels are awful, the game feels borring, most of its revolutionary parts are either the physics or the character structure, pretty much NOT what makes a fps.
In the end i just played a fps that focuses alot more on puzzles and characters and the damn gravity gun than action and combat like half life did.
Also it has lots of stupid crap such as turrets that cannot be destroyed unless you use the gravity gun to knock them down, or laser activated turrets that you got to toss a grenade in.
"What kinda crap is this?" Half life has done those much better, why do i have to suffer that crap in hl2?
Just bring me more combine and let me kill them, just like HL2 was from the time you get a gun till you get to black mesa east, the game was like hl2 till that point, after that it decided to slow down and focus more on physics and gravity gun gameplay, such as more objects to place down in order to avoid the antilions instead of fighting them and pick up hovermines and knock down turrets and drive your vehicle.
Screw that i wanna play half life, that aint half life just bring me combine and let me kill them because thats fun for me and not the revolutionary psychis gameplay.
Another thing to prove that will be the amount of ammo your weapons have and the weak ai in order for the game to be easier.
The game is far more less "action focused fps" than the first, there were times that i was deathbored or having to do crap like use the gravity gun to push the damn turrets out of the way, or deal with the infinite respawningantilions.
Crap like that happen excessively in hl2. To put it simply hl2 was very overrated especially compared with the episodes that the developers spent plenty of time to make the levels and the challenges as good as possible, unlike hl2 that they just throw some hovermines into a room and call it "proper and fun challenge"
Pretty much both half life episodes are far more fun with alot of hardwork being put in the levels of the game, unlike hl2 which was pretty lame at the most time.
So let me say it again:
Half life 2 from the beginning till black mesa east 8.5-9.0
Halfe life 2 after black mesa, 8.5, 8.0...it kept getting from bad to worse.
HALF LIFE> HL2 Episodes>HL2>HL expansions
dakan45
You know, by the looks of it, you were just looking to KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL. Which, I guess, makes HL2 inferior to other FPSs since you don't do as much killing as in other games. But for most people, what made HL2 stand out were precisely the things you did not like, such as the extensive you of physics (make you feel like you're playing a sandbox game) and the varied and impressively crafted levels.
In terms of level design, HL2 is just about impeccable. And the antlions scene was also one I disliked, but it doesn't last an eternity. And you know what, it varies up the gameplay. And unlike Call of Duty infinite respawning, in HL2 it actually made sense. Because the antlions can come from the sand or whatever. Whereas in Call of Duty, it makes absolutely no sense, having infinite enemies. Plus, in HL2, the antlions dont come if you're on hard ground. They only come if you touch the sand. So once again, HL2 is a well thought-out game.
It's the Call of Duty series that got lazy. Verrry lazy. Call of Duty 1 was amazing. United Offensive was, surprisingly, even better. But since then, there have been no innovations, except in the visuals department. You still have some exceptionally stupid AI (especially on your side), and you still have to be the front man to every little encounter, and can't rely on your stupid friends, leaving no strategy in this supposed squad-based combat.
And speaking of linearity, a game like CoD4 is much much more linear than HL2. World at War is a bit of a different story, but then it was developed by Treyarch, not Infinity Ward.
To me, a game needs to do something well in order for me to be interested in it. HL2 had many aspects done very well.
First, you have the interactivity. This is made possible thanks to the well-implemented physics/grav gun, and the scripted sequences with phenomenally well-done lip-syncing and voice acting. Whereas in CoD4, you don't care about the characters, nor do you feel like you're doing much, because it's nothing others shouldn't be able to do (but refuse to, because you're always the frontman of the supposed 'squad').
Then you have the varied and detailed environments, complete with NPCs with their own agendas and stories, making the whole world believable. Now let's compare this to CoD4. You are.. in the Middle East. Fighting Al-Some-Terrorist-Assad or something.
But if you're looking for simplistic shoot-em-up action, I guess CoD4 would win out. I simply don't find it satisfying, however, because it's implemented in very amateurish ways. It's as if it's tailored for someone with a ridiculously short attention span.
Log in to comment