Metacritic states"Half-Life 2 is the highest rated FPS of all time. Flawles

Personally I feel that Half-Life 2 is one of the most overrated games ever albeit a good game. The weapon variety is mediocre, the guns felt like peashooters for the most part, the AI is stupid, the vehicle sections are long, drawn out and boring and the characters whilst not horrible are simply adequate and not worthy of being praised as some of the best in videogame history.

Still I'll praise it for visuals which have aged gracefully and were cutting edge, its story telling and the gravity gun.

Let's put on our 2004 glasses for a moment before comparing it to modern day games.

In 2004 sure, in 2012 no.

Standards change, but reviews do not. Most people who say it is overrated played it years after it was launched and held it to completely different standards as we did in 2004.

The fact remains that in 2004 it received universal praise from pretty much every source out there. It was almost unanimous among the gaming community that Half-Life 2 was the best FPS, and maybe even best game, to date. It was the first to truely encorporate phsyics into its gameplay (even ragdoll physics were something realtivly new in 2004), the graphics were mindblowing, the pace was fantastic (every FPS since has really taken a lot of influence from Half-Life 2 in terms of how it's paced), the story telling and cinematic presentation (everything from the first person, no cutscenes) was something extremely new and unique (now everybody does it). I could go on.

Most people ended up playing Half-Life 2 with the Orange box as most people's computers in 2004 couldn't run Half-Life 2. This was 3 years after the game actually launched. The standards set by Half-Life 2 had been applied to every FPS since.

People that are saying HL2 was "meh" or "forgettable" or "not that great". May I ask, did you guys play it at launch or years later? All good that you didn't like it, just that it's quite different having played it at launch or years down the track.FelipeInside

At launch. Don't get me wrong, it was enjoyable but forgetable at the same time. When I finished the game I concluded it was good but I did not want to play it again. I will still recommend folks to play the game because the experience is worth....experiencing.

...the guns felt like peashooters for the most part...Vesica_Prime

In 2004 sure, in 2012 no.

Standards change, but reviews do not. Most people who say it is overrated played it years after it was launched and held it to completely different standards as we did in 2004.

The fact remains that in 2004 it received universal praise from pretty much every source out there. It was almost unanimous among the gaming community that Half-Life 2 was the best FPS, and maybe even best game, to date. It was the first to truely encorporate phsyics into its gameplay (even ragdoll physics were something realtivly new in 2004), the graphics were mindblowing, the pace was fantastic (every FPS since has really taken a lot of influence from Half-Life 2 in terms of how it's paced), the story telling and cinematic presentation (everything from the first person, no cutscenes) was something extremely new and unique (now everybody does it). I could go on.

Most people ended up playing Half-Life 2 with the Orange box as most people's computers in 2004 couldn't run Half-Life 2. This was 3 years after the game actually launched. The standards set by Half-Life 2 had been applied to every FPS since.

Wasdie

Nah, I form my own opinions.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]...the guns felt like peashooters for the most part...Gooeykat

As an indication of how far this board has fallen, HL2 is getting crapped on. It used to be unanimously loved here. Few games, modern or old, can match its diversity. It does so much right and on top of that the Episodes that followed were even better. I sort of bundle them collectively though. What other games, particularly FPS, match the resonance you have with characters like Alyx Vance? biggest_loser

Well PC gamers have been more inclined to hate on what's popular more than ever before. They trash games just to keep some status quo of being "hardcore".

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]As an indication of how far this board has fallen, HL2 is getting crapped on. It used to be unanimously loved here. Few games, modern or old, can match its diversity. It does so much right and on top of that the Episodes that followed were even better. I sort of bundle them collectively though. What other games, particularly FPS, match the resonance you have with characters like Alyx Vance? Wasdie

Well PC gamers have been more inclined to hate on what's popular more than ever before. They trash games just to keep some status quo of being "hardcore".

I think it's more to do with the younger generation coming through.

Also this generation has lasted far too long and Source looked so good for it's time that people are trying it still today. I mean it's been 8 years since HL2, it's obviously gonna feel dated to most people and wont have things people have come to expect from modern games. However if you go back to 2004 and played an FPS from 1996 I'm pretty sure you'd say HL2 has aged amazingly well for an 8 year old game.So as it's so popular you'll have a lot of the newer generation that never played it when it came out try it. Platforms like Steam advertise it and make it so easy for people to buy now.

I find it funny though because this generation has lasted so long that people are still playing these old games and slagging them off as if they like came out yesterday.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]As an indication of how far this board has fallen, HL2 is getting crapped on. It used to be unanimously loved here. Few games, modern or old, can match its diversity. It does so much right and on top of that the Episodes that followed were even better. I sort of bundle them collectively though. What other games, particularly FPS, match the resonance you have with characters like Alyx Vance? Tixylixx

Well PC gamers have been more inclined to hate on what's popular more than ever before. They trash games just to keep some status quo of being "hardcore".

I think it's more to do with the younger generation coming through.

Also this generation has lasted far too long and Source looked so good for it's time that people are trying it still today. I mean it's been 8 years since HL2, it's obviously gonna feel dated to most people and wont have things people have come to expect from modern games. However if you go back to 2004 and played an FPS from 1996 I'm pretty sure you'd say HL2 has aged amazingly well for an 8 year old game.So as it's so popular you'll have a lot of the newer generation that never played it when it came out try it. Platforms like Steam advertise it and make it so easy for people to buy now.

I find it funny though because this generation has lasted so long that people are still playing these old games and slagging them off as if they like came out yesterday.

Yep, best FPS when it came out, still great today.

People don't like the shooting in Half-Life 2 although it should be the core gameplay since it advertised being a FPS.Sentinel112

I think that this is exactly what bugs me the most with people hailing HL2 as this most awesome FPS thing ever. HL2 actually sucks as a First-Person Shooter. It did absolutely nothing to advance the first-person shooting genre.

It's a very good game overall and the way it uses physics was awesome, but it is not, and it has never been, a good shooting game.

In comparison, Far Cry did a lot more for the genre and people barely remember it.

They trash games just to keep some status quo of being "hardcore".Wasdie

Half-Life 2 is the best PC game of all time. Maybe one of the last PC games too.

[QUOTE="Tixylixx"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well PC gamers have been more inclined to hate on what's popular more than ever before. They trash games just to keep some status quo of being "hardcore".

biggest_loser

I think it's more to do with the younger generation coming through.

Also this generation has lasted far too long and Source looked so good for it's time that people are trying it still today. I mean it's been 8 years since HL2, it's obviously gonna feel dated to most people and wont have things people have come to expect from modern games. However if you go back to 2004 and played an FPS from 1996 I'm pretty sure you'd say HL2 has aged amazingly well for an 8 year old game.So as it's so popular you'll have a lot of the newer generation that never played it when it came out try it. Platforms like Steam advertise it and make it so easy for people to buy now.

I find it funny though because this generation has lasted so long that people are still playing these old games and slagging them off as if they like came out yesterday.

I mean comparing an 8 year old game to games of these days isn't really fair, back in 2004 an 8 year old game was considered a classic, where now they aren't lol. People can play it and judge all they want but they weren't there to play it when it came out and how amazing it was. Like nothing had existed like it before and it innovated the genre, especially with the Gravity gun. It's all too easy to say this and that sucks now but back then it was mind blowing.

Comparing it now to games of today is like comparing it to Quake or Duke Nukem 3D, games 8 years younger than HL2 and pre HL even.....

Things change, it's just been a weird generation where playing 8 year old games isn't seen as old like it was the last generation.

Also, according to Metacritic, Out of the Park Baseball 2007 is the best game of 2006. Point?

realguitarhero5

LOL METACRITIC?

Out of the Park Baseball 2007 is the second best game of all time according to them.

The first Half-Life is better by the way.

k3ck

evidentially, no -------->

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox/halo-combat-evolved

http://www.metacritic.com/game/nintendo-64/goldeneye-007

handful fps already beat HL2 at total rating on metacritic

but HL1 and 2 are easily amount the top 10 most revolutional fps in the history of FPS

GameFan1983

As an indication of how far this board has fallen, HL2 is getting crapped on. It used to be unanimously loved here. Few games, modern or old, can match its diversity. It does so much right and on top of that the Episodes that followed were even better. I sort of bundle them collectively though. What other games, particularly FPS, match the resonance you have with characters like Alyx Vance? biggest_loser

As an indication of how far this board has fallen, HL2 is getting crapped on. It used to be unanimously loved here. Few games, modern or old, can match its diversity. It does so much right and on top of that the Episodes that followed were even better. I sort of bundle them collectively though. What other games, particularly FPS, match the resonance you have with characters like Alyx Vance? biggest_loser

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="Tixylixx"]

I think it's more to do with the younger generation coming through.

Also this generation has lasted far too long and Source looked so good for it's time that people are trying it still today. I mean it's been 8 years since HL2, it's obviously gonna feel dated to most people and wont have things people have come to expect from modern games. However if you go back to 2004 and played an FPS from 1996 I'm pretty sure you'd say HL2 has aged amazingly well for an 8 year old game.So as it's so popular you'll have a lot of the newer generation that never played it when it came out try it. Platforms like Steam advertise it and make it so easy for people to buy now.

I find it funny though because this generation has lasted so long that people are still playing these old games and slagging them off as if they like came out yesterday.

Tixylixx

I mean comparing an 8 year old game to games of these days isn't really fair, back in 2004 an 8 year old game was considered a classic, where now they aren't lol. People can play it and judge all they want but they weren't there to play it when it came out and how amazing it was. Like nothing had existed like it before and it innovated the genre, especially with the Gravity gun. It's all too easy to say this and that sucks now but back then it was mind blowing.

Comparing it now to games of today is like comparing it to Quake or Duke Nukem 3D, games 8 years younger than HL2 and pre HL even.....

Things change, it's just been a weird generation where playing 8 year old games isn't seen as old like it was the last generation.

[QUOTE="GameFan1983"]

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

Crysis owns HL2. Overrated game.

jakes456

it's not fair to compare a games with 3 years more advanced technology(6 years if we plus hardware requirement) in term of entertainment value, packed content, feeling, everything crysis does own HL2 easily, but such comparison is not fair, and HL1 & 2 were pretty revaluational and had very influential in the whole FPS genre

also as my earlier post, HL2 is nowhere close the highest rated FPS on metacritic, they are handful FPS had it beaten, all of which are little bit more classic than HL1 & 2.:cool:

HL1 had a much bigger impact than HL2. HL1 is a solid 9.5/10. HL2 is like a 6.6/10.

No. Just no. HL2 was an easy 9.

I think HL to was decent and is probably one of the best FPS from 2004ish.

Compared to other games, and their scopes from 2004ish - It's complete sh1t.

Take Rome, for instance, 200 time more depth and 50 times more effort went into creating the game, which clearly shows.

That is not to say HL2 is bad at all thou - I guess it says more about how awesome Rome is :)

I think HL to was decent and is probably one of the best FPS from 2004ish.

Compared to other games, and their scopes from 2004ish - It's complete sh1t.

Take Rome, for instance, 200 time more depth and 50 times more effort went into creating the game, which clearly shows.

That is not to say HL2 is bad at all thou - I guess it says more about how awesome Rome is :)

Walincas

Granted, I played the game 7 years after release, but I wasn't entirely impressed and saw what the big deal was about. I never did finish Episode 2 due to lack of interest.

Half-Life 2 is a brilliant game, but I think there are better FPSs.

It does so much right and on top of that the Episodes that followed were even better. I sort of bundle them collectively though. What other games, particularly FPS, match the resonance you have with characters like Alyx Vance? biggest_loser

How was Episode 1 an improvement?

As for the question, I can only think of The Darkness 1/2 and Bioshock 2 right now.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]As an indication of how far this board has fallen, HL2 is getting crapped on. It used to be unanimously loved here. Few games, modern or old, can match its diversity. It does so much right and on top of that the Episodes that followed were even better. I sort of bundle them collectively though. What other games, particularly FPS, match the resonance you have with characters like Alyx Vance? Wasdie

Well PC gamers have been more inclined to hate on what's popular more than ever before. They trash games just to keep some status quo of being "hardcore".

Gamespot cracks me up. It's surprises me that to this day, users on here, even mods, have to perpetuate excuses as to why people don't like the same games as them.

I think HL to was decent and is probably one of the best FPS from 2004ish.

Compared to other games, and their scopes from 2004ish - It's complete sh1t.

Take Rome, for instance, 200 time more depth and 50 times more effort went into creating the game, which clearly shows.

That is not to say HL2 is bad at all thou - I guess it says more about how awesome Rome is :)

Walincas

[QUOTE="Walincas"]

I think HL to was decent and is probably one of the best FPS from 2004ish.

Compared to other games, and their scopes from 2004ish - It's complete sh1t.

Take Rome, for instance, 200 time more depth and 50 times more effort went into creating the game, which clearly shows.

That is not to say HL2 is bad at all thou - I guess it says more about how awesome Rome is :)

Gooeykat

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

Also, according to Metacritic, Out of the Park Baseball 2007 is the best game of 2006. Point?

realguitarhero5

2006 was a pretty weak year if I remember correctly.

Some great games, but much weaker than a lot of other years from 2000 to 2010.

I love HL2, it's definitely my favourite FPS along with the first game and I think it deserves best FPS award. It doesn't have the best combat or the best AI but I love the story, the settings, the characters, the way the game seemlessly shifts from one 'level' and style of gameplay to the next and just how original it is.

[QUOTE="Walincas"]

I think HL to was decent and is probably one of the best FPS from 2004ish.

Compared to other games, and their scopes from 2004ish - It's complete sh1t.

Take Rome, for instance, 200 time more depth and 50 times more effort went into creating the game, which clearly shows.

That is not to say HL2 is bad at all thou - I guess it says more about how awesome Rome is :)

FelipeInside

The reason I compared it to Rome, was because peep said that HL2 was best game ever made - which I completely disagree with.

If im only to compare it with other simplistic FPS games, yea - it's at the top, which I wrote before as well.

Reading comprehension is your friend :)

[QUOTE="Walincas"]

I think HL to was decent and is probably one of the best FPS from 2004ish.

Compared to other games, and their scopes from 2004ish - It's complete sh1t.

Take Rome, for instance, 200 time more depth and 50 times more effort went into creating the game, which clearly shows.

That is not to say HL2 is bad at all thou - I guess it says more about how awesome Rome is :)

Gooeykat

why is it all of a sudden forbidden to compare an RTS to FPS games?

If we want to continue discussing if it's THE BEST GAME of all, we need to compare across genres.

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"][QUOTE="Walincas"]

I think HL to was decent and is probably one of the best FPS from 2004ish.

Compared to other games, and their scopes from 2004ish - It's complete sh1t.

Take Rome, for instance, 200 time more depth and 50 times more effort went into creating the game, which clearly shows.

That is not to say HL2 is bad at all thou - I guess it says more about how awesome Rome is :)

Walincas

why is it all of a sudden forbidden to compare an RTS to FPS games?

If we want to continue discussing if it's THE BEST GAME of all, we need to compare across genres.

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"][QUOTE="Walincas"]

I think HL to was decent and is probably one of the best FPS from 2004ish.

Compared to other games, and their scopes from 2004ish - It's complete sh1t.

Take Rome, for instance, 200 time more depth and 50 times more effort went into creating the game, which clearly shows.

That is not to say HL2 is bad at all thou - I guess it says more about how awesome Rome is :)

Walincas

why is it all of a sudden forbidden to compare an RTS to FPS games?

If we want to continue discussing if it's THE BEST GAME of all, we need to compare across genres.

[QUOTE="Walincas"]

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"] Did you just compare an RTS to FPS and say it had more deep gameplay? FelipeInside

why is it all of a sudden forbidden to compare an RTS to FPS games?

If we want to continue discussing if it's THE BEST GAME of all, we need to compare across genres.

It's true that they are different games, which is besides the point if we're talking about best game ever :)

Edit: o yea btw. of course I can't be sure that 50x more effort was put into Rome, but with my very basic understanding of programming - it would take and im not kidding around 50 times less time to do an FPS than an RTS with the scope of Rome - primarily because of the AI and different pathings in realtime for the RTS.

[QUOTE="Walincas"]

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"] Did you just compare an RTS to FPS and say it had more deep gameplay? Gooeykat

why is it all of a sudden forbidden to compare an RTS to FPS games?

If we want to continue discussing if it's THE BEST GAME of all, we need to compare across genres.

K, I was not sure if you had read the other posts in this thread :)

Edit: rofl, im kinda missing some points atm. guess im getting tired..

Your point about stalin vs HL2, is absolutely true.

I was not however talking about complexity, but depth, which to me - means more variables and different outcomes in story (not so heavy in rome thou), gameplay, and tactics needed to be developed in order to overcome the selected difficulty.

But depth to me is more than that - it's also the little less explainable things such as, surprises during the game, easter eggs, thought to detail, lore and background etc. etc.

and Stalin Vs. Martians is definately not better than HL2 :P

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Walincas"]

why is it all of a sudden forbidden to compare an RTS to FPS games?

If we want to continue discussing if it's THE BEST GAME of all, we need to compare across genres.

Walincas

It's true that they are different games, which is besides the point if we're talking about best game ever :)

Edit: o yea btw. of course I can't be sure that 50x more effort was put into Rome, but with my very basic understanding of programming - it would take and im not kidding around 50 times less time to do an FPS than an RTS with the scope of Rome - primarily because of the AI and different pathings in realtime for the RTS.

[QUOTE="Walincas"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] Because they are completely different types of games. And how do you know Rome had 50 times more effort? Were you part of the development team of both companies? I understand ur point with best game of all time, I can read, it's just considered one of the best. FelipeInside

It's true that they are different games, which is besides the point if we're talking about best game ever :)

Edit: o yea btw. of course I can't be sure that 50x more effort was put into Rome, but with my very basic understanding of programming - it would take and im not kidding around 50 times less time to do an FPS than an RTS with the scope of Rome - primarily because of the AI and different pathings in realtime for the RTS.

sure they have probably spend more man hours on voice acting and cinematics. Rome had both as well, but admittedly not in as good quality as HL2.

but programming of the AI for rome is a real masterpiece tbh. even thou the AI is not very good - when you play against it, it's functional and gives you a challenge and remember we're talking two sets of different codes, one for the battles and one for the world map..

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Walincas"]

It's true that they are different games, which is besides the point if we're talking about best game ever :)

Edit: o yea btw. of course I can't be sure that 50x more effort was put into Rome, but with my very basic understanding of programming - it would take and im not kidding around 50 times less time to do an FPS than an RTS with the scope of Rome - primarily because of the AI and different pathings in realtime for the RTS.

Walincas

sure they have probably spend more man hours on voice acting and cinematics. Rome had both as well, but admittedly not in as good quality as HL2.

but programming of the AI for rome is a real masterpiece tbh. even thou the AI is not very good - when you play against it, it's functional and gives you a challenge and remember we're talking two sets of different codes, one for the battles and one for the world map..

It was amazing for it's time but had it's flaws. The first Half Life tops it IMO.

I neither love or hate Half Life 2. It's a good, solid game but I never thought it was great or revolutionary (yes, played it on release, too). With that said, I'm also not and have never been a big FPS fan so that probably accounts for some of my ambivalence towards the game and series.

I actually enjoyed and had more fun playing Unreal than I did the original Half Life. Such is life.

[QUOTE="Walincas"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] Very true, and of course I don't know either how much more work went into Rome. Yes, Rome has all the AI and Pathings, but remember an FPS has a lot more detail into locations, more locations generally, cinematic dialogue+acting (actor moving etc) so it's not an easy task either.FelipeInside

sure they have probably spend more man hours on voice acting and cinematics. Rome had both as well, but admittedly not in as good quality as HL2.

but programming of the AI for rome is a real masterpiece tbh. even thou the AI is not very good - when you play against it, it's functional and gives you a challenge and remember we're talking two sets of different codes, one for the battles and one for the world map..