Crysis makes all other shooters feel so... outdated.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]I love Crysis, but no. It takes all of its elements from other shooters. The only difference is it does it very very well. Its not innovative, just very polished and well-designed.ReddestSkies

so what other shooter gives you a non linear level design? why did it take crytek's own game to offer better level design than farcry? 4 years and still no other shooter apart from crysis and bits of hl2 ep2 have open level design. games like cod4 are so boring once you have played it once. cod4 is very out dated, no real physics, every bit of the game is scripted, limited weapon choices, why can't it put a scope on what ever gun I want? pretty average linear level design, can't play stealthy, no cars etc, there is nothing special about cod4 and its clones. crysis makes fps way more fun by letting you chose how to apprach the level. It seems that most people here just want to be told how to apprach the level and run and gun the whole thing, which is boring after 5 games of that.

Crysis isn't non-linear. Its levels are just big. Take any FPS, make its levels bigger and dump a bit more enemies, and you're going to have the same results. That's not innovation; it's improvement.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R., on the other hand, is non-linear.

well most of crysis's maps are more square than long tunnels that the typical fps has. if you can approch a camp from the two opposite sizes how is that linear? if you made cod4's maps bigger it wouldn't have the same non linear level design.

I can chose to go in from the water up the beach, sneek around the rocks, come through the trees or burn up in the hummer down the road, that gives it more than one way. I can chose to do one objective before another one, before the allens the levels are very open and are non linear

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="MegaManZXY"]Crysis only makes shooters outdated graphically, the actual gameplay was average at best.MegaManZXY

No, the gameplay is actualy one of the best ever seen in FPS

Depends on how much experience you have. Get out there and play moar FPS.

well most of crysis's maps are more square than long tunnels that the typical fps has. if you can approch a camp from the two opposite sizes how is that linear? if you made cod4's maps bigger it wouldn't have the same non linear level design.

I can chose to go in from the water up the beach, sneek around the rocks, come through the trees or burn up in the hummer down the road, that gives it more than one way. I can chose to do one objective before another one, before the allens the levels are very open and are non linear

imprezawrx500

I think a true non-linear title is STALKER. The next one coming up is Far Cry 2. Crysis just feels like a very broad corridor shooter. I mean, Halo is still a corridor shooter in the same vein as Half Life 2, despite having much larger levels.

You can also tackle levels on-foot or on vehicle, thus giving you more options than Half Life 2. But does that make it non-linear?

Crysis just feels like a tenfold version of a linear FPS. Going through level segments primarily took away the non-linear feeling, and objectives came one after the other in the exact same fashion each and every playthrough.

It doesn't make Crysis inherently bad, because it arguably gives it a more cinematic feel. It's almost as if the game is suspended between the two subgenres though.

Crysis gives you plenty of freedom in going about missions for most of the part.

Its a step up from games like Operation Flashpoint and Far Cry.

It is well ahead of many shooters in plenty of respectcs, and is the best FPS this generatio, so far, no question.

It is well ahead of many shooters in plenty of respectcs, and is the best FPS this generatio, so far, no question.

skrat_01

I think STALKER is better than Crysis. At least when that game went linear, it was worthwhile with its creepiness. The A.I was actually really good too.

I think a true non-linear title is STALKER. The next one coming up is Far Cry 2. Crysis just feels like a very broad corridor shooter. I mean, Halo is still a corridor shooter in the same vein as Half Life 2, despite having much larger levels.

You can also tackle levels on-foot or on vehicle, thus giving you more options than Half Life 2. But does that make it non-linear?

Crysis just feels like a tenfold version of a linear FPS. Going through level segments primarily took away the non-linear feeling, and objectives came one after the other in the exact same fashion each and every playthrough.

It doesn't make Crysis inherently bad, because it arguably gives it a more cinematic feel. It's almost as if the game is suspended between the two subgenres though.

FrozenLiquid

Big difference is with Cyrsis you have freedom of choice in doing things and approaching objectics, or traversing maps.

In Halo 3 or Half Life 2, its all pre determined what you do and how you do it. Each time you do it its exactly the same.
This means you can make it more cinematic (ala COD4) as the player is getting throttled the same way each time down a predicted route, but the game gives the player no freedom whatsoever.

Difference is I think Crysis does objective options better than every FPS this gen, including STALKER, mainly because of the the Nanosuits functions and versatility and complimenting A.i. For instance in STALKER stealth is almost an impossiblity, which takes a large chunk out of your options to do things.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

It is well ahead of many shooters in plenty of respectcs, and is the best FPS this generatio, so far, no question.

FrozenLiquid

I think STALKER is better than Crysis. At least when that game went linear, it was worthwhile with its creepiness. The A.I was actually really good too.

STALKER has the best AI I've seen to date in a game. Enemies in that game know the full meaning of 'supress, flank, kill'.

There, you basically agreed that it's one very big corridor shooter.

For instance in STALKER stealth is almost an impossiblity, which takes a large chunk out of your options to do things.

skrat_01

You mean doing stealth the way video games and movies have always told you stealth works, right? ;)

I think stealth works fine in the fashion STALKER plays out. You're not going to go up right behind someone and knife them all the time, but that's the way life goes and its perfectly fine with me; it makes it all that much sweeter when you actually do so.

STALKER has the best AI I've seen to date in a game. Enemies in that game know the full meaning of 'supress, flank, kill'.

Verge_6

Hell yeah. I remember a trio of them coming down the open road, guns at the ready, and when they came close enough to me, they split up and flanked. It was really scary, and since you're not a one man army ready to take them down, it was a very tense fight.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

It is well ahead of many shooters in plenty of respectcs, and is the best FPS this generatio, so far, no question.

FrozenLiquid

I think STALKER is better than Crysis. At least when that game went linear, it was worthwhile with its creepiness. The A.I was actually really good too.

Its different...but even though it does follow the open world and RPG style progression, I wouldn't say its outright a better game at all.

Honestly I dont think its linear was that great at all, due to the overpowered weapons and armour accumulated, and the genuine creepiness was more Doom 3 jump scares towards the end.

Even settings like Pripyat were terribly underutilised.

STALKER has the best AI I've seen to date in a game. Enemies in that game know the full meaning of 'supress, flank, kill'.

Verge_6

But they were very artifical in their behaviour; gun raised, strafe in and out of cover, crouch, repeat ect. Eventually you could work out the a.i. patterns working in the background - but of course they were damn good.

Much more improved in Clear Sky. Combined with animations and audio they are much more like real people.

Hell yeah. I remember a trio of them coming down the open road, guns at the ready, and when they came close enough to me, they split up and flanked. It was really scary, and since you're not a one man army ready to take them down, it was a very tense fight.

FrozenLiquid

well this kind of flanking is there in crysis also.i remmeber 6-7 korean soldiers flanking me and that too using tree to protect them all the time while they were surrounding me

also, in stalker in the later parts you do become a kind of one man army

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

It is well ahead of many shooters in plenty of respectcs, and is the best FPS this generatio, so far, no question.

skrat_01

I think STALKER is better than Crysis. At least when that game went linear, it was worthwhile with its creepiness. The A.I was actually really good too.

Its different...but even though it does follow the open world and RPG style progression, I wouldn't say its outright a better game at all.

Honestly I dont think its linear was that great at all, due to the overpowered weapons and armour accumulated, and the genuine creepiness was more Doom 3 jump scares towards the end.

Even settings like Pripyat were terribly underutilised.

Well I'm going to have to disagree. It was seriously just a damn good game that's worthy to stand in the hall of great sci fi horror. I think the final stages of the game are good, if not at least better than Crysis's, and at least you got good endings instead of a pathetic cliffhanger. As for those weapons, they felt earned rather than being cheap. Remember Crysis's final boss?

"Nomad, use the Deus Ex Machina now!"

"The what, sorry?"

"The TAC cannon, now!"

-

The thing that sealed STALKER for me was definitely the ending, or endings. The first one I got since I wasn't playing very well was the immortality ending. It was just the biggest LOL I'd ever seen in a horror video game; I seriously got ***** slapped in that one. I've only done one of the real endings (I assume there's a few because of the choice of joining the C-Consciousness project) and yeah it was real worthwhile. There's actually way more incentive to play STALKER over and over again because of the different endings.

I wouldn't compare STALKER to Doom 3 though. Anything in that game is creepier than the caricatures in Doom 3. Not to say Doom 3 wasn't scary at first, but everything in the STALKER universe builds upon each other, making everything just that much more weird.

But they were very artifical in their behaviour; gun raised, strafe in and out of cover, crouch, repeat ect. Eventually you could work out the a.i. patterns working in the background - but of course they were damn good.

Much more improved in Clear Sky. Combined with animations and audio they are much more like real people.

skrat_01

It's kinda obvious now you're playing devil's advocate because you wouldn't be quick to point out all the faults of STALKER if it was being compared to any other game ;)

well this kind of flanking is there in crysis also.i remmeber 6-7 korean soldiers flanking me and that too using tree to protect them all the time while they were surrounding me

also, in stalker in the later parts you do become a kind of one man army

naval

If there was, I didn't see it, or I didn't see it being used purposefully. I just saw the A.I stumble from one place to another. Glitchy, buggy, disgusting. Though the NKA segments were much better in hindsight than the later levels, I sorta admired the simplicity of the aliens in the later segments. I felt the human A.I was just too complex for its own good, and figuratively speaking kept tripping up over themselves.

-

STALKER's one-man army happened at the end. In the beginning, when you're only armed with a "weak" pistol, you really shouldn't be facing off against three armed enemies with rifles. That was really cool.

Well I'm going to have to disagree. It was seriously just a damn good game that's worthy to stand in the hall of great sci fi horror. I think the final stages of the game are good, if not at least better than Crysis's, and at least you got good endings instead of a pathetic cliffhanger. As for those weapons, they felt earned rather than being cheap. Remember Crysis's final boss?

"Nomad, use the Deus Ex Machina now!"

"The what, sorry?"

"The TAC cannon, now!"

-

The thing that sealed STALKER for me was definitely the ending, or endings. The first one I got since I wasn't playing very well was the immortality ending. It was just the biggest LOL I'd ever seen in a horror video game; I seriously got ***** slapped in that one. I've only done one of the real endings (I assume there's a few because of the choice of joining the C-Consciousness project) and yeah it was real worthwhile. There's actually way more incentive to play STALKER over and over again because of the different endings.

I wouldn't compare STALKER to Doom 3 though. Anything in that game is creepier than the caricatures in Doom 3. Not to say Doom 3 wasn't scary at first, but everything in the STALKER universe builds upon each other, making everything just that much more weird.

FrozenLiquid

However weapons felt earned? Initially yes, however once you find a G36 you are pretty much unstoppable, with no sense of achievement. It was what i'd call bioshock syndrome, you are so chock full of medipacks, bandages, ammo, overpowered guns, artifacts and an uber suit to boot, nothing is really that threating, and survival + challenge really went down the drain. Clear Sky from what I have played overcomes this, but damn it bought down stalker.

I got the real endings, though a friend got the 'money' one from cash hoarding, though I ended up YouTubing the rest.

Yeah Crysis's 'cliffhanger' was pretty poot. I cant say that the final battle was not epic... Because it was pretty phenominal fighting the hunter on the deck, than have the battle ship rise up over the side, dwarfing everything. It was fairly easy indeed (if anything more like an interactive cutscene than 'battle', like other games out there), and the final scene of the carrier going under was amazing (destroyed COD4s first level ending). However the game just cut short Halo 2 style, which is inexcusable.

Though I felt the TAC gun had been earned. You first see it, when getting on the carrier - you want it - you destroy the hunter, bigass carrier shows up, then you grab the tac gun. If anything its like a special treat for defeating the hunter.
It was a great moment to utilise the weapon. The only thing that could have been more Epic would be leaping on the ship Shadow the Colossus sty-le'attacking its weak point for massive damage' (then leaping off it onto a waiting vtol), or perhaps duking it out in a Vtol above the carrier (though people seemed to hate the Vtol controls from the earlier mission).

True STALKERs universe is far more creepy, however at the end of the game it relies on similar jump scares like Doom3 (which indeed were initially fantastic but wore off soon-after) - in a corridor crawling fashion. Though in all due respect GSC do do corridoor crawling well.

It's kinda obvious now you're playing devil's advocate because you wouldn't be quick to point out all the faults of STALKER if it was being compared to any other game ;)

FrozenLiquid

I do think Crysis has the best a.i., and the most realistic a.i - in terms of behaviour. I think STALKER / CS is second best, and when you factor in A-Life im sure on a massive scale you could call it better. Hhowever im focusing on combat, and honestly I think the combat a.i. is a bit artificial.

That and it irrates me that stealth was fundamentally broken in STALKER.

Its the same if you were talking about Half Life 2s A.i. next to a game like FEAR. I'd say FEARs a.i. destroys Half Life 2s Combine and Rebel A.i., but of course that doesent make it a better game.

Its the same if you were talking about Half Life 2s A.i. next to a game like FEAR. I'd say FEARs a.i. destroys Half Life 2s Combine and Rebel A.i., but of course that doesent make it a better game.

skrat_01

Yes, yes it does. Half-Life 2 has nothing going for it other than its combat. All you do in the game is run around and fight stuff in small environments. Sure, the levels are diverse, you get to toss stuff at the enemies and from time to time you are given an environmental puzzle, but really, 95% of HL2 is you shooting stuff. FEAR having much better AI (and better overall core FPS gameplay) makes it the better game, as its combat is superior, and that's pretty much all that you do in both games: shoot stuff.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Its the same if you were talking about Half Life 2s A.i. next to a game like FEAR. I'd say FEARs a.i. destroys Half Life 2s Combine and Rebel A.i., but of course that doesent make it a better game.

ReddestSkies

Yes, yes it does. Half-Life 2 has nothing going for it other than its combat. All you do in the game is run around and fight stuff in small environments. Sure, the levels are diverse, you get to toss stuff at the enemies and from time to time you are given an environmental puzzle, but really, 95% of HL2 is you shooting stuff. FEAR having much better AI (and better overall core FPS gameplay) makes it the better game, as its combat is superior, and that's pretty much all that you do in both games: shoot stuff.

Half Life has got more going for it than every other FPS out there.

Solid combat, diverse variety of enemies that change gameplay style, array of diverse environments that are interesting to explore and are impeccably designed despite the linear nature, great story backed by sublime storytelling, and plenty of fantastic scripted sequence, use of technology and of course great overral game design, and mechanics.

FEAR has awesome combat, great tech and good scares. That about it really. It is a good shooter; well paced, fantastic a.i. great 'over the top' (in vein of movies like Hard Boiled and The Matrix) combat - however thats really the best thing it has going for it.

FEARs environments are more confined then Half Lifes, they lack any variety (all being poorly lit warehouses, offices, or abandoned hospital / lab-thing) and is also quite simplistic at times, the variety of enemies is poor, and enemies like the 'inviso Ninjas' are terrribly underutilised, the story telling is poor - story progression is non existent; its essentially a start, then end.

If you think the shooting, even if an FPS make a game better than another, then you really need to take a step back and actually look at the games as a freaking whole.

By that logic the FPS genre wouldn't have evolved past Wolf 3D in anything exept 'shooting stuff'. It doesn't take a beat to realise that there is much more to even a shooter when you look beyond a simple facade that is killing things on screen.

Killzone 2 will make crysis look and feel last gen.McdonaIdsGuy

how?

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Its the same if you were talking about Half Life 2s A.i. next to a game like FEAR. I'd say FEARs a.i. destroys Half Life 2s Combine and Rebel A.i., but of course that doesent make it a better game.

skrat_01

Yes, yes it does. Half-Life 2 has nothing going for it other than its combat. All you do in the game is run around and fight stuff in small environments. Sure, the levels are diverse, you get to toss stuff at the enemies and from time to time you are given an environmental puzzle, but really, 95% of HL2 is you shooting stuff. FEAR having much better AI (and better overall core FPS gameplay) makes it the better game, as its combat is superior, and that's pretty much all that you do in both games: shoot stuff.

Half Life has got more going for it than every other FPS out there.

Solid combat, diverse variety of enemies that change gameplay style, array of diverse environments that are interesting to explore and are impeccably designed despite the linear nature, great story backed by sublime storytelling, and plenty of fantastic scripted sequence, use of technology and of course great overral game design, and mechanics.

FEAR has awesome combat, great tech and good scares. That about it really. It is a good shooter; well paced, fantastic a.i. great 'over the top' (in vein of movies like Hard Boiled and The Matrix) combat - however thats really the best thing it has going for it.

FEARs environments are more confined then Half Lifes, they lack any variety (all being poorly lit warehouses, offices, or abandoned hospital / lab-thing) and is also quite simplistic at times, the variety of enemies is poor, and enemies like the 'inviso Ninjas' are terrribly underutilised, the story telling is poor - story progression is non existent; its essentially a start, then end.

If you think the shooting, even if an FPS make a game better than another, then you really need to take a step back and actually look at the games as a freaking whole.

By that logic the FPS genre wouldn't have evolved past Wolf 3D in anything exept 'shooting stuff'. It doesn't take a beat to realise that there is much more to even a shooter when you look beyond a simple facade that is killing things on screen.

Half-Life 2 has a story?

No, really. It has a story? I must have blinked and missed it. It has an amazing atmosphere, sure. It has a fairly interesting setting, sure. The actual "story" that is being told in the game can be detailled in one sentence, though. To say that it is"great" is to spit in the face of people who actually try hard and include deep, interesting stories in their games (just think of the adventure genre: play The Longest Journey and then come back and dare say that HL2's story is anything better than bearable).

It's surprising that you think that FEAR had a bad one, too. For one, the storytelling is awesome (for a FPS). It uses flashbacks, actual events, radio reports, phone messages really well, and the dialogues, while few, aren't too bad. The plot is interesting and fairly original. The story as a whole isn't deep enough to be considered as a truly great one, but it sure is much better than HL2's.

Really, both games are entirely about shooting stuff. HL2 has variety but a clear lack of quality in its core gameplay, while FEAR has amazing core gameplay with a clear lack of variety. The latter is the better game overall, though, as both games are so obviously entirely about combat.

Oh, and I just couldn't let that slip. Did you say that HL2's environments were interesting to explore? You mean, take two steps, looks around, hit a wall and say "well that was interesting!"? They are small, insanely linear, contain no incentive to actually look for anything in them (no hidden documents ala NOLF2, no phone messages ala FEAR, hell, not even powerups or powerful weapons). They are just there, really, but there's nothing of interest in them: they're just pretty backgrounds for you to fight in. There is no exploration in HL2, who are you kidding?

Half-Life 2 has a story?

No, really. It has a story? I must have blinked and missed it. It has an amazing atmosphere, sure. It has a fairly interesting setting, sure. The actual "story" that is being told in the game can be detailled in one sentence, though. To say that it is"great" is to spit in the face of people who actually try hard and include deep, interesting stories in their games (just think of the adventure genre: play The Longest Journey and then come back and dare say that HL2's story is anything better than bearable).

It's surprising that you think that FEAR had a bad one, too. For one, the storytelling is awesome (for a FPS). It uses flashbacks, actual events, radio reports, phone messages really well, and the dialogues, while few, aren't too bad. The plot is interesting and fairly original. The story as a whole isn't deep enough to be considered as a truly great one, but it sure is much better than HL2's.

Really, both games are entirely about shooting stuff. HL2 has variety but a clear lack of quality in its core gameplay, while FEAR has amazing core gameplay with a clear lack of variety. The latter is the better game overall, though, as both games are so obviously entirely about combat.

Oh, and I just couldn't let that slip. Did you say that HL2's environments were interesting to explore? You mean, take two steps, looks around, hit a wall and say "well that was interesting!"? They are small, insanely linear, contain no incentive to actually look for anything in them (no hidden documents ala NOLF2, no phone messages ala FEAR, hell, not even powerups or powerful weapons). They are just there, really, but there's nothing of interest in them: they're just pretty backgrounds for you to fight in. There is no exploration in HL2, who are you kidding?

ReddestSkies

Of course there are loads of other games out there that have a much better story on pen and paper. That doesnt make it a better story for a video game however, and along side first person shooters, Half Life has always done it impeccably.

Which brings me on to FEAR. Its not how you do story telling in its style of game. Yes FEARs story had an interesting premisis, and the whole plot twist is cool, however its story telling is terrible. Stuff like the radios, phone messages, did not suit its game pacing or gameplay. In a slow paced, survival horror themed game like System Shock 2 yes, in a game thats biggest asset is over the top combat, hell no.

Which is why its story is knowhere near as good as HL2s. Not even comparable. Its interesting on paper, but lacks everything that made HL2s such a fantastic story.

Even playwrights like Shakespeare have simple stories on paper, its how they are written and executed that makes them so fantastic. Im not saying HL2 is comparable to it, but what I am saying is HL2 is like effing Shakespeare compared to FEAR in terms of story, which is not due to a pen and paper synopsis. You would be missing the point entirely.

I wouldn't say Half Life has a lack of quality in its core gameplay at all. HL has never been entirely about combat, you are missing the point on why the HL series is heralded as one of the best / revolutionary shooters (and most influential of the modern FPS)in general.

FEARs core gameplay shooting is so drawn out and worn down and depended on it makes the game lack variety. The devs never took the core gameplay and shook it up, like Valve did with HL, throwing it into a variety of environmental situations or circumstances.

Saying FEAR is the better game overall is absurd beyond beleif. Sure there is nothing wrong with liking FEAR more at all... but a better game? Yikes.

Obviously you never even bothered looking around HLs environments (im guessing thats why FEARs bland environments lacking and unique characteristics didnt make an impact on you?). Small details like graffiti on the walls in areas can speak volumes and the setting (take the Combine 'evolution' graffiti'), or exploring parts off the main linear path (like the red barn in the canals) and seeing the extent of the Combines brutality (or burning bodies outside a house stormed by combine soldiers in highway 17). Even something as simple as a the rotted corpse of a man in a louge chair with a shotgun on his lap, in a confined room with two boarded doors, surrounded by zombies on the other side, does massive amounts to draw you into the setting, and pushes the environmental impact further.

Its entirely different to that of NOLF1 or 2, and far more effective than something like FEAR. If you think HL2 just had 'pretty backgrounds that you fight in' as environments then i'd be questioning your judgement than the game itself.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with not liking HL2, or rathering games over it. But when you make statements that far from the truth about the game, or juding games in comparison then its a problem.

A story is not just a pen and paper summary, its everything around HL2s story, the storytelling, the enviroments, the atmosphere, the characters, the details, and the tech pulling the strings that makes it so great and memorable.

Of course there are loads of other games out there that have a much better story on pen and paper. That doesnt make it a better story for a video game however, and along side first person shooters, Half Life has always done it impeccably.skrat_01

What exactly is a good story "for a video game"? There is a difference between "story" and "storytelling". HL2 has fairly good storytelling, but no story to speak of, and the reason for that is simple: the developers didn't want to include a decent amount of dialogue in the game, because while you are speaking to someone, you are not shooting stuff.

And did you just imply that HL2 had characters that contributed to making its story great and memorable? I mean, really? Invincible women, generic scientists and rebels, and standard loving 1-dimensional father figures, all of whom were given, oh, a good 2 lines of dialogue each throughout the whole game?

Which brings me on to FEAR. Its not how you do story telling in its style of game. Yes FEARs story had an interesting premisis, and the whole plot twist is cool, however its story telling is terrible. Stuff like the radios, phone messages, did not suit its game pacing or gameplay. In a slow paced, survival horror themed game like System Shock 2 yes, in a game thats biggest asset is over the top combat, hell no. skrat_01

This is a ridiculous statement. Do you expect a game like FEAR to be entirely made of non-stop action from start to finish? From the first second to the last, always having enemies in your face for you to shoot? The storytelling helped pacing the game, slowing it down a bit and giving you breaks from the action.

Which is why its story is knowhere near as good as HL2s. Not even comparable. Its interesting on paper, but lacks everything that made HL2s such a fantastic story.

Even playwrights like Shakespeare have simple stories on paper, its how they are written and executed that makes them so fantastic. Im not saying HL2 is comparable to it, but what I am saying is HL2 is like effing Shakespeare compared to FEAR in terms of story, which is not due to a pen and paper synopsis. You would be missing the point entirely.skrat_01

The thing is that, while the actual plot of those plays isn't really deep, the characters are actually developed and interesting, and that is where the interest in their stories come from. Half-Life 2's characters are as generic and boring as they get, they are given very little dialogue and personality and they are, overall, terrible. FEAR's characters are pretty bad, too, and that is one of the reasons why I don't consider its story to be good either.

I wouldn't say Half Life has a lack of quality in its core gameplay at all. HL has never been entirely about combat, you are missing the point on why the HL series is heralded as one of the best / revolutionary shooters (and most influential of the modern FPS)in general.skrat_01

Oh please. HL2's AI is horrendous. It's worse than that of its predecessor. The combat is simplistic and obvious, and without variety, HL2 would be awful. The enemies basically just stand there and take it, the weapons are generic and uninteresting and the game is just insanely easy. I don't think I died even once in HL2: Episode 1 and 2. And why is that invincible woman following me around, hogging all my enemies and tanking her way through everything that poses a threat?

The game is, however, all about combat. That's all you do in it, really. Sure, it has combat variety so that you don't get bored by the average core gameplay, but really, all you do in the game is fight stuff. Shoot stuff on foot, shoot stuff in vehicles, throw stuff at enemies, shoot stuff while being helped by an invincible woman, etc. That variety is welcome, but it doesn't somehow make the game anything other than just another first-person shooter.

The HL series is praised mostly because Half-Life 1 was actually an awesome FPS with great core gameplay and amazing atmosphere. HL2 doesn't deserve a third of the praise that it receives, and it basically is only being called "revolutionary" because of the sheep attitude that mainstream gamers take towards hyped games.

FEARs core gameplay shooting is so drawn out and worn down and depended on it makes the game lack variety. The devs never took the core gameplay and shook it up, like Valve did with HL, throwing it into a variety of environmental situations or circumstances.skrat_01

But the thing is that FEAR's core gameplay is actually amazing, and was hands down the best core FPS gameplay for a single player game when it came out. HL2 couldn't even beat 6 years old predecessor in that area.

Saying HL2 is the better game overall is absurd beyond beleif. Sure there is nothing wrong with liking HL2 more at all... but a better game? Yikes.skrat_01

Fixed.

Obviously you never even bothered looking around HLs environments (im guessing thats why FEARs bland environments lacking and unique characteristics didnt make an impact on you?). Small details like graffiti on the walls in areas can speak volumes and the setting (take the Combine 'evolution' graffiti'), or exploring parts off the main linear path (like the red barn in the canals) and seeing the extent of the Combines brutality (or burning bodies outside a house stormed by combine soldiers in highway 17). Even something as simple as a the rotted corpse of a man in a louge chair with a shotgun on his lap, in a confined room with two boarded doors, surrounded by zombies on the other side, does massive amounts to draw you into the setting, and pushes the environmental impact further.

Its entirely different to that of NOLF1 or 2, and far more effective than something like FEAR. If you think HL2 just had 'pretty backgrounds that you fight in' as environments then i'd be questioning your judgement than the game itself.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with not liking HL2, or rathering games over it. But when you make statements that far from the truth about the game, or juding games in comparison then its a problem.

skrat_01

Except for the occasional small details, all of those things are super obvious and you just stumbled upon them without actually "exploring". Walking into a room and seeing a corpse in the middle of it is not "exploration". The game does have great attention to detail, I'll give it that.

What exactly is a good story "for a video game"? There is a difference between "story" and "storytelling". HL2 has fairly good storytelling, but no story to speak of, and the reason for that is simple: the developers didn't want to include a decent amount of dialogue in the game, because while you are speaking to someone, you are not shooting stuff.

And did you just imply that HL2 had characters that contributed to making its story great and memorable? I mean, really? Invincible women, generic scientists and rebels, and standard loving 1-dimensional father figures, all of whom were given, oh, a good 2 lines of dialogue each throughout the whole game?

ReddestSkies

Story and storytelling are vital together. Half Lifes storytelling is much stronger than its basic premises, and it does an extremely impressive job in showing compelling characters. Call them what you like, but virtual actors of the likes are well ahead of anything in the genre, and extremely progressive in gaming itself. Hence the critical praise, and acknowledgement.

On the crux of the story there is still loads to be covered / answered, which has always been the weakness of the series, as its left shrouded in mystery.

This is a ridiculous statement. Do you expect a game like FEAR to be entirely made of non-stop action from start to finish? From the first second to the last, always having enemies in your face for you to shoot? The storytelling helped pacing the game, slowing it down a bit and giving you breaks from the action.

ReddestSkies

The storytelling was pathetic.

Walking rummaging through offices after an intense shootout, only to hit an answering machine button, and have to sit there listing to boring dailouge for a minute (or sometimes hear random conversations irrelevant to the story) is terrible story telling.

It doesent help pacing, it breaks it completely. It is an action game, its about using the right methods at the right time. FEAR didnt. It would hit the mark, then throw the big book of storytelling out the window, which is why the story became almost irrelivant to the action more nearly all the game, more like an excuse to go between equally uninstersting locations.

If the game was to slow down the pacing to tell story, you dont do it by having the player stand in an office, listing to a answering machine to understand what is going on, while they roundhouse kick objects off tables for amusement.

The thing is that, while the actual plot of those plays isn't really deep, the characters are actually developed and interesting, and that is where the interest in their stories come from. Half-Life 2's characters are as generic and boring as they get, they are given very little dialogue and personality and they are, overall, terrible. FEAR's characters are pretty bad, too, and that is one of the reasons why I don't consider its story to be good either.ReddestSkies

Thats lovely that you think that way about the characters.

I dont agree.

I think some of the characters are compelling, while others are purposley utilised for comic relief or a familiar face ect.

Oh please. HL2's AI is horrendous. It's worse than that of its predecessor. The combat is simplistic and obvious, and without variety, HL2 would be awful. The enemies basically just stand there and take it, the weapons are generic and uninteresting and the game is just insanely easy. I don't think I died even once in HL2: Episode 1 and 2. And why is that invincible woman following me around, hogging all my enemies and tanking her way through everything that poses a threat?

The game is, however, all about combat. That's all you do in it, really. Sure, it has combat variety so that you don't get bored by the average core gameplay, but really, all you do in the game is fight stuff. Shoot stuff on foot, shoot stuff in vehicles, throw stuff at enemies, shoot stuff while being helped by an invincible woman, etc. That variety is welcome, but it doesn't somehow make the game anything other than just another first-person shooter.

The HL series is praised mostly because Half-Life 1 was actually an awesome FPS with great core gameplay and amazing atmosphere. HL2 doesn't deserve a third of the praise that it receives, and it basically is only being called "revolutionary" because of the sheep attitude that mainstream gamers take towards hyped games.

ReddestSkies

What has this got to do with a.i?
Yes HL2s combine A.i. isnt great. At its release it was 'ok' and thats just about it. It does what normal a.i. does. (The Synth A.i. like striders though, or Hunters is impressive).
Invincible Woman? Well now you would be stretching it as the 'invincible woman' can die (ending the game - does not have unlimited 'respawns' like lets say the Ariber from Halo 3. Too easy? Its difficulty (on whatever settings) didnt suit your tastes, so?

The game has always been about navigating the enviroment, just as much as shooting an object.Situations, enviroments, enemies and combat focus is thrown around in multiple varieties which keeps the core gameplay interesting.
Hence why you have direct opposites from Raven Holm to hunting Striders. Its still 'shooting stuff' but its sure as hell not shooting the same clones in the same rooms, with the same weapons, like FEAR (again, and again, and again, and again,)

HL2 was not revolutionary from a game design perspective. You could argue its use of physics in a meaningful way, and in game expressions of virtual actors, but thats about it. Its an extrememly well designed and polished shooter.

IT got massive amounts of praise for being a top notch shooter. Which it is.

But the thing is that FEAR's core gameplay is actually amazing, and was hands down the best core FPS gameplay for a single player game when it came out. HL2 couldn't even beat 6 years old predecessor in that area.

ReddestSkies

No its shooting mechanics were very good.

Its gameplay was repetitive and drawn out.

Fixed.

ReddestSkies

Its quite clear HL2 is a better game than FEAR. If an objective side by side comparison doesn't cut it, then look at critical opinion and the accolades the title has received.

Except for the occasional small details, all of those things are super obvious and you just stumbled upon them without actually "exploring". Walking into a room and seeing a corpse in the middle of it is not "exploration". The game does have great attention to detail, I'll give it that.

ReddestSkies

Its not simply a "pretty background that you fight in"

Its meaningful. And if you miss the point entirely then you must not 'get' the game.

I don't think Hl2 has particulary good story, it does however (especialy Episode2) have by far the best storytelling ever in videogame, so incredible it's a bit sad it's used for such average story. Altough really...what FPS truly had a good story? NOLF 1-2, DeusEx, SystemShock and STALKER...and that's bassicaly it. Aside from that there are those with decent story like HL2, Undying, Halo or Chaser, but that's pretty much itAdrianWerner

Though STALKER having a notably good story? I guess, its a pity the story isn't fleshed out in game enough. Though it does have Roadside Picnic and Tarkovsky's film as the core basis. I guess its hard do because of its free form structure, even if it has very linear progresson.

Story and storytelling are vital together. Half Lifes storytelling is much stronger than its basic premises, and it does an extremely impressive job in showing compelling characters. Call them what you like, but virtual actors of the likes are well ahead of anything in the genre, and extremely progressive in gaming itself. Hence the critical praise, and acknowledgement.

On the crux of the story there is still loads to be covered / answered, which has always been the weakness of the series, as its left shrouded in mystery.skrat_01

One is necessary for the other to exist, but they can't be considered as the same thing.

How exactly are the characters advanced at all? I mean, they have facial expressions every now and then, but that's as far as the game goes. They have no personality whatsoever and are insanely generic.

The storytelling was pathetic.

Walking rummaging through offices after an intense shootout, only to hit an answering machine button, and have to sit there listing to boring dailouge for a minute (or sometimes hear random conversations irrelevant to the story) is terrible story telling.

It doesent help pacing, it breaks it completely. It is an action game, its about using the right methods at the right time. FEAR didnt. It would hit the mark, then throw the big book of storytelling out the window, which is why the story became almost irrelivant to the action more nearly all the game, more like an excuse to go between equally uninstersting locations.

If the game was to slow down the pacing to tell story, you dont do it by having the player stand in an office, listing to a answering machine to understand what is going on, while they roundhouse kick objects off tables for amusement.

skrat_01

Breaking the pacing is important in a game like that, or else the player just ends up playing in very short bursts, doing other things in real life and then coming back for more short bursts of action. Most people just physically sit there and engage in fast-paced action for hours.

The messages aren't even long in the first place and you didn't even have to listen to them. They convey the backstory of the company and add details about the agendas of the people running it, but they aren't necessary to understand the plot. They are a great storytelling tool if you enjoy a change of pace, and if you don't, you can just ignore them and move on.

Thats lovely that you think that way about the characters.

I dont agree.

I think some of the characters are compelling, while others are purposley utilised for comic relief or a familiar face ect.skrat_01

For all the 30 seconds of screen time that each character gets?

What has this got to do with a.i?

Yes HL2s combine A.i. isnt great. At its release it was 'ok' and thats just about it. It does what normal a.i. does. (The Synth A.i. like striders though, or Hunters is impressive).
Invincible Woman? Well now you would be stretching it as the 'invincible woman' can die (ending the game - does not have unlimited 'respawns' like lets say the Ariber from Halo 3. Too easy? Its difficulty (on whatever settings) didnt suit your tastes, so?

The game has always been about navigating the enviroment, just as much as shooting an object.Situations, enviroments, enemies and combat focus is thrown around in multiple varieties which keeps the core gameplay interesting.
Hence why you have direct opposites from Raven Holm to hunting Striders. Its still 'shooting stuff' but its sure as hell not shooting the same clones in the same rooms, with the same weapons, like FEAR (again, and again, and again, and again,)

HL2 was not revolutionary from a game design perspective. You could argue its use of physics in a meaningful way, and in game expressions of virtual actors, but thats about it. Its an extrememly well designed and polished shooter.

IT got massive amounts of praise for being a top notch shooter. Which it is.skrat_01

Alyx can die? I remember actually letting her fight a whole bunch of enemies by herself while I stood back and watched. Firstly, her AI is terrible and she just stands there and lets the enemies hit her endlessly. Secondly, she took them all out (~20 ant lions) while taking a huge amount of damage without dying. Either she is invincible, or she has an insane amount of health, so much that her mere presence means that the game just got a whole lot easier and stupider.

Believe it or not, a game that is based on combat where you never die is a pretty lousy concept.

I agree that HL2's strength is variety, but yes, like you said, "it's still shooting stuff".

HL2 is a pretty good game, but it's nowhere near the top of the genre, especially now that the likes of STALKER, Crysis and FEAR are out. It certainly doesn't deserve the "best FPS ever!" praise that it is receiving.

*sigh*

No its shooting mechanics were very good.

Its gameplay was repetitive and drawn out.skrat_01

The game threw a very good balance of short, medium and long-range fights at you and it wasn't repetitive at all. Varied? No, but not repetitive either.

Its quite clear HL2 is a better game than FEAR. If an objective side by side comparison doesn't cut it, then look at critical opinion and the accolades the title has received.skrat_01

An objective side-by-side comparison shows me that FEAR clearly wins, and it's not close. I don't care about the opinions of "professional reviewers" and of all those inexperienced gamers on random forums praising it endlessly; sorry to disappoint.

No the corpse example is not exploration, however examples like the barn in the canals is. There are small nooks and crannies in the level design that add that extra detail to the enviroment. You get the impression you are exlporing when you navigating a confined space.

Its not simply a "pretty background that you fight in"

skrat_01

The barn thing is exploration, yes, but it is an exception rather than the rule in HL2, one of the few spots in the game where you can go anywhere other than "forward". There simply is no incentive to examine every inch of a room after you are done fighting. Sure, you'll find a graffiti here, humans remains there, but really, the levels are too restrictive for you to explore them further than simple munition hunting. They are more detailed than, say, Crysis', but they still aren't worth in-depth investigating.

half life 2 has the gravity gun.

crysis you can pick stuff up with your hands...but its not as fast/easy as gravity gun plus you cant throw stuff as far.

half life 2 wins.

Crysis just feels like a tenfold version of a linear FPS. Going through level segments primarily took away the non-linear feeling, and objectives came one after the other in the exact same fashion each and every playthrough.

It doesn't make Crysis inherently bad, because it arguably gives it a more cinematic feel. It's almost as if the game is suspended between the two subgenres though.

FrozenLiquid

*stares at sig*

mmmmm....

... wait a minute.. what was I going to say? uuhh...

OH YEAH.

This quote. I completely agree with and sums up my feelings towards the game. Crysis, especially during the snow levels, reminds me of the original Halo. Big levels. Aliens. Except the difference in Crysis is that the nano suit givesw you a few more options and it is fun as hell to blow up trees and buildings.8)

But I agree, Crysis is linear. It's just beefed up.

One is necessary for the other to exist, but they can't be considered as the same thing.

How exactly are the characters advanced at all? I mean, they have facial expressions every now and then, but that's as far as the game goes. They have no personality whatsoever and are insanely generic.

ReddestSkies

You think they have no personality whatsoever and are insaneley generic. I strongly beg to differ. In the video game realms characters like Alyx are far from having no personality and being generic. The use of the characters in the episodes especially 2 futher solidifies it.

Breaking the pacing is important in a game like that, or else the player just ends up playing in very short bursts, doing other things in real life and then coming back for more short bursts of action. Most people just physically sit there and engage in fast-paced action for hours.

The messages aren't even long in the first place and you didn't even have to listen to them. They convey the backstory of the company and add details about the agendas of the people running it, but they aren't necessary to understand the plot. They are a great storytelling tool if you enjoy a change of pace, and if you don't, you can just ignore them and move on.

ReddestSkies

Problem is the action needs to be slowed. You dont kill it it one felled swoop, its game / level design suicide. You slow down the gameplay and give somthing interesting for the players to participate in, other than shooting at stuff or standing there listing to an answering machine. Play a game like HL2 Ep2 (listen to the commentary) and you get a good example of how pacing is done, and can be done well.

Problem is alot of the information on the answering machines is important on getting that extra layer of story, otherwise the story, and setting (such as enviroments you fight in) become meaningless sets for combat. Another issue is that certain answering machines had nothing interesting (like a guy coplaining about someone or something), and if anything detracts from the story, and makes you want to ignore the other answering machines - resulting in missing story progression all together.

For all the 30 seconds of screen time that each character gets?

ReddestSkies

Sure as hell can pull of great characters in 30 seconds...

Alyx can die? I remember actually letting her fight a whole bunch of enemies by herself while I stood back and watched. Firstly, her AI is terrible and she just stands there and lets the enemies hit her endlessly. Secondly, she took them all out (~20 ant lions) while taking a huge amount of damage without dying. Either she is invincible, or she has an insane amount of health, so much that her mere presence means that the game just got a whole lot easier and stupider.

Believe it or not, a game that is based on combat where you never die is a pretty lousy concept.

I agree that HL2's strength is variety, but yes, like you said, "it's still shooting stuff".

HL2 is a pretty good game, but it's nowhere near the top of the genre, especially now that the likes of STALKER, Crysis and FEAR are out. It certainly doesn't deserve the "best FPS ever!" praise that it is receiving.

ReddestSkies

Yes she can die. Hunters make mince meat out of her. Perhaps you wern't playing it on the right difficulty?
Either way its better off having a character that has more hitpoints than one that dies constantly and requires babysitting. Much better.

You can die in a variety of ways in HL easily. Dont know where you pulled that from.

Its still the best linear first person shooter including the following episodes, it doesent fall into the pitfalls of many shooters out there, and titles like Bioshock which were supposed to surpass it and mark a new breed of linear story driven shooters, didnt do so at all.

I wouldent compare it outright to STALKER or Crysis ouright either.... But I can say it does more right than the two, and is the most compelling shooter still.

The game threw a very good balance of short, medium and long-range fights at you and it wasn't repetitive at all. Varied? No, but not repetitive either.

ReddestSkies

Yes it was repedative. Firefight after firefight in locations similar to eachother. You had the odd mix up, but it was Doom 3 syndrome. If it wasent for the combat being great, it would have been far worse off.

Walk down dark corridor.

Moody or scary stuff.

Clones / enemies.

Kill.

Repeat.

An objective side-by-side comparison shows me that FEAR clearly wins, and it's not close. I don't care about the opinions of "professional reviewers" and of all those inexperienced gamers on random forums praising it endlessly; sorry to disappoint.

ReddestSkies

lol if fear clearly wins in a side by side comparison that is objectve, then obviously your own subjectivity is making an impact.

You dont care about critical opinion, and see your own as being objective. Thats nice, theres no point trying to convince your own sighted-ness., so if you think its better objectivley good for you.

The barn thing is exploration, yes, but it is an exception rather than the rule in HL2, one of the few spots in the game where you can go anywhere other than "forward". There simply is no incentive to examine every inch of a room after you are done fighting. Sure, you'll find a graffiti here, humans remains there, but really, the levels are too restrictive for you to explore them further than simple munition hunting. They are more detailed than, say, Crysis', but they still aren't worth in-depth investigating.

ReddestSkies

Well the game is always trying to push you fowards, due to its linear nature and pacing, but for players who do want to look at their surroundings and be inquisitive, Valve always keeps things interesting.

The only other games to really pull it off are STALKER and Bioshock with interesting details to reward the players interest, most other shooters dont bother at all.