State why you think Half Life 2's gameplay is better than COD's

I think Half Life 2's story is better, but to people saying the gameplay is better I HAVE to disagree. Combat in Call of Duty is much better than half life's, everything is just much more fluid. I've beaten half life 2 and all the currently available episodes, and a lot of times the game drags on. Remember those parts in Half Life 2 where you are just driving for what seems hours on end? NOT FUN. Even though COD is meant for someone with the attention span of a walnut, atleast it keeps your attention the whole time.

If anything, the half life 2 shotgun is probably the best sounding shotgun I've used in a video game.

Everything is just much more fluid? No **** its the same thing for what like 6 games now?

Gravity Gun...

And Half-Life is completely different than COD, I don't think you can compare them.

Because I don't care about action heavy corridor shooting where I run behind cover every ten seconds to magically regenerate health

Half Life 2, as a whole, makes me feel like I'm actually on an adventure.

The gunplay in HL2 is questionable sure, but I'm one of those people who like to invent my own achievements for progressing through games, and I had way more fun sniping enemies with a magnum, or only using my crowbar or gravity gun to progress, so it wasn't a problem for me.

COD has terrible pacing. The rachet the intensity up to 11 and keep it their for the entire campaign.

Modern Warfare, Modern Warfrare 2 and Black Ops put together, and their combined SPs are still shorter than HL2's SP.

HL2 also has good pacing, isn't dependant on overly scripted sequences and cheesy cutscenes, has better weapons, great puzzles, more interesting enemies to fight, every single encounter doesn't feel the same, I could go on forever.

I thought HL2 was wack. Another Valve game hyped to hell and back by people who love Valve. I don't know what people see in it. To me it's just another ho-hum first person shooter.

Half-Life 2 has a good story with enjoyable characters, but my goodness, it's the most boring FPS I've ever played.

The[y] rachet the intensity up to 11 and keep it their for the entire campaign.15strong

As they should with any good FPS.

I thought HL2 was wack. Another Valve game hyped to hell and back by people who love Valve. I don't know what people see in it. To me it's just another ho-hum first person shooter.

Pray_to_me

The pacing is much better. It's slower, but it's not insane. Also the firefights aren't a measure of how fast you can hit your ironsites and lock onto your target with the insane levels of autoaim.

There is also an element of puzzle solving and exploration in Half Life 2 that CoD just doesn't have.

Of course they are different games, but Half-Life 2 appeals to me more because of it's more methodical pacing.

It isn't. HL2 gunplay is terrible. SilverChimera

Both are scripted and repetitive, so they're equal.

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"]It isn't. HL2 gunplay is terrible. DarkLink77

The crossbow was quite fun to use :oops:

HL2 is actually fun to playMonsieurX

HL2 is actually fun to playMonsieurX

It's not. The A.I. and level design in Half Life 2 is horrible. Puzzles are ok, and the story is throwaway.

Both games (Singleplayer wise) are pretty mediocre. Both got pretty poor pacing. Though Half-life 2 gunplay is awful. Just awful.

I like the pacing better in Half-Life 2 better than I've liked the pacing in any Call of Duty game since 4. When you're just running forward and shooting and running forward and shooting and running forward and shooting and running forward and shooting for too long you just kind of go into an action trance where you're not really paying attention to what's going on and no matter how "cool" and "badass" the action is it's just normalized by the monotony. That's what I liked about Half-Life 2 and Call of Duty 4 is there was stuff to break up the action so it wasn't just one constant experience extended throughout the whole game.

When HL2 first release > COD4.

I thought HL2 was wack. Another Valve game hyped to hell and back by people who love Valve. I don't know what people see in it. To me it's just another ho-hum first person shooter.

Pray_to_me

Now for a 2004 game wasnt only FAR better than competition , in fact its STILL viable as we speak vs next gen shooters ( assuming HL2 released on PS2 gen). 7 years after and we sit here comparing it to +1 gen games ( 1 gen after HL2 ) ...

In short , HL2 of 2004 was years ahead of what COD4 was into 2007/08 offered to its gen. period.

When HL2 first release > COD.[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]

I thought HL2 was wack. Another Valve game hyped to hell and back by people who love Valve. I don't know what people see in it. To me it's just another ho-hum first person shooter.

AzatiS

I still think HL2 is far better than all of this generation's FPS games (and I actually first played through HL2 in 2008 ) 8)

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]HL2 is actually fun to playspeedfreak48t5p

When Half-Life 2 came out in 2004 we got something called The Source Engine. That has lead to literally millions of hours of gameplay through the countless mods to that engine. Back in 2004 Half-Life 2 was packaged with Counter-Stirke Source and Half-Life 2 Deathmatch with the most basic release, the brozne release. With the silver and gold (bascially collectors editions) you would get other things like Half-Life Source. So you were actually getting Half-Life 2 and CSS, combined packs mroe gameplay than CoD could possibly provide. All for $50 btw.

COD's gunplay is much more engaging. The overall gameplay in Hl2 is better because of the puzzles and gravity gun, but the actual gun battles are some of the worst I've seen

COD's gunplay is much better for obvious reasons. HL2, on the other hand, pretty much excels in every other category. That's what happens when your campaign doesn't rely on stupid Michael Bay setpieces that are awesome the first time through but fall flat later.

Not to mention HL2 isn't 4 minutes long :P

COD puts me to sleep.

Though they both stay in first person, Half Life 2 feels 10X more immersive because they don't take away your control (wheras COD has these laughable first-person sequences, that try and fail to be intense and cinematic).

In Half Life you have to think about where to go.

In COD all you think about is aiming for the head. for 5 hours.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]HL2 is actually fun to playspeedfreak48t5p

The pacing is much better. It's slower, but it's not insane. Also the firefights aren't a measure of how fast you can hit your ironsites and lock onto your target with the insane levels of autoaim.

There is also an element of puzzle solving and exploration in Half Life 2 that CoD just doesn't have.

Of course they are different games, but Half-Life 2 appeals to me more because of it's more methodical pacing.

Wasdie

Well, that covers most of it for me. I also happened to sort of enjoy the vehicle sections, I remember hating the helicopter fight on ps3 but m/kb sort that out.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The pacing is much better. It's slower, but it's not insane. Also the firefights aren't a measure of how fast you can hit your ironsites and lock onto your target with the insane levels of autoaim.

There is also an element of puzzle solving and exploration in Half Life 2 that CoD just doesn't have.

Of course they are different games, but Half-Life 2 appeals to me more because of it's more methodical pacing.

Filthybastrd

Well, that covers most of it for me. I also happened to sort of enjoy the vehicle sections, I remember hating the helicopter fight on ps3 but m/kb sort that out.

I rather enjoyed the driving parts in HL2 myself.

Cool puzzles, awesome enemies, great atmosphere, isn't rehased every year, and lots of other things that I don't feel like typing.

Valve must be really worried by DNF's reception. Apparently platforming that's better than in the Half-Life series due to the fact that you actually see where you step and identical puzzles are somehow bad now.

Modern Warfare, Modern Warfrare 2 and Black Ops put together, and their combined SPs are still shorter than HL2's SP.

HL2 also has good pacing, isn't dependant on overly scripted sequences and cheesy cutscenes, has better weapons, great puzzles, more interesting enemies to fight, every single encounter doesn't feel the same, I could go on forever.

QQabitmoar

Both are scripted and repetitive, so they're equal.

Eurobox

Why has scripted become such a bad thing?

[QUOTE="Eurobox"]

Both are scripted and repetitive, so they're equal.

15strong

Why has scripted become such a bad thing?

I like Half Life 2's gameplay better because it involves more than shooting dudes, and the gunplay feels better.

Dude that game is... nearly 8 years old now, and HL2 isn't known now for its gameplay lol.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]HL2 is actually fun to playspeedfreak48t5p

I love shallow minded gamers who think a game can only be popular off gameplay alone.

Its not the controls and gameplay that make HL the better series.

I love shallow minded gamers who think a game can only be popular off gameplay alone.

Its not the controls and gameplay that make HL the better series.

rasengan2552

Valve must be really worried by DNF's reception. Apparently platforming that's better than in the Half-Life series due to the fact that you actually see where you step and identical puzzles are somehow bad now.

Baranga

No no no.

DNF has lots of things found in other fantastic games, but DNF is a bad game. Seriously I do not think I've played a worse FPS.

Variety. The mechanics of CoD may be better, mostly just because it is newer, but shooting the same boring enemies in the same drab environments gets boring regardless of how well it is executed.meetroid8

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

I love shallow minded gamers who think a game can only be popular off gameplay alone.

Its not the controls and gameplay that make HL the better series.

Stringerboy

Hey know, Half Life 1 had awesome gunplay because it was extremely faced pased and the AI for those marines were amazing.

Half Life 2 was somewhat slower paced, but still just as satisfying.