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

No infinite spawn lines.lowe0

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="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.

Stringerboy

Why do you say that?

[QUOTE="Stringerboy"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] I know. But we're talking about Half-Life 2, which did not have awesome gunplay, even at the time of release.DarkLink77

Why do you say that?

Its hard to say its better considering how different it is. Both are FPS games that put a focus on immersion, but they are WAY too different.

There are things I like better in both games though. In CoD I know the AI is better (though to be fair, HL2's AI wasn't that great even by 2004 standards) and I enjoy the faster pacing. HL2 on the other hand, has a better story (to me) and I relate more to the main character then to any of the bland soldier grunts in every other FPS game, while you can also find a bit more variety courtesy of the Sci-Fi setting and the freedom it allows.

It's really not. HL2 is really boring, and the story and characterization it's so often praised for didn't really wow me. Someone brung up the fact it was released in 2004 and still competed with current gen shooters, which is funny because I think HL2 and CoD are completely outclassed by Perfect Dark on the N64.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

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.

Ly_the_Fairy

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.

DNF is a great FPS. It's one of the best I've played this gen.

Half-Life 2 was aboring game.It's puzzle sectionsare more appropriate ina horror game likePenumbra.

I like it better because there is very little, if any, weapon recoil (the only weapn i can think of that has recoil is the revolver). When you move it is like a camera moving and I also like how the guns moves when we look in different directions.

half life is boring

COD is the Wii Sports of shooters. It's cutscene and set piece heavy to attract all the non-gamers. It lasts about 3 hours, maybe 5 if you go on the highest difficulty setting. I find the gunplay in COD not that great. Enemies are mindless. There's almost no strategy at all because the levels are so narrow. The pacing overall is horrendous. Sure it's sweet to start a game at a 10 but it stays there which would be fine if you weren't doing the exact same thing over and over again (except change settings). Lastly, the stories are brutal and feel disconnected. There's only so much narrow path driving or shoot slow tank or shoot from helicopter sequences I can handle.

Half-Life 2. I prefer the gunplay. Sure the pistol feels weak, but all the other weapons feel fine to me. Ammo and health are hard to come by. Tons of environmental puzzles. Excellent pacing. Big boss fights and shoot outs. Tons of strategy because the levels are so large. The story many find weak, but I find it intriguing. The G-Man haunts me as a I play the game. The driving sequences are great. The story is told through the game, not heavy cutscenes. You play as one character which is always a good thing. It's constantly different.

From a multi-player perspective, if you ask me, Counter-Strike Source despite it's age is still a better experience than COD's multiplayer.

[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.

DarkLink77

COD is the Wii Sports of shooters. It's cutscene and set piece heavy to attract all the non-gamers. It lasts about 3 hours, maybe 5 if you go on the highest difficulty setting. I find the gunplay in COD not that great. Enemies are mindless. There's almost no strategy at all because the levels are so narrow. The pacing overall is horrendous. Sure it's sweet to start a game at a 10 but it stays there which would be fine if you weren't doing the exact same thing over and over again (except change settings). Lastly, the stories are brutal and feel disconnected. There's only so much narrow path driving or shoot slow tank or shoot from helicopter sequences I can handle.

Half-Life 2. I prefer the gunplay. Sure the pistol feels weak, but all the other weapons feel fine to me. Ammo and health are hard to come by. Tons of environmental puzzles. Excellent pacing. Big boss fights and shoot outs. Tons of strategy because the levels are so large. The story many find weak, but I find it intriguing. The G-Man haunts me as a I play the game. The driving sequences are great. The story is told through the game, not heavy cutscenes. You play as one character which is always a good thing. It's constantly different.

From a multi-player perspective, if you ask me, Counter-Strike Source despite it's age is still a better experience than COD's multiplayer.

sonic_spark

I doubt you could beat any cod game on veteran in five hours. Nice exxageration though. Half Life 2 is just overhyped. If COD is the Wii Sports of shooters, than Half Life 2 is the hipster game of shooters. Seriously

ITS NOT THAT GOOD

The shooting mechanics are clumsy, the world feels empty (IMHO) and it just gets boring. While I do agree that COD's pacing is not too great, I never got bored before I beat the campaign, and its fun to replay the levels every one in a while

I'd rather play COD than HL2 anyday. And no I'm not a COD fanboy.

HL2 is actually fun to playMonsieurX

and okay, there are ASPECTS of the SHOOTING in Cod that feel better than HL2. but with the puzzles, exploration, weapon variety, physics/gravity gun gameplay, and driving sections HL2 is INFINITELY better gameplay wise. However, thats just the original HL2. HL2 Episode 2 is a HUGE improvement in gamplay over the original game and is easily better than than any of the CoDs

Gravity Gun...

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

spittis

there's tons of variety when you take in the whole package. it has heavy action punctuated with smaller skirmishes, and Highway 17 is an excellent example of giving you the option of stopping and just taking in the dreary atmosphere.

I don't like juggling different weapons with low ammo capacities, but the enemies are interesting to fight and aren't waiting for you to headshot them and advance.

the early levels are pretty slow with the few weapons and enemy types, and the airboat is frustrating. but the middle section of the game consisting of Ravenholm, Highway 17, Sandtrap, Nova Prospekt, and Entaglement together make one of the best single player experiences ever.

Cause Half Life 2 is aesome and well COD is just COD, rehashed.

Gravity Gun

/thread

there's tons of variety when you take in the whole package. it has heavy action punctuated with smaller skirmishes, and Highway 17 is an excellent example of giving you the option of stopping and just taking in the dreary atmosphere.

I don't like juggling different weapons with low ammo capacities, but the enemies are interesting to fight and aren't waiting for you to headshot them and advance.

the early levels are pretty slow with the few weapons and enemy types, and the airboat is frustrating. but the middle section of the game consisting of Ravenholm, Highway 17, Sandtrap, Nova Prospekt, and Entaglement together make one of the best single player experiences ever.

Mordred19

I must have played through the Ravenholm demo they released about a hundred times :P I loved that level so much!

One requires you to think, the other requires you to do the same thing for 5 hours.

One requires you to think, the other requires you to do the same thing for 5 hours.

edinsftw

what thinking is required to play Half Life 2? seriously now... :?

Better weapons, better pacing, better maps and better realized world, better enemy AI, more varied enemies.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

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.

Stringerboy

DNF is a great FPS. It's one of the best I've played this gen.

I sense sarcasm, or rather I hope that I sense sarcasm.

You sense no sarcasm. What you're sensing is my truthful opinion. DNF is one of the best FPSes this gen. Most people are too closed-minded to give it a shot though so they'll never see it.

You sense no sarcasm. What you're sensing is my truthful opinion. DNF is one of the best FPSes this gen. Most people are too closed-minded to give it a shot though so they'll never see it.

ChubbyGuy40

If it were a straight old school shooter, with the ability to carry at least 6 weapons, and creative level design (without the driving sequence and turrets), than it would have ben incredible. Remember the 2001 trailer? Imagine the whole city of New Vegas under attack, with incredible level design, building in which you can enter, slighty linear gameplay so you'll not get lost, but a balance between large & small areas to explore in which there are tons of creative enemies for you to kill. (like the ones shown in the 2001 trailer). That would have ben incredible.

It's a modern shooter trying to act old school, and that's one of the reasons it fail. The Duke character is great though, with cheesy one liners that are amuzing and worthwile.

It isn't. HL2 gunplay is terrible. SilverChimera

Im sick and tired of COD gameplay to be honest, its always the same. push forward, find cover, shoot people , repeat. I will not buy another COD game again. I mean come on how long are you people going to allow yourself to be milked by this game? you buy the game its like 65 bucks total then you get the map pack which is like 20 then u get the next map pack with is like another 20 so the game itself already cost over 100 bucks! then a few months later they release another COD with the same graphics engine, same gameplay just different weapons. COD is done!!!!!!

I would only be willing to compare Call of Duty 1 and Call of Duty 2 to Half Life 2, since those were it's contemporaries. In terms of single player, Half Life 2 obviously has better gameplay. Multiplayer (CSS was HL2's multi) it's really a matter of preference.

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.

StarFire571

the overall gunplay in call of duty is better but, HL2 is an overal better game. If you have a problem about controls and gunplay then dont play the console version.

Greavity gun, co-operation with Alyx, puzzles, variety, no clipping issues and a larger FOV. Those are the highlights. I forgot how much fun that game was...

Call of duty has better shooting. That's it.

Half Life actually has a story. And it's a decent length.

It seems to me that a lot of the people who hate on Half-Life 2 by calling it "boring" are either people who have not played it when it came out or are people who are so used to COD/Halo/Gears type of games where there needs to be constant action for them to be slightly entertained.

Half-Life 2 has a better world than COD, better atmosphere, better pacing, better storytelling, much better characters, better variety of weapons, etc. It does EVERYTHING better than COD except the gunplay which even then I personally did not mind at all. Don't come in expecting constant shooting in HL2 and you won't be dissapointed by it.

It's not.But I still love it.

There is nothing in COD that comes close to taking down Stryders.

It isn't. HL2 gunplay is terrible. SilverChimera

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

15strong

[QUOTE="15strong"]

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

MrSelf-Destruct

If it's "intense" the whole time, "intense" becomes the new normal and the whole game is just mediocre by the standard it set up at the very beginning. Good pacing involves breaking that up for slower segments and then bringing it back up again so the action can remain fresh instead of monotonous.

Gameplay? NO.

Gunplay? Yes.

Two different stlye of gameplay, comparing HL with COd do not make much sense.

I personally think the sp campaing of Hl2 boring as hell, too much driving parts, Ravenholm is annoying, the prison stage is anooying, the beach driving is PAINFUL.. For me Hl1 along with Opposing force and Blue shift are way more fun and intereseting than Hl2 setting.. Black Mesa is cooler than City 17.

And Far Cry (the original from Crytek) has the best single player experience since Hl1. Its better than HL2 and Doom 3 (two direct competitors) and except for the annoying trigens and "throw the monitor trought the window" save system, its a excelenet experience. Jungle/island settings, cool weapons, the cheesy mercenary dialogue and jack carver rants are great and complete the package, that remind us of good'ol action movies from the 80's.I wish we could get more fps games like this.

COD style of single player is too much linear. I can't stand all those scripted scenes, and the history from MW2 and MW1 (so will be MW3) is lame, stupid and dumb. Treyarch do a beterr job with WOW and BO, but its linear as hell too.