What makes Half Life 2 so good?

I remember playing it on the Orange Box for PS3 in like... 2007 lol. I never beat it for some reason. It was somewhat entertaining though. Of course, in the upcoming years, I realised that Half Life 3 was like the most anticipated game ever. Today, I got intersted in trying it out again. Problem is.... I have no idea where my disk is lol. I looked up a walkthrough earlier and skimmed up to the part that I got to when I first played it. Thos is kind of unrelated, but i went to about the 1 hour 20 minute point and he was at the part with the motorbike thing riding on the water.... I remmeber it taking me like 10 hours to get to that point! I was thinking it was late in the game lol. I really sucked at videogames back then..... I still kind of do.

Anyway, it seems really interesting compared to games nowadays. Something about it just gives me this old school vibe. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the way the game is structured or the way the story is told? I dunno. I really want to play it again though and hopefully not suck this time.

So what exactly makes this game so praised by gamers?

Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.charizard1605

Why has it aged poorly? 

Back when it came out it was a technical marvel. Now, atmosphere aside (Ravenholm and the bridge walking so good), it's not as amazing. That said, people are hyped for 3 because they want to finish the story, and Valve could do some amazing things with Source 2. Although the Source engine is old now, it was a great and versatile engine so people are excited to see what Valve will include in its successor.tagyhag

May be a dumb question but, but is HL1 crucial to the plot of HL2?

May be a dumb question but, but is HL1 crucial to the plot of HL2?

IcyFlamez96

Not crucial crucial. All you basically need to know is that aliens came into the world to f&ck shit up.

If you want to play it, you should play the Black Mesa mod on Steam cause the original game is incredibly dated.

[QUOTE="IcyFlamez96"]

May be a dumb question but, but is HL1 crucial to the plot of HL2?

tagyhag

Not crucial crucial. All you basically need to know is that aliens came into the world to f&ck shit up.

If you want to play it, you should play the Black Mesa mod on Steam cause the original game is incredibly dated.

Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.charizard1605

Why has it aged poorly? 

 

IcyFlamez96

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.Basinboy

I don't know, I just like spawning a bunch of people and having them fight each other.

I wrote a little review on Half-Life 2 a while ago. Here's why it's so awesome: 

Released in November 2004, Half-Life 2 was met with overwhelming critical acclaim. Praised for its soundtrack, sound, animation, physics, AI, and narrative, the game scored an impressive 39 "Game of the Year" awards. It has been hailed as the "Game of the Decade" and is an all-time PC favourite.

The player follows the story of Gordon Freeman, an underground resistance fighter brought out of stasis to bring down the Combine, a multidimensional empire bent on world domination. As Freeman, the player must fight their way through an array of enemies, including Combine troops, robots, zombie alien headcrabs, etc. 

While some missions require the player to escape or defend, most put Freeman on the offensive, kicking a$$ with crowbars, pistols, machine guns, and, of course, the gravity gun, until climaxing in City 17 with an all-out attack on Combine headquarters.

Being a first-person shooter, the guns in Half-Life 2 are important. Fortunately, they look real, sound real, and shoot great. Additionally, the physics engine makes the kill feel significant.

The icing on the cake is the game's story-telling, which involves concentrated characterization, engaging dialogue, and a plot that reeks of epicness. 

If you've never played Half-Life 2, put it on your bucket list. You'll be happy that you did!

Don't know why people say it has aged poorly I played it again at the start of this year and thought it holds up pretty well. On to the question it was the atmosphere that I loved in it. 

1. Alyx and her amazing ass

2. Amazing support cast (Barney,G-Man,Alyx ect ect)

3. Ravenholm was an amazing lvl

4. The gravity gun

5. Amazing interactions for it's time

Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.charizard1605

Gravity Gun, Ravenholm, Alyx and Freeman (no game ever did a silent protagonist so well, if you ask me).

I love HL2, and while the SW often says it didn't age well and say the shooting and AI is poor, I have no idea what they're talking about.

I'd say this image is relevant.

Well it is my favorite game of all time. First of all, the game design was amazing. It constantly introduces to you to new concepts in an organic way. Also, while the story was not very complex, it was told in an extremely compelling manner. 

... Also for PC it has some of the best mods of all time, but that doesn't apply here.

Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.charizard1605

It holds up greatly especially compared to other games at its time, heck even Half-Life 1 still plays great today. Still beats alot of fps shooters today. 

Don't get why you saying it doesn't hold up very well when some fps have still not caught up to it yet.

Half-Life 2 has great variety one minute your driving a hooverboat along a kennel, the next your fighting zombies using a gravity gun in a spooky setting, theres loads of different places it always keeps fresh. Great level design, and you use the physics of the game world to your advandage, or the enemy will, I could use a empty barrel, but it on the floor and roll it, so I have cover and can move the cover, I can pick up a can of paint then distact a Barnacle with it. The shooting feels tight, and the gravity gun is so fun to use. And don't forget the amazing atmosphear and story telling. 

Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.charizard1605

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.IcyFlamez96

Why has it aged poorly?

The only thing I EVER found impressive about this game was the physics. Needless to say, we have gotten a lot better in that regard after all these years.

Seriously though, some say the story telling is good, but I found it meh. Freeman isn't even a character, he's a lack of one. Another cop-out silent protaginist they want to pretend that you are, yet they still gave him a unique appearance, name, and backstory. Why bother not giving him his own voice then? Even the "silent" nintendo protagonists have voices and can emote with their faces.

Gameplay was long, but not exceptionally fun. Honestly thought it was INCREDIBLY dull. Especially the vechicle sections. Ravenholm was kinda cool, but it's basically zombies. If you are tired of them, it's not much better here. 

And gunplay isn't anything worth writing home about, so the game isn't getting amazing marks for that. It has a gravity gun which was kinda cool to mess around with. That's about it. 

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.bobbetybob

I think he means more like gameplay wise.

It looks good. But the gameplay feels like the year 2000.

In 2004 it was years ahead of everything else on the market. 

It's not a bad game but it's definitely overrated. Shooters like FEAR, Doom 3 that came out around the same time absolutely destroy it. ShoulderOfOrion

FEAR came out a whole year later and Doom 3 is not better than Half-Life 2 by any stretch of the imagination.

The game has just gotten so big and popular over the years that now it's lived long enough to see itself become the bad guy. Everybody now hates on it for whatever reason they came up with.

Gravity Gun.

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"]It's not a bad game but it's definitely overrated. Shooters like FEAR, Doom 3 that came out around the same time absolutely destroy it. Wasdie

FEAR came out a whole year later and Doom 3 is not better than Half-Life 2 by any stretch of the imagination.

The game has just gotten so big and popular over the years that now it's lived long enough to see itself become the bad guy. Everybody now hates on it for whatever reason they came up with.

It was fun to play, had awesome atmosphere, diversity, a good story, fun and creative use of physics, and looked incredible for it's time. Damn, almost 10 years later and the game still looks good!

Doom 3's shooting mechanics are light years ahead. ShoulderOfOrion

Not really. The rest of the game is also very average and their design choices with the flashlight and attempts to make it a horror game were just not very good and it strayed too far from what Doom always tried to do. 

The only thing Doom 3 did well was shadows and lighting. Rest of the game was avergae if not medicore. It's not a bad game, it's just not better than Half-Life 2.

I mean it's been 10 years, most people here didn't play Half-Life 2 until it came out on the Xbox 360 in 2007, by then key parts of Half-Life 2's structure had been copied by other devs and put into their shooters. HL2 had become pretty much the standard on how to pace out a shooter until CoD 4 came along.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"]It's not a bad game but it's definitely overrated. Shooters like FEAR, Doom 3 that came out around the same time absolutely destroy it. ShoulderOfOrion

FEAR came out a whole year later and Doom 3 is not better than Half-Life 2 by any stretch of the imagination.

The game has just gotten so big and popular over the years that now it's lived long enough to see itself become the bad guy. Everybody now hates on it for whatever reason they came up with.

Half life 2 however did just that revolutionize gaming in general not just coming up with a unique shooting mechanic but it involved a lot of enironmental gameplay like facial expressions and physics that all contributed in harmony, when you look at all the factors HL2 did as a whole its obvious who did more, but to claim Doom 3 is better or HL2 better, it's wrong, Both are good but Doom 3 today doesn't hold very well because it cries out more physics and it lacked in that department.

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"][QUOTE="charizard1605"]Hype. It was a technically impressive game that was positively a revelation at the time, but it has not stood the test of time well, and has aged rather poorly. Today, it is all hype with not a whole lot of substance backing it up.speedfog

I think he means more like gameplay wise.

It looks good. But the gameplay feels like the year 2000.

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"]Doom 3's shooting mechanics are light years ahead. Wasdie

Not really. The rest of the game is also very average and their design choices with the flashlight and attempts to make it a horror game were just not very good and it strayed too far from what Doom always tried to do. 

The only thing Doom 3 did well was shadows and lighting. Rest of the game was avergae if not medicore. It's not a bad game, it's just not better than Half-Life 2.

I mean it's been 10 years, most people here didn't play Half-Life 2 until it came out on the Xbox 360 in 2007, by then key parts of Half-Life 2's structure had been copied by other devs and put into their shooters. HL2 had become pretty much the standard on how to pace out a shooter until CoD 4 came along.

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"]Doom 3's shooting mechanics are light years ahead. Wasdie

Not really. The rest of the game is also very average and their design choices with the flashlight and attempts to make it a horror game were just not very good and it strayed too far from what Doom always tried to do. 

The only thing Doom 3 did well was shadows and lighting. Rest of the game was avergae if not medicore. It's not a bad game, it's just not better than Half-Life 2.

I mean it's been 10 years, most people here didn't play Half-Life 2 until it came out on the Xbox 360 in 2007, by then key parts of Half-Life 2's structure had been copied by other devs and put into their shooters. HL2 had become pretty much the standard on how to pace out a shooter until CoD 4 came along.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"]Doom 3's shooting mechanics are light years ahead. ShoulderOfOrion

Not really. The rest of the game is also very average and their design choices with the flashlight and attempts to make it a horror game were just not very good and it strayed too far from what Doom always tried to do. 

The only thing Doom 3 did well was shadows and lighting. Rest of the game was avergae if not medicore. It's not a bad game, it's just not better than Half-Life 2.

I mean it's been 10 years, most people here didn't play Half-Life 2 until it came out on the Xbox 360 in 2007, by then key parts of Half-Life 2's structure had been copied by other devs and put into their shooters. HL2 had become pretty much the standard on how to pace out a shooter until CoD 4 came along.

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Not really. The rest of the game is also very average and their design choices with the flashlight and attempts to make it a horror game were just not very good and it strayed too far from what Doom always tried to do. 

The only thing Doom 3 did well was shadows and lighting. Rest of the game was avergae if not medicore. It's not a bad game, it's just not better than Half-Life 2.

I mean it's been 10 years, most people here didn't play Half-Life 2 until it came out on the Xbox 360 in 2007, by then key parts of Half-Life 2's structure had been copied by other devs and put into their shooters. HL2 had become pretty much the standard on how to pace out a shooter until CoD 4 came along.

bunny569

AI is also way better in Doom 3. ShoulderOfOrion

Now you have to be trolling.

At the least the AI is the exact same in the two. How can the AI be any better in Doom 3 with such simple enemy design?

I haven't beaten it yet, but I've played quite a bit of it and I've really liked what I've played. It seems to hold up relatively fine to me, and I first played it on the Xbox and then started playing it on the 360.

>I remember playing it on the Orange Box for PS3 in like... 2007

>2007

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny

I haven't beaten it yet, but I've played quite a bit of it and I've really liked what I've played. It seems to hold up relatively fine to me, and I first played it on the Xbox and then started playing it on the 360.

Michael0134567

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"]Doom 3's shooting mechanics are light years ahead. Wasdie

Not really. The rest of the game is also very average and their design choices with the flashlight and attempts to make it a horror game were just not very good and it strayed too far from what Doom always tried to do. 

The only thing Doom 3 did well was shadows and lighting. Rest of the game was avergae if not medicore. It's not a bad game, it's just not better than Half-Life 2.

I mean it's been 10 years, most people here didn't play Half-Life 2 until it came out on the Xbox 360 in 2007, by then key parts of Half-Life 2's structure had been copied by other devs and put into their shooters. HL2 had become pretty much the standard on how to pace out a shooter until CoD 4 came along.

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"] AI is also way better in Doom 3. Wasdie

Now you have to be trolling.

At the least the AI is the exact same in the two. How can the AI be any better in Doom 3 with such simple enemy design?

Half Life 2 Ai is some of the best, but the level design holds it back, level design is good in HL2, but it's not good enough that the Ai can take advantage of it, it doesn't help they die in a couple of shots either

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l5SJzr04l24#t=46s

The game has just gotten so big and popular over the years that now it's lived long enough to see itself become the bad guy. Everybody now hates on it for whatever reason they came up with.

Wasdie

Indeed... they may bash it and hate it, but it's still an awesome game that left its mark on the industry, and is a pleasaure to play even today. Same goes for Episodes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VofXcw8AJQ

.

Short answer: Nothing. Half-Life 2 sucks.