Gersen
Educated
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 17
The biggest difference between HL1 and HL2 can be summarized in terms of level design.
HL1 levels were still the main element of its gameplay: just like every other old school doom-like, exploring and fighting against the environment was the central aspect in the game.
But what differed with other shooters of its time was the presentation: instead of just having keys and opening doors, you had scripts that made things look different. But in essence, the gameplay remained the same.
A good example of this is the 'Blast pit' level: it follows the traditional fps structure of finding elements and fighting through the level to pass through the pit. Only difference is that instead of opening a door, a script is used to blast the tentacles in the way. The script does not alter the gameplay, just its presentation.
Another example is the focus HL1 put on IA: it doesn't change the nature of combat, but made things a bit more interesting.
Meanwhile, in HL2 the gameplay had changed its nature to the script-centric approach we all know as decline. The levels were just used as tools to throw in various gameplay elements (vehicles, gravity gun, arenas, puzzles, cut-scenes, etc.), and they were not the game anymore. Most of the time, exploring the levels in HL2 is like walking in a soulless corridor that will lead you to the next attraction (there are exceptions, Ravenholm is one of them).
I still think the HL games are overrated. HL2 isn't a good game to begin with, it had excellent art direction and 3d engine, but sadly that's all it had. On the other hand, HL1 was a great game, but not as revolutionary as we may think: it just did the FPS thing very well.
In terms of FPS, I think we can date the decline back to 2002 with the release of Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. That thing was the first FPS that put immersion above gameplay, destroying level design and traditional FPS as a result.
HL1 levels were still the main element of its gameplay: just like every other old school doom-like, exploring and fighting against the environment was the central aspect in the game.
But what differed with other shooters of its time was the presentation: instead of just having keys and opening doors, you had scripts that made things look different. But in essence, the gameplay remained the same.
A good example of this is the 'Blast pit' level: it follows the traditional fps structure of finding elements and fighting through the level to pass through the pit. Only difference is that instead of opening a door, a script is used to blast the tentacles in the way. The script does not alter the gameplay, just its presentation.
Another example is the focus HL1 put on IA: it doesn't change the nature of combat, but made things a bit more interesting.
Meanwhile, in HL2 the gameplay had changed its nature to the script-centric approach we all know as decline. The levels were just used as tools to throw in various gameplay elements (vehicles, gravity gun, arenas, puzzles, cut-scenes, etc.), and they were not the game anymore. Most of the time, exploring the levels in HL2 is like walking in a soulless corridor that will lead you to the next attraction (there are exceptions, Ravenholm is one of them).
I still think the HL games are overrated. HL2 isn't a good game to begin with, it had excellent art direction and 3d engine, but sadly that's all it had. On the other hand, HL1 was a great game, but not as revolutionary as we may think: it just did the FPS thing very well.
In terms of FPS, I think we can date the decline back to 2002 with the release of Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. That thing was the first FPS that put immersion above gameplay, destroying level design and traditional FPS as a result.
