Why does everybody like Half Life 2? By STEAMtards.

Click here and disable ads!

The whole problem with shooters today is that they are trying to make intelligent shooters.

Also, Doom, intelligent shooter.

FEAR, Doom 3 and Quake 4 were worse than HL2. FEAR is good in the beginning, but quickly gets old. The level design is pretty shitty too.

I don't get the love for Quake 4 either. A lot of the game is just really fucking boring. The entire game is the definition of mediocrity.

Also, Tech 3 and Tech 4 might be better with all the dynamic lighting stuff, but when depicting outdoor areas they just fail. The source engine pulls off outdoor areas very convincingly (Lost Coast looked especially good). Tech 4 also has that horrible plastic look, it can't make stuff that looks like this. Tech 5 might change all of that, though.

Edit: HL2 was an enjoyable romp.

I just don't find it fun to play extremely repetitive games. The game can have cool weapons, but when the gameplay is basically killing respawning enemies in the small room that you can't leave until you kill all guys that constantly respawn from the same point - for 100th time during the same game - it isn't fun for me.

I like shooters where you have to move forward, preferably in varied non-linear levels, where there are lots of enemies on your way and you just cut through them with a big fucking gun instead of basically standing in a 10m x 10m "arena". Respawn just feels so lame and artificial. Older shooters managed to be fun without all that crap.

If you say so. I replayed it 4 times, I think, so it certainly didn't get old for me

I don't particularly love Q4 either, it has lots of flaws, but I found it to be more enjoyable than hl2.

SS2 and Deus ex 2 arent recent games.
Stalker had serious bug issues.

DX2: 2003, HL2: 2004, close enough imo. SS2 is indeed older.
As for Stalker, even with all the bugs it beats the shit out of HL2. I could also mention Armed Assault 1&2 which I find way above any other FPS, though I consider it a simulation rather than just a shooter.

I was really looking forward to FEAR, but the levels look so similar, all the time the shitty office rooms and corridors... meh. Bioshock.... the same thing. First level was awesome, I love bizzare stuff and it did look surreal and bizzare... but the second level it was like turning around 180 and I just didnt force myself to continue... Doom 3... played thru about 3/4 about the game and I can't remember why I stopped tbh...

I am long time Half-Life fan, while it may certainly has flaws, I enjoyed it a lot. Now just gimmeh the third episode.

Unread 07-25-2009, 08:42 PM #10
mimaz98
[2500+ posts]

Join Date: Oct 2006
Reputation: 260
Posts: 14,855

Half-Life 2 isn't a game. I don't think it's even an experience. It's pure artistic ingeuinity. Vicarious, Visceral and Individualistic. Half-Life is one of the very few things in my life that I am profoundly and unwaveringly passionate about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VonVentrue View Post
It's a good game to be sure. With that said, the original Half-life is superior in every way (save the graphics&physics department).
No, really it isn't.

L
M
F
A
O

Valvefag

If we leave Doom alone which did pretty much everything first (and right) and thus should always be mentioned, in terms of sheer gameplay and dynamics, nothing can top Counter-Strike.

Valve had one hell of a free ride with that one.

First this comment full of the lack of taste and any experience with normal shooter games made me cringe but then I was like hahahahahaha!!

butthurt detected.

this is the key to understanding 1eyedking

I made a couple of posts a while ago explaining why I thought CS was a great shooter, let me see if I can scrounge them up.

If they're not enough (when is it?) or I can't find them I'm up for the discussion, though.

operation flashpoint is not a "normal" game. i point you to the attempts being made to produce a sequel. and counter-strike has done just about everything right inside of its premise. just because it doesn't try to be hyper realistic doesn't detract from it's gameplay. it's extremely punishing of mistakes because of the speed at which things happen, and no other game has replicated the spectator dynamic as well - ie you are the last man left with the bomb up and everyone is watching you. intelligent positioning, movement, grenade use, and a state of calm and steady hand will easily compensate for a lack of cutting edge twitch skill.

Haha what?
Even in so called "pro world tournaments" Counter-strike is all about one bunch of morons encountering the other bunch of morons and starting to jump like retards firing at each other. That is all that there is to CS "gameplay" really.

Haha what?

That's actually another problem of CS - being a deathmatch game it forces you to sit for 3 minutes waiting while you'll be running around, strafing from bullets(!), pointing crosshair at other bunch of polygons and twitching LMB all over again because there is nothing else you can do.

You are a moron Skyway, Counter-strike 1.6 is all about tactics because all the proteams are similar in skill.

You dont even know anything about it, dont make a fool of yourself.

Priceless.

aka who fires first and who has more luck because of the bullet spread.

hahaha butthurt "pro" cs players, keep going skyway

but it's always funny when they claim cs is all tactical probably because they never played anything else to know what tactics are

Bunnyhopping: the pinnacle of tactics.

gosh how can i counter such a fair point from what is clearly an admirably detached perspective

whoops, likes you just described every shooter in existence. waiting is an excellent mechanic (even though it seems retarded at first) because it attaches value to your life. i would never play in a server with 3 minute rounds though, that's way too long. the thing is, its really easy to kill 1 guy. what's difficult (and thus, rewarding) is to kill more than 1 guy every round.

i find it interesting you've gone from hating it yet able to appreciate what makes it work, to hating it and maintaining it is a failure (if i am evaluating your thoughts correctly, though mostly you just seem to be trolling my sorry ass). anyway, much better thread about this already: http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20272

If your CS team plays Shadow of the Hornet Rat and Dark Omen with as few or less losses as I did, completing the game 100%, then I'll concede CS is a game of tactics.

It is a good mechanic when you need to make player value his life normally but it isn't a good mechanic in the game where you die only because you don't twitch spacebar fast enough and when it's built around deathmatch gameplay.
And even you admit that 3 minutes is too long. Because it is a deathmatch game.
What about the other part of my post? Or do you agree that CS "gameplay" is pretty primitive?

I'm actually more interested in knowing where is the so called tactics in CS?

On the other hand, it sounds like you are just angry because you have a low reaction speed - something that is important in everything that plays realtime: fighting games, Starcraft, Freespace 2. It doesn't mean there are no tactics, like in Starcraft, which sure has tactics. They just require a lot of mechanical skill and speed to pull off.