Zzulu: huh, that post was so full of oxymorons, it's hard to even begin arguing. Also, love how you call someone else an idiot just to maintain your stand. That's an excellent way to prove a point. And "keeping up with the times" necessitates drawing Doom 3 as a comparison? That's brilliant, genius.
"The people who say that HL2 didn't do anything for the genre are ignorant at best." As I mentioned earlier on - which you kept happily refuting with how his claims are facts and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions - he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre. It's the same as calling people who think Zelda didn't do anything for console gaming ignorant.
But then what does all that matter, when you're probably just going to keep on name-calling to get your point across. IDK, maybe you're one of those who can't go into a debate without throwing a hissy little fit?
-edit- Actually, I think I'm about done here. Doesn't take long to see how your argument on Half-Life 2 changing the genre being factual is just as opinionated (read: not a fact) as "HL2 (not doing) anything for the genre". But if you have to, against all logic, insist that it's not, well then by all means carry on wise sir lol.
I don't think you understand what "Ignorant" means. You have not actually disproved my point, you just keep defending their ignorance by saying they have the right to be ignorant. Sure they do, but it does not stop them from being ignorant.
The fact that you yourself then keep calling me ignorant in your own words for saying the things I said is actually outright hilarious. In one breath you say that I can't call people ignorant for their opinions and in the next you call me ignorant for mine. Do you even read what you write before you post it? And then you go telling me that I post oxymorons. It's comedy gold.
The bottom line is that you don't seem to think it is okay to call peoples opinions "Ignorant", which in your world makes the word completely defunct. You're not making sense.
Then you say this;
"and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions"
This seems to be the flaw in your thinking. Like previously said, it's a 'personal opinion' based on insufficient fact. Which makes it ignorant. That's the whole meaning behind the word in the first place. It's an ignorant opinion to say that HL2 didn't influence other games when there is clearcut evidence of it doing so (Gravity gun in D3 expansion, anyone?).
Then you continue:
"he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre"
It is not the features I call "amazing". It is the features the industry call amazing. If he has not seen these or is disregarding them but keep saying that they do not matter or don't exist, well, that is ignorant.
Here is the official definition of the word for you:
"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."
Zzulu: huh, that post was so full of oxymorons, it's hard to even begin arguing. Also, love how you call someone else an idiot just to maintain your stand. That's an excellent way to prove a point. And "keeping up with the times" necessitates drawing Doom 3 as a comparison? That's brilliant, genius.
"The people who say that HL2 didn't do anything for the genre are ignorant at best." As I mentioned earlier on - which you kept happily refuting with how his claims are facts and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions - he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre. It's the same as calling people who think Zelda didn't do anything for console gaming ignorant.
But then what does all that matter, when you're probably just going to keep on name-calling to get your point across. IDK, maybe you're one of those who can't go into a debate without throwing a hissy little fit?
-edit- Actually, I think I'm about done here. Doesn't take long to see how your argument on Half-Life 2 changing the genre being factual is just as opinionated (read: not a fact) as "HL2 (not doing) anything for the genre". But if you have to, against all logic, insist that it's not, well then by all means carry on wise sir lol.
I don't think you understand what "Ignorant" means. You have not actually disproved my point, you just keep defending their ignorance by saying they have the right to be ignorant. Sure they do, but it does not stop them from being ignorant.
The fact that you yourself then keep calling me ignorant in your own words for saying the things I said is actually outright hilarious. In one breath you say that I can't call people ignorant for their opinions and in the next you call me ignorant for mine. Do you even read what you write before you post it? And then you go telling me that I post oxymorons. It's comedy gold.
The bottom line is that you don't seem to think it is okay to call peoples opinions "Ignorant", which in your world makes the word completely defunct. You're not making sense.
Then you say this;
"and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions"
This seems to be the flaw in your thinking. Like previously said, it's a 'personal opinion' based on insufficient fact. Which makes it ignorant. That's the whole meaning behind the word in the first place. It's an ignorant opinion to say that HL2 didn't influence other games when there is clearcut evidence of it doing so (Gravity gun in D3 expansion, anyone?).
Then you continue:
"he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre"
It is not the features I call "amazing". It is the features the industry call amazing. If he has not seen these or is disregarding them but keep saying that they do not matter or don't exist, well, that is ignorant.
Here is the official definition of the word for you:
"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."
Do you just not understand this at all?
I might have been mistaken earlier on, but I believe that the whole argument revolved around HL2 changing the genre in the sense that it made every other game (or majority at least) different, not simply influencing 1-2 other games. Please accept my apologies as the context earlier on wasn't quite clearly what it seemed mentioned in the post above, but I just don't possess clairvoyant skills.
In any case, you've made a point that I think we can discuss civilly. "It is the features the industry call amazing." Now we have something to talk about - you cited the gravity gun as an example. That changes the genre...how? It's almost as ludicrous as the claim that dual wielding in Halo is an amazing feature that changed the genre too - which much of the press has claimed too, yet there are people who don't agree on that (which is evident even in this thread). Does that make these people ignorant too? After all, the "industry" claims that Halo 3 was a new milestone for FPSes (read: a few reviewers)
How is that "new" and "genre changing", aside from the fact that it's just never been used so widely before? If you want "genre changing", Savage would be an even better example than HL2. Then there is also Timeshift that one can cite as an example. In fact, almost every other FPS that's released has done something new, one way or another, to the point that "new" is quite an overrated word to use for any FPS these days. Like I said, I may be mistaken earlier on, but when you said it did do something new for the genre, I assumed you meant a revolution rather than an evolution (I should note that Jedi Knight was the pioneer, even though the physics were rudimentary)
Now if HL2, for a fact, has made every other game put the emphasis on hurling around barrels and playing with magnetic cranes, then yes, saying it did nothing new and it did nothing to change the genre is indeed ignorant. What it did was that it had a better story, and better pacing and gameplay than a large number of the other games in the same genre - but so did 2 other FPSes in the same year that it was released.
Zzulu: huh, that post was so full of oxymorons, it's hard to even begin arguing. Also, love how you call someone else an idiot just to maintain your stand. That's an excellent way to prove a point. And "keeping up with the times" necessitates drawing Doom 3 as a comparison? That's brilliant, genius.
"The people who say that HL2 didn't do anything for the genre are ignorant at best." As I mentioned earlier on - which you kept happily refuting with how his claims are facts and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions - he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre. It's the same as calling people who think Zelda didn't do anything for console gaming ignorant.
But then what does all that matter, when you're probably just going to keep on name-calling to get your point across. IDK, maybe you're one of those who can't go into a debate without throwing a hissy little fit?
-edit- Actually, I think I'm about done here. Doesn't take long to see how your argument on Half-Life 2 changing the genre being factual is just as opinionated (read: not a fact) as "HL2 (not doing) anything for the genre". But if you have to, against all logic, insist that it's not, well then by all means carry on wise sir lol.
I don't think you understand what "Ignorant" means. You have not actually disproved my point, you just keep defending their ignorance by saying they have the right to be ignorant. Sure they do, but it does not stop them from being ignorant.
The fact that you yourself then keep calling me ignorant in your own words for saying the things I said is actually outright hilarious. In one breath you say that I can't call people ignorant for their opinions and in the next you call me ignorant for mine. Do you even read what you write before you post it? And then you go telling me that I post oxymorons. It's comedy gold.
The bottom line is that you don't seem to think it is okay to call peoples opinions "Ignorant", which in your world makes the word completely defunct. You're not making sense.
Then you say this;
"and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions"
This seems to be the flaw in your thinking. Like previously said, it's a 'personal opinion' based on insufficient fact. Which makes it ignorant. That's the whole meaning behind the word in the first place. It's an ignorant opinion to say that HL2 didn't influence other games when there is clearcut evidence of it doing so (Gravity gun in D3 expansion, anyone?).
Then you continue:
"he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre"
It is not the features I call "amazing". It is the features the industry call amazing. If he has not seen these or is disregarding them but keep saying that they do not matter or don't exist, well, that is ignorant.
Here is the official definition of the word for you:
"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."
Do you just not understand this at all?
I might have been mistaken earlier on, but I believe that the whole argument revolved around HL2 changing the genre in the sense that it made every other game (or majority at least) different, not simply influencing 1-2 other games. Please accept my apologies as the context earlier on wasn't quite clearly what it seemed mentioned in the post above, but I just don't possess clairvoyant skills.
In any case, you've made a point that I think we can discuss civilly. "It is the features the industry call amazing." Now we have something to talk about - you cited the gravity gun as an example. That changes the genre...how? It's almost as ludicrous as the claim that dual wielding in Halo is an amazing feature that changed the genre too - which much of the press has claimed too, yet there are people who don't agree on that (which is evident even in this thread). Does that make these people ignorant too? After all, the "industry" claims that Halo 3 was a new milestone for FPSes (read: a few reviewers)
How is that "new" and "genre changing", aside from the fact that it's just never been used so widely before? If you want "genre changing", Savage would be an even better example than HL2. Then there is also Timeshift that one can cite as an example. In fact, almost every other FPS that's released has done something new, one way or another, to the point that "new" is quite an overrated word to use for any FPS these days. Like I said, I may be mistaken earlier on, but when you said it did do something new for the genre, I assumed you meant a revolution rather than an evolution (I should note that Jedi Knight was the pioneer, even though the physics were rudimentary)
Now if HL2, for a fact, has made every other game put the emphasis on hurling around barrels and playing with magnetic cranes, then yes, saying it did nothing new and it did nothing to change the genre is indeed ignorant. What it did was that it had a better story, and better pacing and gameplay than a large number of the other games in the same genre - but so did 2 other FPSes in the same year that it was released.
I didn't reference the gravity gun as the thing which changed the genre. It was the thing which influenced the genre. For the first time in a major first person shooter, we could interact with everything in the game precisely. Wanted to throw debris at someone? Go ahead. Want to grab a grenade mid-air? Go for it. After that point, most big league developers realized that interactivity was key, even in the FPS genre. Only a few hybrids had bothered with it previously.
The example continued with ID software who, shortly after HL2 released actually straight up copied the gravity gun and put it in one of their expansions. I used this example to give you some tangible evidence of the fact that HL2 opened some developers eyes, which made that other guys statements faulty.
Following that, we've seen numerous "telekinetic" abilities or physics based abilities/puzzles in the genre. HL2 was a big step forward when it came to more physical worlds in FPS gaming. I'd say it was about as important as Duke Nukem 3D was in the same respect when it came out in -97 and everyone realized that you could actually make the world a lot more reactive and interactive.
I'm not sure why you're referencing games like Timeshift though, since it came out 3 years after HL2 released?
However, If I would point at something that HL2 did do that was very important for the genre, beyond smaller gameplay elements and physics and a superb engine, I'd say that it was predominantly narrative and characterization. This was truly an evolution compared to any other FPS at the time.
The facial animation system is remarkable, and was amazing in 2004. In fact, it stands up to most shooters today, and beats a lot of them as well. Characters came alive, and immersed the player deeper into the experience. I don't know about you, but this alone is pretty much one of the most important features HL2 brought to the table. They were spearheading the technology at the time, while other companies were occupyeing themselves trying to add more shaders and bumpmapping to their games.
In the end, you can go on and claim "almost every FPS is doing something new for the genre" (which is just not true) but the fact of the matter is that HL2, much like the original Half-Life, propelled the genre forward by taking the best elements and perfecting them, and presenting them in a complete package. To point at any one thing, like the physics or the animation only for example, would be to sell the message short. HL2 came together almost perfectly with all its respective elements and showed the potential of the genre, unlike many other, more archaic, shooters of its time. Other blockbusters like FarCry/Doom3/Painkiller that came out at the same time were still focusing on narratives and storylines and presentation which stemmed directly from the 90's, with mad scientists, rocket zombies and monster closets.
I didn't reference the gravity gun as the thing which changed the genre. It was the thing which influenced the genre. For the first time in a major first person shooter, we could interact with everything in the game precisely. Wanted to throw debris at someone? Go ahead. Want to grab a grenade mid-air? Go for it. After that point, most big league developers realized that interactivity was key, even in the FPS genre. Only a few hybrids had bothered with it previously. The example continued with ID software who, shortly after HL2 released actually straight up copied the gravity gun and put it in one of their expansions. I used this example to give you some tangible evidence of the fact that HL2 opened some developers eyes, which made that other guys statements faulty. Following that, we've seen numerous "telekinetic" abilities or physics based abilities/puzzles in the genre. HL2 was a big step forward when it came to more physical worlds in FPS gaming. I'd say it was about as important as Duke Nukem 3D was in the same respect when it came out in -97 and everyone realized that you could actually make the world a lot more reactive and interactive.
I'm not sure why you're referencing games like Timeshift though, since it came out 3 years after HL2 released?
However, If I would point at something that HL2 did do that was very important for the genre, beyond smaller gameplay elements and physics and a superb engine, I'd say that it was predominantly narrative and characterization. This was truly an evolution compared to any other FPS at the time. The facial animation system is remarkable, and was amazing in 2004. In fact, it stands up to most shooters today, and beats a lot of them as well. Characters came alive, and immersed the player deeper into the experience. I don't know about you, but this alone is pretty much one of the most important features HL2 brought to the table. They were spearheading the technology at the time, while other companies were occupyeing themselves trying to add more shaders and bumpmapping to their games.
In the end, you can go on and claim "almost every FPS is doing something new for the genre" (which is just not true) but the fact of the matter is that HL2, much like the original Half-Life, propelled the genre forward by taking the best elements and perfecting them, and presenting them in a complete package. To point at any one thing, like the physics or the animation only for example, would be to sell the message short. HL2 came together almost perfectly with all its respective elements and showed the potential of the genre, unlike many other, more archaic, shooters of its time. Other blockbusters like FarCry/Doom3/Painkiller that came out at the same time were still focusing on narratives and storylines and presentation which stemmed directly from the 90's, with mad scientists, rocket zombies and monster closets.
First off Id didn't really copy the gravity gun. It was actually coded in Doom 3 but they never included in the game. They used the gun to aid in level design.
Physics were already being implemented in other games, the source engine licensed Havok, so there was no giant leap forward there and telekinetic powers isn't much of a innovation since it has been seen for years in other media. Clearly HL2 copied the "force" from star wars! It was a gimmick and IMO I HATED the gravity gun. Why use it when a well placed bullet was faster and easier?
Also you play the facial animation up like it is the only thing to help immerse. Hate to inform you but better looking environments and lighting were HUGE in immersing you and guess what game did that? Doom 3. Lighting plays a big part in making games look good and feel real.
Also HL2 focused on narrative and presentation. Did you not just get done talking about facial animations and immersion? That falls into presentation. Please tell me you actually played HL2 and are joking about the made scientists and rocket zombie remarks? I guess opening a portal to allow aliens to take over the planet isn't nearly as contrived as opening a portal so demons can take over a planet, my bad!
HL2 was no better than Doom 3. Both had a decent story. Doom 3 focused on making the environment look as real as possible with lighting and textures. They also did the call back of original doom gameplay as their gimmick. HL2 also focused on making things look good with animations but the environment to a lesser extent than doom 3. HL2 also liked to focus on gimmicks like boats, buggies, gravity guns, etc.
If I had to pick a game I would go with Perfect Dark. It had a great single player and awesome multiplayer. Not to mention an arsenal that still rivals most of todays offerings and they all had secondary fire modes. Ahhh the laptop sentry gun and the farsight how I miss thee! IMO it was the pinnacle of N64 and it is truly amazing that they did so much with that game on that platform.
As a runner up I pick Battlefield 1942. It really brought the feeling of a battle with the introduction of ground vehicles and planes(helicopters in mods) alongside ground troops. It also brought teamwork to the table with ammo kits, health kits, repairing, as well as guarding/taking capture points. I have yet to find an FPS that feels as much like a battle as the Battlefield series. CoD, CS, UT, etc just can't match it.
First off Id didn't really copy the gravity gun. It was actually coded in Doom 3 but they never included in the game. They used the gun to aid in level design.
Physics were already being implemented in other games, the source engine licensed Havok, so there was no giant leap forward there and telekinetic powers isn't much of a innovation since it has been seen for years in other media. Clearly HL2 copied the "force" from star wars! It was a gimmick and IMO I HATED the gravity gun. Why use it when a well placed bullet was faster and easier?
Also you play the facial animation up like it is the only thing to help immerse. Hate to inform you but better looking environments and lighting were HUGE in immersing you and guess what game did that? Doom 3. Lighting plays a big part in making games look good and feel real.
Also HL2 focused on narrative and presentation. Did you not just get done talking about facial animations and immersion? That falls into presentation. Please tell me you actually played HL2 and are joking about the made scientists and rocket zombie remarks? I guess opening a portal to allow aliens to take over the planet isn't nearly as contrived as opening a portal so demons can take over a planet, my bad!
HL2 was no better than Doom 3. Both had a decent story. Doom 3 focused on making the environment look as real as possible with lighting and textures. They also did the call back of original doom gameplay as their gimmick. HL2 also focused on making things look good with animations but the environment to a lesser extent than doom 3. HL2 also liked to focus on gimmicks like boats, buggies, gravity guns, etc.
If I had to pick a game I would go with Perfect Dark. It had a great single player and awesome multiplayer. Not to mention an arsenal that still rivals most of todays offerings and they all had secondary fire modes. Ahhh the laptop sentry gun and the farsight how I miss thee! IMO it was the pinnacle of N64 and it is truly amazing that they did so much with that game on that platform.
As a runner up I pick Battlefield 1942. It really brought the feeling of a battle with the introduction of ground vehicles and planes(helicopters in mods) alongside ground troops. It also brought teamwork to the table with ammo kits, health kits, repairing, as well as guarding/taking capture points. I have yet to find an FPS that feels as much like a battle as the Battlefield series. CoD, CS, UT, etc just can't match it.
Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion but I am not going to spend the time arguing with a man who claims D3 was as good as HL2. I realize there are people who think so, I just can't be bothered to listen to those people because their taste and way of thinking is already entirely alien to me.
And your arguments barely make sense and are so full of illogical thinking that I'd have to write another wall of text just to address all of it.
...oh fuck it:
"First off Id didn't really copy the gravity gun. It was actually coded in Doom 3 but they never included in the game. They used the gun to aid in level design."
ID just barfed up a technical excuse for their blatant copying, a year after release. So they didn't have to say "Well our biggest competitor did it so now we wanted to do it as well!" . It's ridiculous. You just have to play the game to see it was never designed with physics in mind, so even if they did have the tool they were not innovative enough to realize they could use it in their game, while Valve were, which was the point.
"Physics were already being implemented in other games, the source engine licensed Havok, so there was no giant leap forward there and telekinetic powers isn't much of a innovation since it has been seen for years in other media. Clearly HL2 copied the "force" from star wars! It was a gimmick and IMO I HATED the gravity gun. Why use it when a well placed bullet was faster and easier?"
Physics were present in other genres, but never made as prominent as by HL2 in the shooter genre. Did you read the thread? The epitome of physics interaction in Farcry or Doom3 was that a barrel/chair would tip over here and there, if you were lucky. HL2 brought it to the next level. It raised the bar on the whole subject.
"Also you play the facial animation up like it is the only thing to help immerse. Hate to inform you but better looking environments and lighting were HUGE in immersing you and guess what game did that? Doom 3. Lighting plays a big part in making games look good and feel real."
Your statement does not even make sense. Yes, a lot of games worked on lighting and bumpmaps. So did HL2. HL2 also focused a lot on animations and especially facial animation, something the other games didn't even come close to. Today D3 looks plastic and dated as hell while HL2 remains aesthetically pleasing. Something to keep in mind.
"Also HL2 focused on narrative and presentation. Did you not just get done talking about facial animations and immersion? That falls into presentation. Please tell me you actually played HL2 and are joking about the made scientists and rocket zombie remarks? I guess opening a portal to allow aliens to take over the planet isn't nearly as contrived as opening a portal so demons can take over a planet, my bad!"
First of all, "Narrative and presentation" is not limited to "facial animation and immersion". Are you just trying to troll now?
Secondly, If you do not see the massive nuances of difference between D3's story and HL2's then you're a lost cause. The summary is similar, as with most games, but the details are entirely another story. The first 10min of D3 were good, the rest of the game was to run around in the dark and push buttons while killing demons, ultimately culminating in a fight with evil scientists and rocket armed demons in hell itself. Nothing wrong with that.
However, in HL2 you're basically experiencing "1984" with aliens and memory loss while trying to figure out what happened to all of earth, and then building up a resistance from nothing to eventually invade and destroy the enemy powerhold in a ravaged post apocalyptic city while simultaneously unraveling the mystery of the forces which influence you.
I don't mind that you think D3 has a good story or whatever, just don't say the stories are so much the same because that is silly.
And the portal was opened in HL1, not HL2.
"HL2 was no better than Doom 3. Both had a decent story. Doom 3 focused on making the environment look as real as possible with lighting and textures. They also did the call back of original doom gameplay as their gimmick. HL2 also focused on making things look good with animations but the environment to a lesser extent than doom 3. HL2 also liked to focus on gimmicks like boats, buggies, gravity guns, etc."
Doom 3 never brought back the original doom gameplay. One of the biggest complaints on the game was that it was so different from the original Doom series, and removed all the fun which made the originals so great. Did you even play Doom or Doom II? Doom3 also never ever looked "real". I'd say HL2 took that award as well. D3 focused on looking 'plastic fantastic' and very very dark, and while their shadows were cool, their engine as a whole was a failure. It was designed to be licensed out to other companies, but no one wanted it, and for good reason.
The bottom line is that D3 didn't try to introduce anything of importance to the genre beyond a better engine (something they failed at) while HL2 did innovate and change up the gameplay and storytelling features as well as illuminating new technology like widespread physics and advanced animations.
So, it did have an impact. Whether it was a large impact or not, or if it matters when we discuss how good the game is, well that's a different matter. I'm not sure why it is so important to some people that the game did/did not influence the genre as a whole.
If you're going to champion a contender for HL2, it shouldn't be D3. FarCry alone for example was a lot more impressive than anything D3 ever achieved at the time.
In the end you're entitled to your opinion about HL2 and Doom 3, but I think it is foolish to say that the most critically acclaimed shooter of all time didn't mean anything for the genre, you know? There's a reason it is in the Guiness World Records as the most lauded first person shooter to ever exist.
I'm just glad modern FPSes focus on gameplay rather than crap HL2 style physics showcases. The gravity gun was a better way of making the physics engine part of the gameplay, but it didn't make up for all the other crap. I do agree Doom 3 was a better game, but it was still a disappointment compared to the old Dooms, as I found blasting hordes of enemies was more fun than blasting a couple of enemies, in addition to other annoyances like not being able to use the flashlight simultaneously with a gun combined with the darkness. The art direction on the game was completely amazing, however. I liked Halo more than either game, although I found the copy-paste levels tremendously repetitive. None of these games are fit to be nominated for game of the decade, even if we're just talking about the FPS genre, IMO.
It's pretty hilarious to watch someone accusing Id of "stealing" an element as minor as the gravity gun from Valve, when Valve "stole" the story of HL (accidently open a gateway to another dimension, aliens pour out, you enter their world and kill the baddy) and the entire FPS concept from Id.
Everyone got an opinion but I don't get people who prefer D3 over games like HL2. I am glad you are in the minority. D3 was barely a good game, let alone one of the greatest. Hell, I'd take No One Lives Forever over D3 any day. Hell I'd take just about any FPS over D3.
Quote:"None of these games are fit to be nominated for game of the decade, even if we're just talking about the FPS genre, IMO."
What do you think was the best first person shooter this decade?
Originally posted by Gameloading You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I never once said or even implied that a game without these features would suck. What I have said is that Half Life 2 uses outdated gameplay mechanics that were not innovative or groundbreaking. Its a 2004 shooter that plays like a 1998 shooter. That doesn't mean its by any means a bad game, there is nothing wrong with being old school, but when you declare a game game of the decade, a game needs to be a bit more ambitious in my opinion. You can aim with a grenade in games that have an instant grenade option. The big difference is that you don't first have to swap out your grenade in order to use it. You simply aim and press the grenade button. Using a grenade in a game like Half Life 2 is such a chore. You first have to let go off one of your movement buttonts to select it or you have to scroll your mouse wheel till you reach the grenade. In modern games, usually all you have to do is press one button and you throw a grenade.
I think the old health pack system is annoying. Its annoying when you just finished a battle. You won, but you might as well have died because there is no health between the last confrontation and the next. and you're about to die. It also takes away a layer of strategy. You never have to worry about cover as much as you do in health regenerative games. I don't remember that many areas where you truly needed to use the gun. I remember the last level where it got all powered up, but thats it. Also, I have played through Half Life 2 and both of its episodes.
The platforming I was referring to are the places where you have to pick up objects, throw them into some toxic waste and jump across them.
Many shooters don't adhere to those "updated gameplay mechanics" as you imply, yet I have to see reviews tearing a new one because you can't throw a grenade with a single button, or can't dual wield whatever guns, games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Battlefield 2 for example, did fine without them.
Is it really such a chore to press a button and then throw it and press another one? Anyway the game followed the secondary function for all weapons trend, and in case of grenades you could lob them, throwing them at your feet would just cause them to bounce ie wouldn't work.
I think HL2 could have pushed harder to surpass the first, buy copying features from Halo/Call of Duty is not innovative. It would just follow the action shooter mold with a different paint job.
I think not having regen-health can be a good thing, especially when the health packs are implemented in a smart way. Being at low health adds adrenaline to the formula, and knowing each bit of damage you take counts pushes players into analyzing what thery're doing. Not that regenerating health is a bad thing, in a faster paced experience they can be great, but I see it as an easy way for developers. With it they don't have to think about making a game more challenging with a different health system, a new fresh idea, they just implement the same model that 23896736 other games use it and they don't have to touch the health system in the game ever again.
The platforming sections in HL2 and episodes were pretty minimal compared to the torturing long jumps of the first game (even though it was better than the sequel for me), compared to what have they done before I guess they've tuned it down for less frustration which was a good thing.
Comments
I don't think you understand what "Ignorant" means. You have not actually disproved my point, you just keep defending their ignorance by saying they have the right to be ignorant. Sure they do, but it does not stop them from being ignorant.
The fact that you yourself then keep calling me ignorant in your own words for saying the things I said is actually outright hilarious. In one breath you say that I can't call people ignorant for their opinions and in the next you call me ignorant for mine. Do you even read what you write before you post it? And then you go telling me that I post oxymorons. It's comedy gold.
The bottom line is that you don't seem to think it is okay to call peoples opinions "Ignorant", which in your world makes the word completely defunct. You're not making sense.
Then you say this;
"and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions"
This seems to be the flaw in your thinking. Like previously said, it's a 'personal opinion' based on insufficient fact. Which makes it ignorant. That's the whole meaning behind the word in the first place. It's an ignorant opinion to say that HL2 didn't influence other games when there is clearcut evidence of it doing so (Gravity gun in D3 expansion, anyone?).
Then you continue:
"he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre"
It is not the features I call "amazing". It is the features the industry call amazing. If he has not seen these or is disregarding them but keep saying that they do not matter or don't exist, well, that is ignorant.
Here is the official definition of the word for you:
"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."
Do you just not understand this at all?
I don't think you understand what "Ignorant" means. You have not actually disproved my point, you just keep defending their ignorance by saying they have the right to be ignorant. Sure they do, but it does not stop them from being ignorant.
The fact that you yourself then keep calling me ignorant in your own words for saying the things I said is actually outright hilarious. In one breath you say that I can't call people ignorant for their opinions and in the next you call me ignorant for mine. Do you even read what you write before you post it? And then you go telling me that I post oxymorons. It's comedy gold.
The bottom line is that you don't seem to think it is okay to call peoples opinions "Ignorant", which in your world makes the word completely defunct. You're not making sense.
Then you say this;
"and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions"
This seems to be the flaw in your thinking. Like previously said, it's a 'personal opinion' based on insufficient fact. Which makes it ignorant. That's the whole meaning behind the word in the first place. It's an ignorant opinion to say that HL2 didn't influence other games when there is clearcut evidence of it doing so (Gravity gun in D3 expansion, anyone?).
Then you continue:
"he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre"
It is not the features I call "amazing". It is the features the industry call amazing. If he has not seen these or is disregarding them but keep saying that they do not matter or don't exist, well, that is ignorant.
Here is the official definition of the word for you:
"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."
Do you just not understand this at all?
I might have been mistaken earlier on, but I believe that the whole argument revolved around HL2 changing the genre in the sense that it made every other game (or majority at least) different, not simply influencing 1-2 other games. Please accept my apologies as the context earlier on wasn't quite clearly what it seemed mentioned in the post above, but I just don't possess clairvoyant skills.
In any case, you've made a point that I think we can discuss civilly. "It is the features the industry call amazing." Now we have something to talk about - you cited the gravity gun as an example. That changes the genre...how? It's almost as ludicrous as the claim that dual wielding in Halo is an amazing feature that changed the genre too - which much of the press has claimed too, yet there are people who don't agree on that (which is evident even in this thread). Does that make these people ignorant too? After all, the "industry" claims that Halo 3 was a new milestone for FPSes (read: a few reviewers)
How is that "new" and "genre changing", aside from the fact that it's just never been used so widely before? If you want "genre changing", Savage would be an even better example than HL2. Then there is also Timeshift that one can cite as an example. In fact, almost every other FPS that's released has done something new, one way or another, to the point that "new" is quite an overrated word to use for any FPS these days. Like I said, I may be mistaken earlier on, but when you said it did do something new for the genre, I assumed you meant a revolution rather than an evolution (I should note that Jedi Knight was the pioneer, even though the physics were rudimentary)
Now if HL2, for a fact, has made every other game put the emphasis on hurling around barrels and playing with magnetic cranes, then yes, saying it did nothing new and it did nothing to change the genre is indeed ignorant. What it did was that it had a better story, and better pacing and gameplay than a large number of the other games in the same genre - but so did 2 other FPSes in the same year that it was released.
You guys do realize that this is the kind of topic that can be argued to death without ever achieving a general consensus...!
Imho it would be GTASA.
Maybe not the game of the decade, but for me, it's Morrowind. Loved the hell outta that game.
I don't think you understand what "Ignorant" means. You have not actually disproved my point, you just keep defending their ignorance by saying they have the right to be ignorant. Sure they do, but it does not stop them from being ignorant.
The fact that you yourself then keep calling me ignorant in your own words for saying the things I said is actually outright hilarious. In one breath you say that I can't call people ignorant for their opinions and in the next you call me ignorant for mine. Do you even read what you write before you post it? And then you go telling me that I post oxymorons. It's comedy gold.
The bottom line is that you don't seem to think it is okay to call peoples opinions "Ignorant", which in your world makes the word completely defunct. You're not making sense.
Then you say this;
"and ignoring the explanation that these claims come down to personal opinions"
This seems to be the flaw in your thinking. Like previously said, it's a 'personal opinion' based on insufficient fact. Which makes it ignorant. That's the whole meaning behind the word in the first place. It's an ignorant opinion to say that HL2 didn't influence other games when there is clearcut evidence of it doing so (Gravity gun in D3 expansion, anyone?).
Then you continue:
"he may not see the importance of whatever features it is you call "so amazing" that it has changed the genre"
It is not the features I call "amazing". It is the features the industry call amazing. If he has not seen these or is disregarding them but keep saying that they do not matter or don't exist, well, that is ignorant.
Here is the official definition of the word for you:
"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."
Do you just not understand this at all?
I might have been mistaken earlier on, but I believe that the whole argument revolved around HL2 changing the genre in the sense that it made every other game (or majority at least) different, not simply influencing 1-2 other games. Please accept my apologies as the context earlier on wasn't quite clearly what it seemed mentioned in the post above, but I just don't possess clairvoyant skills.
In any case, you've made a point that I think we can discuss civilly. "It is the features the industry call amazing." Now we have something to talk about - you cited the gravity gun as an example. That changes the genre...how? It's almost as ludicrous as the claim that dual wielding in Halo is an amazing feature that changed the genre too - which much of the press has claimed too, yet there are people who don't agree on that (which is evident even in this thread). Does that make these people ignorant too? After all, the "industry" claims that Halo 3 was a new milestone for FPSes (read: a few reviewers)
How is that "new" and "genre changing", aside from the fact that it's just never been used so widely before? If you want "genre changing", Savage would be an even better example than HL2. Then there is also Timeshift that one can cite as an example. In fact, almost every other FPS that's released has done something new, one way or another, to the point that "new" is quite an overrated word to use for any FPS these days. Like I said, I may be mistaken earlier on, but when you said it did do something new for the genre, I assumed you meant a revolution rather than an evolution (I should note that Jedi Knight was the pioneer, even though the physics were rudimentary)
Now if HL2, for a fact, has made every other game put the emphasis on hurling around barrels and playing with magnetic cranes, then yes, saying it did nothing new and it did nothing to change the genre is indeed ignorant. What it did was that it had a better story, and better pacing and gameplay than a large number of the other games in the same genre - but so did 2 other FPSes in the same year that it was released.
I didn't reference the gravity gun as the thing which changed the genre. It was the thing which influenced the genre. For the first time in a major first person shooter, we could interact with everything in the game precisely. Wanted to throw debris at someone? Go ahead. Want to grab a grenade mid-air? Go for it. After that point, most big league developers realized that interactivity was key, even in the FPS genre. Only a few hybrids had bothered with it previously.
The example continued with ID software who, shortly after HL2 released actually straight up copied the gravity gun and put it in one of their expansions. I used this example to give you some tangible evidence of the fact that HL2 opened some developers eyes, which made that other guys statements faulty.
Following that, we've seen numerous "telekinetic" abilities or physics based abilities/puzzles in the genre. HL2 was a big step forward when it came to more physical worlds in FPS gaming. I'd say it was about as important as Duke Nukem 3D was in the same respect when it came out in -97 and everyone realized that you could actually make the world a lot more reactive and interactive.
I'm not sure why you're referencing games like Timeshift though, since it came out 3 years after HL2 released?
However, If I would point at something that HL2 did do that was very important for the genre, beyond smaller gameplay elements and physics and a superb engine, I'd say that it was predominantly narrative and characterization. This was truly an evolution compared to any other FPS at the time.
The facial animation system is remarkable, and was amazing in 2004. In fact, it stands up to most shooters today, and beats a lot of them as well. Characters came alive, and immersed the player deeper into the experience. I don't know about you, but this alone is pretty much one of the most important features HL2 brought to the table. They were spearheading the technology at the time, while other companies were occupyeing themselves trying to add more shaders and bumpmapping to their games.
In the end, you can go on and claim "almost every FPS is doing something new for the genre" (which is just not true) but the fact of the matter is that HL2, much like the original Half-Life, propelled the genre forward by taking the best elements and perfecting them, and presenting them in a complete package. To point at any one thing, like the physics or the animation only for example, would be to sell the message short. HL2 came together almost perfectly with all its respective elements and showed the potential of the genre, unlike many other, more archaic, shooters of its time. Other blockbusters like FarCry/Doom3/Painkiller that came out at the same time were still focusing on narratives and storylines and presentation which stemmed directly from the 90's, with mad scientists, rocket zombies and monster closets.
First off Id didn't really copy the gravity gun. It was actually coded in Doom 3 but they never included in the game. They used the gun to aid in level design.
Physics were already being implemented in other games, the source engine licensed Havok, so there was no giant leap forward there and telekinetic powers isn't much of a innovation since it has been seen for years in other media. Clearly HL2 copied the "force" from star wars! It was a gimmick and IMO I HATED the gravity gun. Why use it when a well placed bullet was faster and easier?
Also you play the facial animation up like it is the only thing to help immerse. Hate to inform you but better looking environments and lighting were HUGE in immersing you and guess what game did that? Doom 3. Lighting plays a big part in making games look good and feel real.
Also HL2 focused on narrative and presentation. Did you not just get done talking about facial animations and immersion? That falls into presentation. Please tell me you actually played HL2 and are joking about the made scientists and rocket zombie remarks? I guess opening a portal to allow aliens to take over the planet isn't nearly as contrived as opening a portal so demons can take over a planet, my bad!
HL2 was no better than Doom 3. Both had a decent story. Doom 3 focused on making the environment look as real as possible with lighting and textures. They also did the call back of original doom gameplay as their gimmick. HL2 also focused on making things look good with animations but the environment to a lesser extent than doom 3. HL2 also liked to focus on gimmicks like boats, buggies, gravity guns, etc.
If I had to pick a game I would go with Perfect Dark. It had a great single player and awesome multiplayer. Not to mention an arsenal that still rivals most of todays offerings and they all had secondary fire modes. Ahhh the laptop sentry gun and the farsight how I miss thee! IMO it was the pinnacle of N64 and it is truly amazing that they did so much with that game on that platform.
As a runner up I pick Battlefield 1942. It really brought the feeling of a battle with the introduction of ground vehicles and planes(helicopters in mods) alongside ground troops. It also brought teamwork to the table with ammo kits, health kits, repairing, as well as guarding/taking capture points. I have yet to find an FPS that feels as much like a battle as the Battlefield series. CoD, CS, UT, etc just can't match it.
First off Id didn't really copy the gravity gun. It was actually coded in Doom 3 but they never included in the game. They used the gun to aid in level design.
Physics were already being implemented in other games, the source engine licensed Havok, so there was no giant leap forward there and telekinetic powers isn't much of a innovation since it has been seen for years in other media. Clearly HL2 copied the "force" from star wars! It was a gimmick and IMO I HATED the gravity gun. Why use it when a well placed bullet was faster and easier?
Also you play the facial animation up like it is the only thing to help immerse. Hate to inform you but better looking environments and lighting were HUGE in immersing you and guess what game did that? Doom 3. Lighting plays a big part in making games look good and feel real.
Also HL2 focused on narrative and presentation. Did you not just get done talking about facial animations and immersion? That falls into presentation. Please tell me you actually played HL2 and are joking about the made scientists and rocket zombie remarks? I guess opening a portal to allow aliens to take over the planet isn't nearly as contrived as opening a portal so demons can take over a planet, my bad!
HL2 was no better than Doom 3. Both had a decent story. Doom 3 focused on making the environment look as real as possible with lighting and textures. They also did the call back of original doom gameplay as their gimmick. HL2 also focused on making things look good with animations but the environment to a lesser extent than doom 3. HL2 also liked to focus on gimmicks like boats, buggies, gravity guns, etc.
If I had to pick a game I would go with Perfect Dark. It had a great single player and awesome multiplayer. Not to mention an arsenal that still rivals most of todays offerings and they all had secondary fire modes. Ahhh the laptop sentry gun and the farsight how I miss thee! IMO it was the pinnacle of N64 and it is truly amazing that they did so much with that game on that platform.
As a runner up I pick Battlefield 1942. It really brought the feeling of a battle with the introduction of ground vehicles and planes(helicopters in mods) alongside ground troops. It also brought teamwork to the table with ammo kits, health kits, repairing, as well as guarding/taking capture points. I have yet to find an FPS that feels as much like a battle as the Battlefield series. CoD, CS, UT, etc just can't match it.
Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion but I am not going to spend the time arguing with a man who claims D3 was as good as HL2. I realize there are people who think so, I just can't be bothered to listen to those people because their taste and way of thinking is already entirely alien to me.
And your arguments barely make sense and are so full of illogical thinking that I'd have to write another wall of text just to address all of it.
...oh fuck it:
"First off Id didn't really copy the gravity gun. It was actually coded in Doom 3 but they never included in the game. They used the gun to aid in level design."
ID just barfed up a technical excuse for their blatant copying, a year after release. So they didn't have to say "Well our biggest competitor did it so now we wanted to do it as well!" . It's ridiculous. You just have to play the game to see it was never designed with physics in mind, so even if they did have the tool they were not innovative enough to realize they could use it in their game, while Valve were, which was the point.
"Physics were already being implemented in other games, the source engine licensed Havok, so there was no giant leap forward there and telekinetic powers isn't much of a innovation since it has been seen for years in other media. Clearly HL2 copied the "force" from star wars! It was a gimmick and IMO I HATED the gravity gun. Why use it when a well placed bullet was faster and easier?"
Physics were present in other genres, but never made as prominent as by HL2 in the shooter genre. Did you read the thread? The epitome of physics interaction in Farcry or Doom3 was that a barrel/chair would tip over here and there, if you were lucky. HL2 brought it to the next level. It raised the bar on the whole subject.
"Also you play the facial animation up like it is the only thing to help immerse. Hate to inform you but better looking environments and lighting were HUGE in immersing you and guess what game did that? Doom 3. Lighting plays a big part in making games look good and feel real."
Your statement does not even make sense. Yes, a lot of games worked on lighting and bumpmaps. So did HL2. HL2 also focused a lot on animations and especially facial animation, something the other games didn't even come close to. Today D3 looks plastic and dated as hell while HL2 remains aesthetically pleasing. Something to keep in mind.
"Also HL2 focused on narrative and presentation. Did you not just get done talking about facial animations and immersion? That falls into presentation. Please tell me you actually played HL2 and are joking about the made scientists and rocket zombie remarks? I guess opening a portal to allow aliens to take over the planet isn't nearly as contrived as opening a portal so demons can take over a planet, my bad!"
First of all, "Narrative and presentation" is not limited to "facial animation and immersion". Are you just trying to troll now?
Secondly, If you do not see the massive nuances of difference between D3's story and HL2's then you're a lost cause. The summary is similar, as with most games, but the details are entirely another story. The first 10min of D3 were good, the rest of the game was to run around in the dark and push buttons while killing demons, ultimately culminating in a fight with evil scientists and rocket armed demons in hell itself. Nothing wrong with that.
However, in HL2 you're basically experiencing "1984" with aliens and memory loss while trying to figure out what happened to all of earth, and then building up a resistance from nothing to eventually invade and destroy the enemy powerhold in a ravaged post apocalyptic city while simultaneously unraveling the mystery of the forces which influence you.
I don't mind that you think D3 has a good story or whatever, just don't say the stories are so much the same because that is silly.
And the portal was opened in HL1, not HL2.
"HL2 was no better than Doom 3. Both had a decent story. Doom 3 focused on making the environment look as real as possible with lighting and textures. They also did the call back of original doom gameplay as their gimmick. HL2 also focused on making things look good with animations but the environment to a lesser extent than doom 3. HL2 also liked to focus on gimmicks like boats, buggies, gravity guns, etc."
Doom 3 never brought back the original doom gameplay. One of the biggest complaints on the game was that it was so different from the original Doom series, and removed all the fun which made the originals so great. Did you even play Doom or Doom II? Doom3 also never ever looked "real". I'd say HL2 took that award as well. D3 focused on looking 'plastic fantastic' and very very dark, and while their shadows were cool, their engine as a whole was a failure. It was designed to be licensed out to other companies, but no one wanted it, and for good reason.
The bottom line is that D3 didn't try to introduce anything of importance to the genre beyond a better engine (something they failed at) while HL2 did innovate and change up the gameplay and storytelling features as well as illuminating new technology like widespread physics and advanced animations.
So, it did have an impact. Whether it was a large impact or not, or if it matters when we discuss how good the game is, well that's a different matter. I'm not sure why it is so important to some people that the game did/did not influence the genre as a whole.
If you're going to champion a contender for HL2, it shouldn't be D3. FarCry alone for example was a lot more impressive than anything D3 ever achieved at the time.
In the end you're entitled to your opinion about HL2 and Doom 3, but I think it is foolish to say that the most critically acclaimed shooter of all time didn't mean anything for the genre, you know? There's a reason it is in the Guiness World Records as the most lauded first person shooter to ever exist.
I'm just glad modern FPSes focus on gameplay rather than crap HL2 style physics showcases. The gravity gun was a better way of making the physics engine part of the gameplay, but it didn't make up for all the other crap. I do agree Doom 3 was a better game, but it was still a disappointment compared to the old Dooms, as I found blasting hordes of enemies was more fun than blasting a couple of enemies, in addition to other annoyances like not being able to use the flashlight simultaneously with a gun combined with the darkness. The art direction on the game was completely amazing, however. I liked Halo more than either game, although I found the copy-paste levels tremendously repetitive. None of these games are fit to be nominated for game of the decade, even if we're just talking about the FPS genre, IMO.
It's pretty hilarious to watch someone accusing Id of "stealing" an element as minor as the gravity gun from Valve, when Valve "stole" the story of HL (accidently open a gateway to another dimension, aliens pour out, you enter their world and kill the baddy) and the entire FPS concept from Id.
Everyone got an opinion but I don't get people who prefer D3 over games like HL2. I am glad you are in the minority. D3 was barely a good game, let alone one of the greatest. Hell, I'd take No One Lives Forever over D3 any day. Hell I'd take just about any FPS over D3.
Quote:"None of these games are fit to be nominated for game of the decade, even if we're just talking about the FPS genre, IMO."
What do you think was the best first person shooter this decade?
Many shooters don't adhere to those "updated gameplay mechanics" as you imply, yet I have to see reviews tearing a new one because you can't throw a grenade with a single button, or can't dual wield whatever guns, games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Battlefield 2 for example, did fine without them.
Is it really such a chore to press a button and then throw it and press another one? Anyway the game followed the secondary function for all weapons trend, and in case of grenades you could lob them, throwing them at your feet would just cause them to bounce ie wouldn't work.
I think HL2 could have pushed harder to surpass the first, buy copying features from Halo/Call of Duty is not innovative. It would just follow the action shooter mold with a different paint job.
I think not having regen-health can be a good thing, especially when the health packs are implemented in a smart way. Being at low health adds adrenaline to the formula, and knowing each bit of damage you take counts pushes players into analyzing what thery're doing. Not that regenerating health is a bad thing, in a faster paced experience they can be great, but I see it as an easy way for developers. With it they don't have to think about making a game more challenging with a different health system, a new fresh idea, they just implement the same model that 23896736 other games use it and they don't have to touch the health system in the game ever again.
The platforming sections in HL2 and episodes were pretty minimal compared to the torturing long jumps of the first game (even though it was better than the sequel for me), compared to what have they done before I guess they've tuned it down for less frustration which was a good thing.