The great Valve re-play

[ThunderPeel2001]

I played all the HL games on hard, they're better games that way, unlike others which only ramp up enemies' health and ramp down the player character, the AI is actually improved and makes the games more interesting.

I think this probably gets to the core of why you don't like half life, not the tone, not the story, not the set pieces, it's getting stuck.

Did you say you also got stuck on HL1 back in the day, which left a bitter taste in your mouth? It's telling that you started enjoying the first one more this time, but then got stuck. It took me a couple of months to get through HL1 playing it at lunchtimes in college, it was a bit like an adventure game trying to figure out some of the things, sleeping on it.

The thing is, I see this as a positive, whereas it seems you see the same thing as a negative. Frustration and learning to overcome it has always been something that I think games as an art form, uniquely, have to offer.

Interesting stuff regarding playing it on Hard. I always assumed it was a change in health/damage.

Regarding getting "stuck", I don't think I made myself clear. This was a cross between a bug (the crates refusing to move) and poor level design (allowing the user to get themselves in a position which rendered the game incompleteable). It wasn't that I needed to figure stuff out, or sleep on it.

Also, I LOVE adventure games. One of my main issues with HL back in the day was how crappy the story was. I'm not a twitch gamer by nature, I'd much rather take my time and explore a rich universe with interesting characters and story. That said, I did enjoy Quake III Arena. Go figure.

Finally, I wasn't loving HL until I came across this problem, I just brought it up as an interesting aside about the game's design and my experience playing it. Quite surprising to me, especially for a Valve game which are renowned for their polish. (I bet there's no such moments in HL2.)

[thl]

Sorry for three posts in a row, but I just wanted to add something separate:

I actually got stuck in HL. There was a bit where I had to push metal crates into electricity charged water (great logic, Valve!) in order to jump the water. But try as I might, there was no way to push the crates past a certain point in the water. (Almost like an invisible barrier had appeared.) That spot was just short of where it needed to be, so I couldn't make it to the other side without taking the -36 damage from electrified water... Except I had 34 health.

There were no health packs and no scientists around, and so nothing I could do. Quite frustrating!

So Gordon Freeman ended up floating over the water.

NOCLIP saved the day.

Does everyone else play HL on Medium difficulty?

I don't remember this in my play-throughs. Perhaps it's a Source conversion bug?

Actually I remember there being more invisible walls and barriers in HL2. I thought HL1 was pretty self-contained in terms of you can get everywhere you think you should be able to. I remember playing Day One (the demo that basically cut the game off when you first get to the surface) and being very frustrated that there were clearly some ducts in that last area that I could fit through but I couldn't figure out how to get in them. Then I play the full game and it turns out you come back through the areas in those ducts.

With HL2, the beginning-ish areas where you are in the sewers... There's a very definite point in which they give you a ton of crates and I spent maybe 20 minutes trying to position them just right just to learn that I was physically incapable of making it up onto street level.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I don't remember this in my play-throughs. Perhaps it's a Source conversion bug?

I'm playing HL: Classic. I think it's something you wouldn't even notice if you had enough energy, but if you didn't, then it was "reload and redo this entire section again" time.

I've watched a few walkthroughs on YouTube, and they all take damage at that point, or they build the bridge before the water is electrified. (It's during the Blast Pit sequence, if anyone is interested, after you've turned on the power and are making your way back to the monster.)

Which reminds me of another bug I discovered: The fan didn't blow me "up". If I hadn't have had a vague memory that it was supposed to, I wouldn't have checked a walkthrough and discovered it definitely was. Another NOCLIP save.

And another "oops, you've failed, reload" moment: When you're making your way to turn the power on for the Blast Pit, there's a "lift" that spins around the chamber wall. If you press the button, it takes a second and then spins you to the far side. If, however, you press the button and step back incase it's a trap (like it's going to break or something), then the lift goes off without you and there's no way to recall it. I learnt that the hard way.

Edited May 6, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001

[Sno]

*Snip*

First off, i would like to say that i've played through Half-Life literally dozens of times back when i was younger and never encountered any game-breaking events or bugs like you describe. I actually remember very specifically that puzzle with the electrified puddle working fine. The thing with fan too, is news to me. I'm left suspecting that these are simply issues with running such an old game on new hardware, or that all the Steam versions of the game have issues, such as there are apparently issues with Blue Shift on Steam and how there are definitely issues with HL:Source. I find this rather upsetting.

That thing with the elevator though, are you absolutely sure? I do kind of want to step in to defend Valve here, because that would the one exception in the game. Everywhere else, Half-Life is really, really good about giving every lift proper sets of call buttons. (Which was a pretty unusual degree of attention to detail at the time, when elevators in games were mostly just "You step on it and it will move. Get off it, it will return to its starting point.")

Nevertheless, Half-Life was Valve's first game, man. You've got all the expectations hindsight has. When people first played that game, it was simply a new game from an unproven studio. You keep talking about it like it's supposed to be some masterpiece, which is an absurd angle to approach a game from, nothing can live up to expectations like that.

As for the difficulty thing, shooters are almost always a better experience on harder difficulties. It forces you to play more methodically, and allows the battles to be more tactical and gives the enemy AI opportunities to shine. (Half-Life does have very good, albeit heavily scripted, enemy "AI". The soldiers will flank you and support eachother, but repeated playthroughs will show them doing the same things almost every time.)

You know, but a game that initially appeared to be mindless run and gun can turn into something much more depth and nuance. Weapons selection for the roles they serve suddenly becomes a more visible and important element, use of cover becomes paramount. I do think Valve's games are balanced well enough to support an entertaining hard-mode playthrough, but you really need the skills to go with it though, otherwise it'll just be a punishing and aggravating experience that is hard to recommend.

I don't think the hard difficulty in Half-Life actually makes the enemies smarter though, i think it's mostly just that by the increased difficulty forcing you to play in a more reserved fashion, it has more time to act out its routines and surprise you. The same holds true for a lot of shooters with strong enemy AI. (Halo, Fear, etc.)

Edited May 6, 2011 by Sno

[ThunderPeel2001]

That thing with the elevator though, are you absolutely sure? I do kind of want to step in to defend Valve here, because that would the one exception in the game. Everywhere else, Half-Life is really, really good about giving every lift proper sets of call buttons. (Which was a pretty unusual degree of attention to detail at the time, when elevators in games were mostly just "You step on it and it will move. Get off it, it will return to its starting point.")

Yes. I'm 100% sure. I used to be a games tester and I'm naturally thorough and curious about such things (which is why I bothered to watch videos of how other people solved the things I'd encountered).

I can make some videos if you really want to see them.

You've got all the expectations hindsight has. When people first played that game, it was simply a new game from an unproven studio.

I'm not sure where you were when Half-Life was released, but where I was it was on the front cover of every PC magazine with gushing reviews saying things like, "it's not just one of the best games of the year. It's one of the best games of any year, an instant classic that is miles better than any of its immediate competition". By the time it got into the hands of the average member of the public, it was the stellar reviews, not a vague interest in an unproven studio, that put it there. At least it was for me.

I do love the idea of seeing this as an underdog story, though. It's the first time it ever crossed my mind these guys were "first timers". From that point of view, those guys really kicked ass. Wow.

You keep talking about it like it's supposed to be some masterpiece, which is an absurd angle to approach a game from, nothing can live up to expectations like that.

I don't know what to say to this. You make it sound as though it's my fault that it's highest rated PC game on Metacritic... 14 years after its release. This thread has a tag that says "Valve are Gods". It was ranked as the greatest game of All Time by PC Gamer every time they did such a poll. It's won over 50 Game of the Year awards. Are you saying it's not a masterpiece?

I agree that no game can live up to absurd expectations, but what specifically did I say in my "snipped" post that brought that out of you?

Edited May 6, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001

[Sno]

Yes. I'm 100% sure. I used to be a games tester and I'm naturally thorough and curious about such things (which is why I bothered to watch videos of how other people solved the things I'd encountered).

Fair enough, but i can at least assure you with relative certainty that the bugs concerning the giant fan and the electrified water puddle puzzles are not present in original copies of the game.

I'm not sure where you were when Half-Life was released, but where I was it was on the front cover of every PC magazine with gushing reviews saying things like, "it's not just one of the best games of the year. It's one of the best games of any year, an instant classic that is miles better than any of its immediate competition". By the time it got into the hands of the average member of the public, it was the stellar reviews, not a vague interest in an unproven studio, that put it there. At least it was for me.

I do love the idea of seeing this as an underdog story, though. It's the first time it ever crossed my mind these guys were "first timers". From that point of view, those guys really kicked ass. Wow.

I do remember actually following that game during its development, and i bought my copy the day of its release. Now that was nearly thirteen years ago*, so i can't really tell you with certainty was the mood was like around its release, but clearly there was anticipation if i bought my copy the day of its release. I also remember that the game was delayed many times and that nobody really had a good handle on what was going to make it so special. (* - Oh my god, i feel old.)

I don't know what to say to this. You make it sound as though it's my fault that it's highest rated PC game on Metacritic... 14 years after its release. This thread has a tag that says "Valve are Gods". It was ranked as the greatest game of All Time by PC Gamer every time they did such a poll. It's won over 50 Game of the Year awards. Are you saying it's not a masterpiece?

I guess i'm saying metacritic scores are dumb, and i don't agree with saying it's the greatest PC game of all time because metacritic arbitrarily compiled a bunch of arbitrary scores? I can think of many PC games i would hold in much higher regard. It's that whole "video games are subjective" thing.

I agree that no game can live up to absurd expectations, but what specifically did I say in my "snipped" post that brought that out of you?

It was a lot the things you've said and this comment from an earlier post of yours -

(and, man, is it revered -- it's practically the Citizen Kane of games, at least in terms of critical response)

When games are really, really well received, a lot of it has to do with historical context of its release. I can guarantee you that Ocarina of Time's 3DS remake won't be as universally acclaimed as the original game was, because Ocarina was a revelation when it was release, and now it's old hat. (So expect 8.5's and ludicrous fanboy rage. Scores are fucking dumb.) Playing Half-Life today is going to make it seem less impressive, there's nothing you can do about it, the mechanics and design elements that were innovative are now ubiquitous. So don't base your expectations around reviews written over a decade ago.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Playing Half-Life today is going to make it seem less impressive, there's nothing you can do about it, the mechanics and design elements that were innovative are now ubiquitous. So don't base your expectations around reviews written over a decade ago.

There seems to be some sort of communications breakdown here. I like the game more now than I did then. Not only that, but my remaining complaints about the game are the same ones I had back then (I just have fewer of them).

Not only that, I'm more than capable of taking a game's age into account (I recently played and completed (and loved) Skool Daze on a Spectrum emulator in a different thread). If there's aspects that you willingly admit have dated badly, it would be more helpful for you to share them.

Also, you never answered my question: Are you saying that Half-Life isn't a masterpiece?

Finally, I can't help but feel I'm getting crap from you for a) Attempting to enjoy a game and Not enjoying a game you like. It's sad because your level-headedness regarding Half-Life previously in this thread was a revelation to me. You simultaneously took it to task for its faults and praised it for its strengths. It was fantastic to read. Half-Life is so universally praised that it's hard to find any decent, balanced criticism of it, and I was hoping to hear more from you.

[Lu]

I guess i'm saying metacritic scores are dumb, and i don't agree with saying it's the greatest PC game of all time because metacritic arbitrarily compiled a bunch of arbitrary scores? I can think of many PC games i would hold in much higher regard. It's that whole "video games are subjective" thing.

It's certainly a big milestone in video game development though! Highly influential and pushed video games to new heights. I think for its time definitely a master piece! Besides the point, but hey!

[Sno]

There seems to be some sort of communications breakdown here. I like the game more now than I did then. Not only that, but my remaining complaints about the game are the same ones I had back then (I just have fewer of them).

Egh, i guess we have had some communications breakdown, though a lot of my comments have also just been general musings about reviews and criticism. I see now how it could have been misconstrued.

Also, you never answered my question: Are you saying that Half-Life isn't a masterpiece?

I really don't know, i'm kind of on the fence about it. I think it's, for the most part, an elegantly designed game that paved the way for shooters in the next decade. I don't think influential equates to those ideas having been the best ones for the genre though, i don't really like a lot of the things i feel Half-Life has begotten. That is perhaps immaterial to the game itself, but it's inextricably linked to my opinion of that game. This gets back to the point i was trying to make earlier, i don't think you can ever fully remove yourself from the context surrounding a game and view it the same way it would have been when it was new. Whether that idea is relevant to you or not, i cannot say, i just felt it was a point worth making.

So all that said, I would be inclined to hold games that are often more overlooked in higher regards. Champion those games, so to speak. (Games like System Shock 2, which is without question my favorite game. Period.)

Finally, I can't help but feel I'm getting crap from you for a) Attempting to enjoy a game and Not enjoying a game you like. It's sad because your level-headedness regarding Half-Life previously in this thread was a revelation to me. You simultaneously took it to task for its faults and praised it for its strengths. It was fantastic to read. Half-Life is so universally praised that it's hard to find any decent, balanced criticism of it, and I was hoping to hear more from you.

I think we disagree on some points, but clearly we have had some miscommunication if you think i'm attacking you for failing to enjoy Half-Life as much as me. In direct response to your situation, the main point i was trying to make is that i don't understand why you should continue to try so hard to understand Half-Life after you've given the game a genuine chance and found that you don't like it. I recognize the point you're making about wanting to understand why it's such a critically acclaimed game, and i guess i just don't hold the critical community in as high regard. (As for metacritic, please don't use metacritic to argue a point. It's a flawed mechanism, it's an aggregate of websites with different scales and dubious methodology for sorting it all out. It's bad. Metacritic is bad.)

[ThunderPeel2001]

I think we disagree on some points, but clearly we have had some miscommunication if you think i'm attacking you for failing to enjoy Half-Life as much as me. In direct response to your situation, the main point i was trying to make is that i don't understand why you should continue to try so hard to understand Half-Life after you've given the game a genuine chance and found that you don't like it. I recognize the point you're making about wanting to understand why it's such a critically acclaimed game, and i guess i just don't hold the critical community in as high regard.

I'm not sure why we're still discussing this. I don't mind discussing the game, but I've laid out very clearly why I want to enjoy it, and what my goals are. They're not going to change and I've already explained them to the best of my ability. Any further discussion is just going to result in us going in circles. As I said before, I value your opinion about the game.

(As for metacritic, please don't use metacritic to argue a point. It's a flawed mechanism, it's an aggregate of websites with different scales and dubious methodology for sorting it all out. It's bad. Metacritic is bad.)

Dude, please. Don't patronize me. Secondly, Metacritic has its flaws, but it's not worthless (and if you think it is, this isn't the place for that debate). Lastly, and most importantly, erase the Metacritic sentence from my post, and my point still stands: Half-Life is arguably the most critically-regarded game PC game of all time. It was immediately recognized and championed, and continues to be to this day. Not only that, but it receives the same level of regard from the PC gaming community. Not just in terms of sales (it was officially noted as being the best-selling FPS of all time), but also in terms of overall regard and general love.

[Sno]

I'm not sure why we're still discussing this. I don't mind discussing the game, but I've laid out very clearly why I want to enjoy it, and what my goals are. They're not going to change and I've already explained them to the best of my ability. Any further discussion is just going to result in us going in circles. As I said before, I value your opinion about the game.

Why are we still discussing it? Because you asked about it. And again, the part of my post where i discuss the game is the part you didn't respond to. I hadn't stopped talking about the game.

Dude, please. Don't patronize me. Secondly, Metacritic has its flaws, but it's not worthless (and if you think it is, this isn't the place for that debate). Lastly, and most importantly, erase the Metacritic sentence from my post, and my point still stands: Half-Life is arguably the most critically-regarded game PC game of all time. It was immediately recognized and championed, and continues to be to this day. Not only that, but it receives the same level of regard from the PC gaming community. Not just in terms of sales (it was officially noted as being the best-selling FPS of all time), but also in terms of overall regard and general love.

Please stop being defensive, i'm not trying to be patronizing, i'm not trying to insult. I strongly disagree with the use of metacritic as a measuring stick, it was brought up a few times, and i wanted to voice disagreement with it. That is all. Ok, we're past that and many points still stand, Half-Life is still an extremely well regarded game. (That sales thing though, i don't know where you got that. There are many, many games that vastly exceed Half-Life in terms of sales.)

[subbes]

Maybe one or both of you should take a break from this thread and come back in a few days after the convo has moved on. At this point it's just going 'round and 'round.

[Erkki]

I'm replaying Half-Life 2. Some post in another thread made me want to play the Water Hazard and Highway 17 sections again, and since I didn't have any saves I'm playing the whole game.

Man, it's much longer than I remember. And occasionally boring. I'm not a big FPS fan so the sections where loads of soldiers are coming at you are tiring. But it still plays great and I love it. But this thing where they always have you in control, plus the fact that I already know the story: it means I'm messing around a lot when the NPCs are speaking which kind of breaks the immersion.

I might play Ep. 2 and 3 after this and maybe Half-Life Source. Though I've tried to replay Half-Life several times and never got to the end. I just don't like the original game that much, although I respect that it was doing great things at it's time.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Why are we still discussing it? Because you asked about it. And again, the part of my post where i discuss the game is the part you didn't respond to. I hadn't stopped talking about the game.

Come on, man. You didn't discuss the game in your post. The last time you discussed the game was to tell me the bugs I experienced weren't in the original release. Everything else was about how other people see and rate the game ("is it a masterpiece?"), which was in direct relation to you asking why I would bother to try so hard to enjoy it.

I'm just saying: I've explained why I'm trying so hard. I'm not being defensive, I just can't think of any other way to answer your questions, and I would LOVE to move on to talking about the game itself. I.e. It's strengths and weaknesses. What you like or dislike about it.

I strongly disagree with the use of metacritic as a measuring stick, it was brought up a few times, and i wanted to voice disagreement with it.

I brought up Metacritic exactly once. You told me not to cite it twice in a row. The second time in the most patronizing way in response to a post where I didn't mention Metacritic at all. (Thinking about it: Did you read PiratePoo's post and think it was mine or something?)

(That sales thing though, i don't know where you got that. There are many, many games that vastly exceed Half-Life in terms of sales.)

I said it was the best-selling PC FPS of all time. I got that from the Guinness Book of World Records: Gamers Edition.

Edited May 7, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001

[ThunderPeel2001]

Maybe one or both of you should take a break from this thread and come back in a few days after the convo has moved on. At this point it's just going 'round and 'round.

Yes, you're right. Looking back at what I've just posted, it's essentially the same message I posted just before it. I'll skip out for a few days.

Check out this awesome 70's style Portal 2 poster!

[Sno]

Alright ThunderPeel, alright. Yes, absolutely. Let's just put this all aside, its a dumb series of misunderstandings. I'm willing to admit, and already have, a lot of the confusion is my fault.

I said it was the best-selling PC FPS of all time. I got that from the Guinness Book of World Records: Gamers Edition.

The whaa?

Ok, available information puts Half-Life at around eight million sales. Individual games in both the Halo and CoD series have far, far exceeded that. (Modern Warfare 2 has sold well over twenty million copies world wide. Gaaah!)

[ThunderPeel2001]

Ok, available information puts Half-Life at around eight million sales. Individual games in both the Halo and CoD series have far, far exceeded that. (Modern Warfare 2 has sold well over twenty million copies world wide. Gaaah!)

True, but on the PC? I'm pretty sure Half-Life still holds the title for the platform (or at least did in 2008).

[Sno]

True, but on the PC? I'm pretty sure Half-Life still holds the title for the platform.

Right, right.. "PC FPS" right.. *facepalm*

Edit: Though you didn't originally make that distinction, but... whatever.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Sno

[ThunderPeel2001]

Hurrah! I'm glad the dust has finally settled.

Looking back, I shouldn't have said, "Don't patronize me".

Anyways, Half-Life: It's strengths and weaknesses. I'd still love to discuss them with anyone who's interested in doing so.

[subbes]

Teehee! You said hurrah.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Teehee! You said hurrah.

Natch

Edited May 7, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001

[Sno]

New discussion - Hey, you know what was pretty cool? Snarks. Snarks are pretty cool. The first Half-Life was loaded with crazy weapons.

HL2, not so much.

It gets a lot of credit for the gravity gun, but... everything else is kind of a standard tool set. I guess the alt-fire on the overwatch rifle is pretty cool, and there's the hot-rebar crossbow.

[Thompson]

New discussion - Hey, you know what was pretty cool? Snarks. Snarks are pretty cool. The first Half-Life was loaded with crazy weapons.

HL2, not so much.

It gets a lot of credit for the gravity gun, but... everything else is kind of a standard tool set. I guess the alt-fire on the overwatch rifle is pretty cool, and there's the hot-rebar crossbow.

The weapons were perhaps a little lacking, but I didn't feel like it had too large an impact on my enjoyment. If you come to Half-Life 2 looking for weapon variety and well honed gun-play you're probably coming to the wrong game, but don't get me wrong, they should still strive to improve and broaden it.

The gravity gun was certainly a game changer, but maybe not quite as much as it could have been. It's not exactly the Portal gun of Half-Life, but used against enemy weapons it can be an extremely powerful utility. eg. The Hunter takes significantly more damage from physics attacks (throwing a box at it) than from your weapons, and if you allow the Hunter to shoot one of it's flechettes into that object then throw it at the Hunter you can wipe them out easily.

[toblix]

This thread just reminded me of something. I've replayed HL2 (and the episodes) three or four times, and for the last years I've been thinking that since I still remember every little thing by heart there's no point in playing it again any time soon. But now I'm trying to remember, and I can't even recall what the weapons were! It's probably been close to ten years since I played Half-Life 2 – thanks for reminding me!

[Ben X]

Yeah, y'know, after playing Portal I was tempted to replay through Half Life 2 but decided I couldn't be bothered. But this topic makes me want to. Orvidos slagged the pistol earlier, but I loved it purely because of the first gunfight - the long build-up to it with the non-armed then crowbar-only start to the game, and then that fantastic shootout in the canals with the combine, the crack of your pistol echoing off the concrete walls as you break cover to sharpshoot the soldiers and watch them tumble in the distance to the sound of their forlorn radio bleeps. Can't wait to do that again!