Guys, this is a troll. He always has been. Read through his post history. Every post he makes references how much he wishes all games were Halo, and he's made a point of knocking much better games at every turn. Included in the list would be Half-Life, RE, and the Silent Hill series.

To the OP directly: When you troll, you have to be *subtle* about it. No one will believe you when you make comments like, 'Liking Halo less than Silent Hill shows you don't like intelligent gameplay'. You have to come off as a person who could both:

1) Realistically have the opinions they claim to hold.
2) Survive at least fifteen years of real world experience without dying or learning anything to contradict those opinions.

Try harder next time.

- J

Does anyone suspect that this will end in TIG claiming it was all one big farce to show everyone how you shouldn't believe hype about videogames? Either that, or blood and fire. Not sure which is more amusing.

theindecisivegamer:
If my comment about physics...etc.

Ok, explain to me where halo differentiates from this "point and click affair".

Because if your reffering to the pointing at an enemy, and clicking the right to trigger to cap his little head in, then I'd tell you thats have EVERY FPS is.
As for the movie comment, you've already proved too ignorant to listen to other peoples opinions, many have gone out of their way to try and compensate for this, but overall you come across as a crazed halo fan without control of what his brain sends to his mouth.

Be aware of your surroundings. Show some respect.

So Half-Life is shallow, but Halo is the best FPS there is?

Saddle up guys, there's trollslaying to be done.

theindecisivegamer:
Oh dear, you guys should make a clan together and jerk of while playing world of warcraft.

reeeeeeeeaaaaaaal mature there, licketysplick.

But I don't play WOW. I spend my hard earned pennies on other things.

TROOOOOOLLSLAAAYING. Gotta go

theindecisivegamer, okay, I'm going to take a moment, and actually treat you as if you were a first time reviewer, and ignore any past reviews you've posted, and not flame you on it.

Quite frankly, I think all of you need a swift kick in the butt for turning bad experiences with theindecisivegamer in the past into a mad flaming war on both sides of the fence. I think two thirds of you are guilty of it in this thread. Because remember; it doesn't matter who started it originally, doing it so yourself in retaliation is just as bad as if you did it under your own decision. There's a button called "Report". Use it. It will make people a lot happier (and the mods too) if you do so.

Anyway, now I'm going to go critique your review, theindecisivegamer. Now, first of all running a spellchecker will do wonders for ANYONE's credibility. I do it too for important posts. Actually, Firefox has one included. Try that for a spin.

Secondly, it's short. If you've noticed by reading reviews done by paid reviewers, they usually span at least one page, and can go as high as five pages depending on how important or significant the game is. On a web forum, that's about 1,000 words minimum. Now, I'm not saying that you should go and ruin your fingers, but only talking about specific parts of it without encompassing the entire picture is a very unfairly biased opinion. If you're going to do a review, I strongly suggest you play the game until you've played almost every nook and cranny you can think of. That way, you'll get a better response.

Third of all, not all negative views; even the worst games have SOME redeeming feature (even if it's a hilariously bad one). It's how you write it that people perceive it.

And finally, fourth it's VERY important that if you're reviewing a game on its specific merits, that you should play it on its best performing system first; otherwise you're blaming a game for faults that are, although the developer's fault, are also not. Especially since not all developers do the porting themselves, but hand it off to a second rate developer to do it for them.

Now, to the review itself:

----------------------

1: Little to no throught has gone into level design in terms of combat and enemy placement. It's as if they simply made some nice looking levels and then carelessly pasted enemies in, quantitively proportional to the length through the game.

I wouldn't say that. I remember the time when I first ran into the buzzaws inside the sewers. I don't think I was ever so scared in my life, seeing a large number of small flying droids with spinning blades coming in to hack me alive. Or, the time just after Ravenholm, where I suddenly see a beam, and get snipped from behind. Couldn't immediately figure out where it came from. Another, is facing the speed-freak-headcrabs with the mutated hosts, and howling in a sound that I think is more freaky than I've ever heard. And of course the antlions.

Do I think placement was bad? I don't think so. Obviously you can't be perfect, but it's difficult to BE perfect in today's ultra-competitive gaming market.

2: The acctual gun play is obismal, with each enemy taking a silly amount of body shots to go down, each one not preventing the enemy in any way from shooting back, so you can't avoid getting shot yourself. It just turns into generic fps head pointing button mashing. And did i mention the AI is awful.

This I can entirely blame on the port to the XBox. I rarely found the AI to NOT be a match on the PC version. In addition, in the PC version I could turn any weapon into a serious lethal machine. With only two or three shots with the pistol I could kill a soldier. Headshots, granted, but that's the point. The problem is that Half-Life 2 was designed for the mouse and keyboard (and PC's in general), not the original XBox console. The system was underpowered for such a powerhouse, and because controllers are terribly inaccurate for shooters, they have to add an 'auto-aim' feature that you've seen in games since Goldeneye, and ever since. Sure, you can hit tons of crap in any shooter on the console, but it's simply because of auto-aim. Goldeneye's got it, Perfect Dark's got it, Halo's got it, they all do. And those that don't, people don't play because they simply can't hit the side of a barn. It's the controller's fault, not the game. Unless the port added a very poor auto-aim.

One of the biggest flaws of auto-aim is that it'll always aim for the chest, never anywhere else. The ONLY way you can do so is to actually hold down a button to zoom in, and shoot that way. However, that immobilizes you for the temporary accuracy boost, which leaves you open to die very quickly. And that, my friend, is why you say the weapons are so weak; it's because it's hitting the best protected part of the enemy's body. Only the Wii has done anything different which opens up possibilities; the Wiimote makes an excellent psuedo lightgun perfect for headshots. For a great example, play Battalion Wars for the Gamecube, then Battalion Wars II for the Wii. I found that I can do tons more with the Wiimote than I could with the Gamecube controller.

Same with Half-Life 2 with the mouse and keyboard. :)

3: The game relies on health packs and shield charging stations which means you can find yourself in an imppossible situation where you can't progress without getting shot and killed due to the previous point so you have to start the level over.

I had almost the exact opposite situation; I actually had plenty to SPARE. It's how you play that will affect self-injury amounts. Try to force enemies into congo lines, or pick them off one at a time instead of running gung ho; this isn't Halo and the HV suit is not Halo regenerative armor. You need to be careful for a huge majority of the game. It's not until the final stretch of the entire game that you can relax somewhat.

On that note, here's a hint: If you have nothing to shoot at, and you see a high-powered health pack, pick it up, and carry it with you until you need it. In fact, the first time you get hit, it'll be used automatically.

4: Needless to say, the physics puzzles are pathetic, with almosy everyone essentialy consisting of a see saw, one of whoose sides needs to be weighed down. This is repeated an utterly rediculous number of times, and also make no sense whithin the context of the game.

This, I can mostly agree on. Physics are awesome. So is Half-Life 2. But like Yahtzee's review said about the second episode, "Yes, we know that you can make a see-saw!". It's overdone. But, maybe you should play around with the gravity gun more. ;)

Anyway, it's an okay review. Not the best, but not the worst I've seen. But, as I said before, test it on its main machine before passing judgement. Or, instead of attacking the game itself, attack the performance issues. Because otherwise, you're like reviewing a star athlete's performance after the person has had an injury; of course that player will play worse! The person's sore and his/her body isn't working as good. And, it wouldn't be a surprise if said injured player performs worse than during the star days.

That XBox Half-Life 2's situation in a nutshell.

But I do ask to keep at it, practice your reviews, and take my suggestions. And, don't compare everything to Halo. Halo is good, but it's not a benchmark. Heck, there's Halo 2 and I found that game played much better than the original!

EDIT - I just re-read everything just to make sure everything I wanted to say was said, but it wasn't. So, I'm going to say this: Saying Halo is the only good FPS is very blind and single-minded; not something that you want to be in a reviewer. You should try out and rent some other console FPS's. In fact, go play some PC FPS's, especially since the genre was like born on that system. FPS's on PC's have dramatically better aim. Trust me, I'm a Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2/2142 veteran, a good part of that with a very high ranking clan. I can tell you that those games are freaking awesome, and puts Halo's vehicles to shame, and same thing with its combat system. I can say the same about a majority of the Call of Duty series, and others. Different controls can make all the difference.

I think you need to play more FPS's before you can review more FPS's, because I know for a FACT that Halo isn't the best FPS ever. It's a great one, granted, with its great storyline and decent mechanics, but even Halo 2 eclipses it, among all the other games.

Just my two cents.

EDIT 2 (To mods only) - If you come along and find this thread, I'd like to hear the OP's rebuttal to my post.

theindecisivegamer:

WomanTheatre:
I agree with indecisive, there's no 'tactical' way to get through halflife 2, it's a game about conserving every bullet, every battery, every health station (oops wasted 5 health, better reload!). I remember having to find old saves to get myself out of sticky situations thanks to shoddy gamebalancing.

Most of the enemies don't even flinch when you shoot them (unless it's with a physics-driven weapon like the crossbow). Most of the physics is a gimmick, we're probably looking at the dumbed-down result of their original vision after valve realized that physics-driven gameplay sucks because it is glitchy and unpredictable (Esp. w/havok).

It definitely has great atmosphere and characters, but it's perfectly linear. I really have nothing great to say about the level design, since it all boils down to a twisty hallway with a couple of sets of stairs.

Story? yawn, good twist with the g-man stuff tho.

Wow thank you, i was begining to think i was the only person here with any sanity. And then i started to question my sanity... its all rather confusing.

Well to put it bluntly:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tactical
tac·ti·cal /ˈtæktɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tak-ti-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. of or pertaining to tactics, esp. military or naval tactics.
2. characterized by skillful tactics or adroit maneuvering or procedure: tactical movements.
3. of or pertaining to a maneuver or plan of action designed as an expedient toward gaining a desired end or temporary advantage.
4. expedient; calculated.
5. prudent; politic.

Going by definition 3 every FPS in existence is tactical, even half life, you may not think the game is tactical enough. But that is very different from being a tactical game, it is possible to choose different weapons with different behaviors. There are also points where you can choose not to fight and blow through the area. Just because you don't like the tactical choices presented doesn't mean they are not there.

Okay, let me rebuttal.

I don't wish to be rude here because i very much appreciate your effort to engage with my arguments instead of dismissing them because you don't agree. However almost all of your counter arguments miss the point and end up countering an imaginary argument.

Careful bud. I don't want to end up joining the masses.

1. Level design - i said, 'in terms of combat', not in terms of creating a tense or scary atmostphere, sure half life does that, but i'm refering here to the combat gameplay, which is carelessly laid out.

How so? If the forces know you're coming, they're going to put down mounted machine guns behind armoured walls. If they expect you to come through the sewers, you'll have the little droids. And, the AI knows to take cover and move strategically. I believe that battles are relatively well laid out, but I think I'm getting what you're meaning; the game doesn't give much in the way of cover and tactical mechanics. All you can really do is to go behind a wall, or duck behind a stack of stuff. However, so does Halo, so by saying I'm right, it basically makes Halo just like everything else. If you're looking for better combat, tactical mechanics, check out Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six: Vegas (which are completely different subgenres. I believe they are call tactical wargames.

2. Xbox port - i specificaly said that i looked past the graphical and frame rate issues, and while you make a valid point about auto aiming, one of my main complaints was the lack of feed back from enemies when shot, which i doubt differs too much between the versions.

Actually, there is. On most people in the PC version, you can actually see blood on both the walls, and the people themselves. As well, they WILL flinch when hit (and go ragdoll when dead). So if you don't see it in the Xbox version, that's your problem right there.

3. Health - My complaint isn't about the game being too hard or too easy. The game designers cannot have complete control over the difficulty of a purposefuly laid out combat scenario if they don't know how much health you will have upon entering it. That sort of health systm is unintelligent and dated.

Outdated, maybe. But that leaves you with two options; Halo shields or hidden health that slowly regenerates after you're hit? Half-Life 2 DOES have health and HV chargers. In addition, the ORIGINAL Halo DOES have health packs. I own the game, and I know this quite vividly. It was quite possibly the most hated thing to me about Halo; health could still affect you in Halo 1, but in Halo 2 and 3, as long as you only get nicked, you will fully recover.

Basically, every FPS has some form of the system. Or, if you're playing let's say, Battlefield 1942, your health is COMPLETELY dependant on another player! (Or yourself if you're a medic, but you get crap weapons). Once your health is gone, you die. No health packs.

4. Physics - yes, you agree, but the thing is; they did not repeat this puzzle 3 times, or ten times, no, the utterly ludicrous number of times the puzzle was repeated is not forgivable, it is a disgrace as far as i'm concerned.

I think there's a general consensus to that, but I think you're slightly blowing it out of proportion. There was too many granted. But, without them, it would just be another run of the mill shooter like Half Life 1.

But once again, while most of your reasoning in your arguments is not coherent, i appreciate the thought.

And once again, although you seem to be somewhat TOO passionate about Halo and are confusing to understand, I appreciate your appreciation.

theindecisivegamer:
Once again i beg you to read the arguments you are countering more carefuly.

But just to add, there is blood in xbox version, and they may flinch a bit but these are purely visual effects as they have absolutely no impact on the ability of the enemy to shoot back.

Also, if the awful physics puzzles were as you said the only thing between half life 2 and a run of the mill shooter...and the physics puzzles are poor beyond beleif, then we can conclude that there is very little between half life and a run of the mill shooter...once again in terms of gameplay.

Apart from the fact that, you know, Half-Life has stuff like good storytelling, believable characters, amazing art design, varied weapons, the gravity gun, the G-Man, etc etc.

theindecisivegamer:

00exmachina:

theindecisivegamer:

WomanTheatre:
I agree with indecisive, there's no 'tactical' way to get through halflife 2, it's a game about conserving every bullet, every battery, every health station (oops wasted 5 health, better reload!). I remember having to find old saves to get myself out of sticky situations thanks to shoddy gamebalancing.

Most of the enemies don't even flinch when you shoot them (unless it's with a physics-driven weapon like the crossbow). Most of the physics is a gimmick, we're probably looking at the dumbed-down result of their original vision after valve realized that physics-driven gameplay sucks because it is glitchy and unpredictable (Esp. w/havok).

It definitely has great atmosphere and characters, but it's perfectly linear. I really have nothing great to say about the level design, since it all boils down to a twisty hallway with a couple of sets of stairs.

Story? yawn, good twist with the g-man stuff tho.

Wow thank you, i was begining to think i was the only person here with any sanity. And then i started to question my sanity... its all rather confusing.

Well to put it bluntly:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tactical
tac·ti·cal /ˈtæktɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tak-ti-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. of or pertaining to tactics, esp. military or naval tactics.
2. characterized by skillful tactics or adroit maneuvering or procedure: tactical movements.
3. of or pertaining to a maneuver or plan of action designed as an expedient toward gaining a desired end or temporary advantage.
4. expedient; calculated.
5. prudent; politic.

Going by definition 3 every FPS in existence is tactical, even half life, you may not think the game is tactical enough. But that is very different from being a tactical game, it is possible to choose different weapons with different behaviors. There are also points where you can choose not to fight and blow through the area. Just because you don't like the tactical choices presented doesn't mean they are not there.

Indeed, shall we go on to say that every game and indeed every action in life is tactical because they involve choice?

See you're missing the definition again. If the choice allows you to gain an advantage in a situation or to gain an advantage in achieving a goal. Then yes the choice is a tactical choice.

Deciding between a roast beef or a turkey sandwich however, would not convey any advantage in most situations so except for very specific and I would say except for rare instances that would merely be a choice.

HL2 has all those things. I can think of no flaws with the gameplay of HL other than the damn see-saw.

theindecisivegamer:
What would the game play like if you replaced walls with blue. enemies with red blocks and items with yellow blocks?

...Halo?

(jokey-woke)

I'm going to talk about the review rather than the points he's making about HL2.

First of all, this is not a review. You assume your reader has played the game and supply little to no information. This appears to be a complaint, so perhaps the 'review' title should be dropped.

Second, please proofread your writing. It's irritating to read something with spelling and grammar mistakes and 'I' constantly being in the lower case. This doesn't just apply to the original review, as your wish to make this an argument supplies us with more flaw-ridden posts.

Third, you claim you're not a troll, but you say "Oh dear, you guys should make a clan together and jerk of while playing world of warcraft." You add extra hypocrisy by saying "But once again, while most of your reasoning in your arguments is not coherent, i appreciate the thought." Now, you aren't up to MGG standards, but you're not the most intelligent and polite person on the forums, by a long shot. Adding to this attitude your obvious position as a Halo fanboy, you make it hard to hold your opinions in high regard.

I've reported you for saying anyone who liked the game was a dribbling moron, but I doubt the mods will do anything. I know this post is in vain, but I'd really adore it if you could spell check and show some respect for fellow forum visitors.

First off, this is my first time on the Escapist forums, but reading your posts were enough to get me to register and slap you in the balls, except that yours seem so inflated by your own Halo-is-the-end-all-be-all-of-FPS single-minded "objectivity" that it would be impossible to change your mind. As far as I'm concerned, far from playing the devil's advocate, you seem to be purposely trying to piss people off which you have.

Now, ignoring the meat and potatoes of the game, that is the storytelling, character development, and such, we'll approach your Halo-perspective of Half-Life 2. First off,Gordon Freeman is not a militarily trained operative. He is making the best of what he can in a world that is attempting 1984 in the future with aliens tossed in. So when you say that Halo is a tactical shooter and Half-Life 2 isn't, when Master Chief is Robocop and Gordon Freeman is something closer to supernerd in radiation suit who plunked around with Doom. Attempting to dumb this point down as much as possible, you are an ordinary person attempting to do the impossible, not a superhuman military commando trying to do the same. Thus, when you try to say that Halo is a tactical shooter compared to Half-Life 2, you fail. If there isn't something cliche about saying you are the equivalent to Rambo in a suit that "regenerates" itself, then I don't know what is. For all intensive purposes, you might as well play F.E.A.R. Also, if you want to play a tactical shooter, play something along the lines of Battlefield 2 because the essence of tactical shooters are teamwork and not one-man-army bravado.

As far as level design is concerned, what more do you want? If we are reviewing Half-Life 2 outside of Episode 1 and Episode 2 and assume they haven't done the same thing in those games, the environment isn't nearly as bad as you make it to be. You have the canal system of a heavily polluted city that scales down from high technology to sparse technology made only to create barricades against people trying to escape. You have Ravenholm which gives the feel of an action/puzzle horror game with possibly one of the funniest characters developed in the Half-Life 2 franchise and a wide variety of objects with which to use to your advantage such as traps rigged to drop cars, spinning blades that you can duck under and turn on to help with ammo conservation, natural gas to burn the zombies with, objects such as buzz saws, exploding barrels/tanks, and other heavy objects like bricks and engines. You have the Combine factory for your high technology erections that you must get from Halo. The beginning with a mixture of run down housing where you try and evade Civil Protection without a weapon. How much level variety do you get in Halo? Spaceship, forest, and military base that looks a lot like the spaceship.

Well, I've already touched on the "tactical" issue, but the gun play is fairly "realistic" for the setting. You are using mostly modern day weapons (pistol, peacemaker, sub machine gun, shotgun) against armor made by the biggest monopoly on power and industry the world has ever seen. So what if you are using their weapons? Why would they make weapons made to kill their enemies (unarmored mostly) powerful enough to pierce the armor made to protect their soldiers? In such a scenario where an enemy gets one of their weapons (and that just might happen) and uses it against them, it might prove a problem. So the weapons don't often make them flinch, they have great armor. You get a ton of grenades which with a little practice can make up for the fact that your guns have a difficult time killing Combine soldiers. One of the things you apparently missed in Half-Life 2 is that you have to be resourceful. You have to use things like discretion and approach things from something other than run out in the open, pinpoint your enemies and shoot until it falls over. That is not how Half-Life 2 is supposed to be played. It isn't realistic and it isn't intelligent.

The fact that a player can only carry 2 weapons at a time and all the weapons have easily understandable advantages and disadvantages forcing players to be clever and resourceful in their choice of weapons.

Right out of your Halo review. Honestly, there isn't a whole lot of variety in the weapons. Pick up a good single shot weapon with good penetration power (the pistol) and one with good short-range application (shotgun) and you are mostly good for the rest of the game.

Moving on to health packs, there aren't many other good ways of explaining how you keep going in a game. In Battlefield 2 you actually have a medic. In fantasy games, there are healing spells. In Lord of the Ring Online, a hero runs on morale to keep going. Between regenerative suit and health packs, health packs are actually a much better idea. It means that you can't always scrap by the skin of your toes and slug through the next fight as if nothing happened or hide in a corner until your shield regenerates. You actually have to save your game and repeat an area by taking different approaches until something works so that you can survive until the next Resistance checkpoint. Now, if you actually had to take time to bandage yourself, that would be awesomely realistic but frustrating.

Now, I have to go to work, but rest assured I'll finish this when I have the time.

Eilanis, welcome to the Grand Army of King Haliwali Trollslayer. You nailed every point, and gave some nice visuals. Welcome to the forums.