there's a lot of talk that it wasn't up to date. i want to hear your opinions

Other than perhaps not looking as pretty as some other recent games it's just as up to date as anything else out there.

It's not the Cry2 engine. But it works damn well enough to give us an engaging story and believable characters.

Well, gameplay-wise it was better than a lot of leet-looking-uber-engine games(CoD4 and probably Crysis)

no way. It still has the most realistic facial movements and expressions ever, the dinamic lighting, the physics, the new and beautiful flora, it's astounding to this day.

It's technology was up to date at release, end of story. More importantly, the Source engine not only looks good, but it's far better optimized than most.

Short answer, no.

What is this judged on?

Graphically, maybe not. I think that the Source Engine is starting to show its age a little in that regard, but it is still a very good engine. The gameplay makes up for the lack of bleeding edge graphics anyway.

The 'open-ended' bit at the end was pretty underwhelming after getting used to things like Far Cry and such. And how the hell could anyone get to like the characters in HL2? At the end bit where that black dude was gonna get his brain eaten but he wouldn't stop talking I was just like "Jesus Christ, hurry up and fucking die".

Crap. Just put in "yes". Meant "no". Damn.

It's "up with the times" in terms of performance, I think. Yeah, just read R.Nevermore's input.
Okay, so it's not like Crysis in appearance, but I think it still looks great AND plays great AND my computer can play it without bursting into flames.

My only complaint is the use of that hard rock-sounding junk they play when the antlions invade the mines in Episode 2. Sounded more like Halo 2. What, are they going to get Breaking Benjamin to play for Episode 3?

Twinnie:
The 'open-ended' bit at the end was pretty underwhelming after getting used to things like Far Cry and such. And how the hell could anyone get to like the characters in HL2? At the end bit where that black dude was gonna get his brain eaten but he wouldn't stop talking I was just like "Jesus Christ, hurry up and fucking die".

I'm curious, what did you find so repellent about the characters in HL2?

Twinnie:
And how the hell could anyone get to like the characters in HL2? At the end bit where that black dude was gonna get his brain eaten but he wouldn't stop talking I was just like "Jesus Christ, hurry up and fucking die".

What you think of the characters is subjective. They're not intrinsically unlikable.

No, I don't think that just because Ep2 didn't have a cover mechanic, recoverable health, or any other of the trends in modern FPSs, it was 'behind'. I thought it looked pretty, but then, I'm not really interested in graphics. Game-play wise, I believe it's carrying on it's own style of gameplay, so, I can't fault it there. So, no, I don't think that Ep2 is dated. Though, you could take this as a rabid fanboy defending his beloved, but then again, you might not. Your call.

- A procrastinator

JakubK666:
Well, gameplay-wise it was better than a lot of leet-looking-uber-engine games(CoD4 and probably Crysis)

cod4, yes. crysis, no. crysis is a game that does something that very few shooters (deus ex and stalker for example) allow, the ability to choose how you want to do things. cod4 and even hl2 and its episodes as well as most shooters all have you follow one very strictly linear, developer defined paths. crysis (for its first 6 levels at least, to a much lesser extent the later levels) allows you to choose exactly how you want to do things. the progression is linear, yes, but the gameplay is very much open ended in a way that so few shooters have ever been. adding the nanosuit into the equation, a gameplay mechanic thats never been done this specific way before in a shooter, adds a lot more depth and choice as well.

MattyDienhoff:
It's technology was up to date at release, end of story. More importantly, the Source engine not only looks good, but it's far better optimized than most.

the soruce engine is well optimized, espically for when it was released. but today, almost 4 years later its more "well optimized" due to its age. it still looks/can look damn good, but it is an older engine and definitly not anywhere near as advanced as newer engines such as unreal 3, ce2 or id tech 5. that being said though its really outdated. the one thing that source does that none of these do well is the fact that its so customizable, all valve really has to do is update the lighting and physics engines as well as adding in more functionality (all things they are very actively doing as well) and it can easily compete with current engines. valve is, as usual, taking their time with it, but again, all it needs is a few minor updates and its very much on par.

twinnie, the characers in half life 2 have more depth in their character, as well as acting and even coming across as real people more than any other game released period. no game has had characters as sublimly deep as half life 2 does, in every way they come across as real people, from the things they say and how they say them, the emotions they display as well as their pure dedication to their cause.

stompy, cover mechanics are nothing new, games have had them since 2000 at least, granted few if any anywhere near as popular as in gears, but for a first person shooter i aruge they are useless as they take away from the immersion. if you want to take cover in an fps move up behind something and crouch down, much more realistic and intense than cover mechanics.

anyway, episode 2s graphics are dated because for the most part valve is using the same models and textures they used back with half life 2 four years ago. however, if you look at tf2 and portal, or even the hunters in episode 2 even youll see that they are quite well designed and look quite good as well. in terms of gamelay its still ahead of the game despite being more of the same from half life 2. hl2 was a few years ahead of its time, as was half life back in '98. valve put physics as one of the forefronts in hl2, that was four years ago, its just recently been where developers are putting more of a focus on physics, espically physics based gameplay. the level design is top notch, the pacing is quite good and its not too difficult but at the same time not a walk in the park. its so well balanced in every regard its hard not to enjoy. if anything games are just now catching up with half life 2, which was ahead of the times, so no, its not.

Naw. Lighting, facial animations, and character animations were all spot on. Some would say Ep. 2 compares unfavourably to Bioshock, but that's partly because Bioshock takes place entirely in dark corridors and you never get close enough to any of the characters to see how plasticy-looking their faces are.

I'll admit, HL2's visuals don't come close to achieving the level of photo-realism of say COD4, but what they do, they do very well.

Episode 2 was the best shooter of 2007, CoD4 might have looked cooler, but did it make me cry? NO!

R.Nevermore:
no way. It still has the most realistic facial movements and expressions ever, the dinamic lighting, the physics, the new and beautiful flora, it's astounding to this day.

Dynamic

I don't think I've played any shooters that drew me in like half-life and its spawn. I actually felt like a messiah to the Resistance, I cared about the people, the gunplay was great, graphics still holding up... I could go on for a while. Yea, it more than holds up. And keep in mind that I never actually played the game until January when I got the Orange Box... and that was just so I could understand the cake references.

Wazzelbe:
Crap. Just put in "yes". Meant "no". Damn.

It's "up with the times" in terms of performance, I think. Yeah, just read R.Nevermore's input.
Okay, so it's not like Crysis in appearance, but I think it still looks great AND plays great AND my computer can play it without bursting into flames.

My only complaint is the use of that hard rock-sounding junk they play when the antlions invade the mines in Episode 2. Sounded more like Halo 2. What, are they going to get Breaking Benjamin to play for Episode 3?

I actually thought that part was really awesome.

nokori3byo:

I'll admit, HL2's visuals don't come close to achieving the level of photo-realism of say COD4, but what they do, they do very well.

It's been a while since I played it, but I don't remember CoD4 being photo-realistic at all.Perhaps it's because I've played it on my 360?

I have no issues with the Source Engine; it's aged very well and can still produce contemporary visuals. My issues with Ep. 2 were with the mission design, not the engine, and those are mainly issues of personal preference (bleh, grub cave and friggin' magnussens) than anything I'd declare to be inherent to the game itself.

-- Steve

first i've heard of anyone sayin thats its behind the times. Physics engine was astounding. gameplay and ai remained of high standard. The graphics weren't CoD 4 or crysis. But then again not a lot is.

PurpleRain:
What is this judged on?

Seconded, there's no criteria to give a real answer. Do you mean graphically? AI? Gameplay? All of the above? Come one guy, yuh gotta be a bit more specific than that.

Iron_will:

Wazzelbe:
Crap. Just put in "yes". Meant "no". Damn.

It's "up with the times" in terms of performance, I think. Yeah, just read R.Nevermore's input.
Okay, so it's not like Crysis in appearance, but I think it still looks great AND plays great AND my computer can play it without bursting into flames.

My only complaint is the use of that hard rock-sounding junk they play when the antlions invade the mines in Episode 2. Sounded more like Halo 2. What, are they going to get Breaking Benjamin to play for Episode 3?

I actually thought that part was really awesome.

And wasn't it heavy electronica, anyway?

Anton P. Nym:
I have no issues with the Source Engine; it's aged very well and can still produce contemporary visuals. My issues with Ep. 2 were with the mission design, not the engine, and those are mainly issues of personal preference (bleh, grub cave and friggin' magnussens) than anything I'd declare to be inherent to the game itself.

-- Steve

QFT. Magnussens felt like a random mini-game inside an otherwise well told story. I'm also getting tired of the mandatory underground/tunnel sections each half-life game has with cramped spaces a lots of melee fighting opponents (zombies, ant-lions, etc). I just don't find fighting masses of mindless things that entertaining after the 10th one. I'd rather take on combine soldiers any day (for that matter, I hate the Flood... least entertaining sections of any Halo game, but then again I don't consider Halo that great anyway.)

The good thing about Half-Life is that you can have a good looking game without torturing your PC to death.
Of course Valve didn't change much at the gameplay etc. but don't fix what isn't broken,right?

Given that my computer has a poor graphics card, I can't judge the graphics very well.

I don't think that Episode 2 was behind the times, really. Yes, they are using an older engine, but the Source engine is still a great engine. And I personally enjoyed Episode Two more than the previous episodes.

R.Nevermore:
no way. It still has the most realistic facial movements and expressions ever, the dinamic lighting, the physics, the new and beautiful flora, it's astounding to this day.

Well said. The new cinematic physics they added, along with a slew of new shaders that no other company has made yet and they're unmatched animation more than stands up to any current engine. Says a lot for an engine that's at least 4 years old. Source is one of those few game engines that's as much a work of art as it is a programming feat.

If you think about the FPS of today having mechanics like 'only holding 2 guns at a time' and 'no health bar' so in a way it uses a lot of old gameplay elements. So in that sence I guess you could say its behind its times. This isnt a bad thing tho =P

Piorn:
The good thing about Half-Life is that you can have a good looking game without torturing your PC to death.
Of course Valve didn't change much at the gameplay etc. but don't fix what isn't broken,right?

HL2 gameplay is already incredibly boring. It took me a few months to stomach through the EP:1 game since it was the same stuff that I've grown tired of in HL2. EP:2 is the same thing.

It's getting old. They need some new mechanics, some puzzles that don't revolve around stacking some bricks on a platform to have the other side raise so it can support your weight... you know, some variety.

Or maybe some areas that don't have you doing the same thing 1,000 times in a row to get on to the next area (start of EP:1 for example).

Asking this here was a mistake. There are more Half-Life 2 fans on this forum than there are on Valve's forums. It's to the point where HL2 is mentioned in every thread, seriously it's like a drinking game, only if you took a shot every time HL2 is mentioned you'd be hammered before you got through the first two threads. "What's your favorite racing game?" "That part in Half-Life 2 Episode 2 where you race DOG to White Forest."

Regarding the question, I'd say yes and no. It's kind of hard to make a call like that when you take into account the Episode 1&2 are just glorified expansion packs. They don't really add anything new to the existing game, so really it's more a question of whether Half-Life 2 is behind the times.

Again, the answer to that is yes and no. I've seen several mentions of the dynamic lighting, and I can't figure out for the life of me what you guys are talking about. I see equal - or in many cases better - dynamic lighting in games released at the same time as HL2, and more than a few since its release. One wonders what games you're comparing it too.

Now as far as facial expressions, especially when you take into account that HL2 does them in real time, are quantum leaps ahead of 90% of the games on the market. I don't know if it's just laziness on the part of so-called "next gen" game developers, or if Valve is in possession of a time machine they use to steal future technologies, but the facial expressions are really advanced.

As far as game play, graphics, sound, and (for the love of God) vehicle sections, HL2 EP2 isn't any different from the games released four years ago. Maybe Valve will stop beating the dead horse (aka the Source Engine) and actually make their next game from scratch. If they did they might make some innovations that are equal to or greater than what they made four years ago.

It's really interesting to see that most people respond in regards to graphics. Nvidia marketeers must be smiling.

Why should a game's up-to-dateness be based upon eye candy? Why aren't gameplay innovation and experimentation, stroytelling, input set up etc. as, if not more, important?

It's no surprise Portal got the attention it recieved. It might not have looked extra-purty, but it did something pretty novel.

In all honesty, portal, at heart, was a bog-standard puzzle game. Apart from some of the mechanics and setting, it did little to push the boundaries of the puzzle genre, and kept to the puzzle genre cliches and frameworks.

In a world where graphical fidelity over-rides gameplay, stories and so forth, all we end up with is Quake with more colours and polygons. To be facecious, but with some conviction - Crysis was little more than Quake 2-with-bells-on.

Anyway, rant over.

Half Life 2, and the espisodes, were not ground breaking.

There is nothing wrong, however, with doing something traditional again, but doing it well. HL2 took the traditional FPS of story (in case a pretty damned good one) interspersed with corridors and baddies and did it exceptionally well. It stands shoulders above the others.

In that case, no, it's not behind the times.

Regardless of if it was new or not, It was still fun and enjoyable, and that's all that matters in my opinion.

Gameplay was, of course, awesome. You can only really judge out of date-ness based on the visuals. I think that Visual wise, it is comparable to most other games, still has probably the best physics engine and facial features out there, but a few details are starting to lose top slot to other games.

Then again, it took the engine what, 5 years in the world of computer technology to be challenged? I remember looking at my first HL2 videos, and thinking it went beyond next gen, and into the nebulous realm of "The Future". I think overall, it still stands up to the competition, it just doesn't tower over them menacingly like it did in 2004.