NOTE - Please read through the entire thing before posting some reply that just makes you look like a dumb fanboy by people who have read through it and already seen where I've made a proper and thought out critique.

Just gotten around to playing in the past 2 weeks and I just don't get what all the hype was about (even though I did find Portal to be awesome and the cake is NOT a lie!).

Here's a run down:

Pros:
- Good graphics
- Gravity Gun
- The Antlions
- Dog

Cons:
- Everything else:

The story is a complete mess and the characters are completely underdeveloped (case in point - Dog is the only character I care about or like or even find interesting). I have no idea why Gordon Freeman is so highly regarded nor even why I'm killing these supposed aliens. I don't care about the original Half Life, the second game shouldn't be so highly isolated and discriminatory like it is and players new to the series should NOT be so completely clueless.
Also, NO, I'm not illiterate and completely lacking of any sort of attention span. I can debate topics such as the issues brought up in The Matrix and I've read the Lord of the Rings, YES, READ it, so comprehension issues are not the issue.

The guns are mundane and boring except for the grav. gun. YET it's inconsistent at best (why can't I use it through a glass window right next to me when I can 'grab' a barrel from 10m away??? It's a GRAVITY gun....) and I'd honestly consider the shot gun more effective in the most critical moments (ie. when there's lots of enemies). It's amusement factor also starts to wear off after a while. Also, just why can't I use zoom to shoot, as opposed to the awkward zoom in, let go of zoom, pull trigger set-up that's incorporated?

The less said about the vehicle sections the better.

The enemies are some of the dumbest I've played against in a LONG time - on several occasions I've been able to stand in a doorway for about 2 seconds in direct view before the bad guy reacted. Another couple have just stood there taking a couple of hits before they've seemed to have figured out they're being hit.

The level designs are extremely linear, although the developers have done a good job of cheating the players into thinking they have choices, exploration lasts all of about 10 paces before running into a forced boundary.

So there you have it. If you ask me those are some very glaring issues that have made playing through a tedious and boring affair and nowhere near worthy of a game of the year nomination, let alone a winner (or was 2004 just that bad a year for gaming???). If anything, it's a very nice tech demo, but that's about all that can be said for it. Anyone care to explain what I've managed to overlook or where my criticisms are incorrect? After all, as game of the year it does deserve some chance of a rebuttal.

EDIT: Here's my responses in a later post that most people won't notice so copying to here:

First, I WANT to like this game, I really do. I can see the potential for greatness it had. But having said that, these issues do exist and I'm trying to find out what I'm missing that others apparently are not that make up for them.

To reply to what I've seen so far:
- I'm playing through on normal mode which is default - the game and enemy intelligence that the developers deem the standard experience for players.
- The vehicles sections are overly long or need more action and this is combined with handling that seems akin to someone with bald tires trying to drive over ice. Surely one of the playtesters should have picked up on this?
- Concerning a sequel following on from the original. Yes, it's true that seeing/reading/playing the first should give you a more in depth understanding overall, but have a look at how say The Godfather Part 2 / Aliens / Terminator 2 deals with the matter. All I'm saying is a more contained story would have been better for a game released 6 years after the first (and was never originally conceived as having a sequel), like how Resistance 2 or Gears of War 2 have approached things (you can play the games without needing to have finished the first, even though the first versions contribute to further enjoyment of the second). And Lord of the Rings does NOT have a sequel - it's one story in three parts and was always conceived and written as such.
- 2 seconds pause: slight over-exaggeration but makes the point, there shouldn't be long enough a time to notice.
- Gravity gun and windows: the particular instance was a section where the glass was unbreakable and the set piece required me to throw a grenade through a doorway to knock out a cable plug when the grav gun had worked fine on others.
- Linear levels: This is probably noticed more from the lack of set pieces and boredom on some levels, and was more noticeable than other games I've played

Yes, there are good points for the game. The graphics are great, the physics for the most part are terrific, and the bigger set pieces are great fun. Yet I've just found too much wanting and boring for something so highly regarded from a developer I think is great (Portal and Left 4 Dead) that I'm quite shocked and confused by what happened with HL2.

::sigh:: Ok, first, I need to say that I'm not some fanboy. I love Half Life 2, but there are better games.

Now...

This sounds much less like an actual review, and more of a rant on how you don't like something that's popular just because it's popular. You're insulting it over things basically everyone else praises it for.

The story is great, and yes you SHOULD play the original Half Life for the story- that's the point of sequels most of the time, to CONTINUE a story- and the characters are very well created. Alyx is a loveable tough girl that breaks some stereotypes, Kleiner and Lamarr make for a very comedic pair, Eli is a kind, gentle man that still knows when to take charge and action, and Barney... well, he's just awesome.

The weapons, though they aren't exactly shiny and big, are fun to use and a couple are at least a bit more original then the usual FPS.

The vehicle sections are fun and, although sometimes a little anoying, can be quite exciting.

A two second pause with the AI? Are you playing on easy or something? The AI isn't exactly where this game shines, but it's far better then a LOT of games that have come out since (Halo 3?)

The level design, though sometimes repetetive, is amazing in it's detail. And it gives enough freedom to roam without letting the player get lost. Make a game with a linear story with free roaming and the player could get bored, and fast, and if they do manage to get lost, they might call it quits. Also, many of the puzzles you have to solve are amazing and fun.

So, there's my opinion. I read the whole thing, and I feel that you're just in a bit of a bad mood and decided to rant. Either that, or you have very odd taste in games.

On the guns:
Get SuperMod gor iron sights. Freeman is not a militant. He knows not of iron sights. As to the window and Gravity Gun: BREAK THE WINDOW.

On the vehicles:

They were built like that because VALVe tested them to death.

As to the AI:

They're shocked that Anticitizen ONE is in their sights. =D
Really, you try coding extremely advanced AI using the Half-Life 2-build of the Source Engine.

As to the levels:

They were made linear because, at the time, the levels worked better and playtesters did not get lost.

Story:

Underdeveloped? Feck, It's not a narrative about Alyx, it's a narrative about Gordon. It takes place in the timespan of about 3 days. Name one game where characters develop in three days.

A sequel's plot actually following on from the first one is 'discriminatory'. WTFLOL! I had no idea reading LOTR qualifies one to understand sequals without bothering to find out what the first one was about.

The characters are brilliant, warm and human and often funny, the storytelling is subtle brilliance, the design art and sound are all excellent and are brilliantly used to create an amazing atmosphere of a decaying dystopian future, the weapons sound and feel great and are satisfying to use, the level design is great at keeping things interesting through variation and so on and so forth.

Why do this?

It will only end bad, it has ended bad in the past. You won't change our minds and we will not change yours, so what did you hope to achive?

Well, I think you started playing the game thinking it wasn't going to be good, which therefore made you think less of the game. Anyway, here are my counter-arguments:

As for the story, it's a series, so the story is obviously not going to be complete. I will agree that Dog is the best character, but other characters are interesting and likable (although sometimes irritating, as most friendly companions). They have believable emotions and relationships, and I think you just chose not to be interested.

As for the guns, that's very nitpicky in my opinion, seeing as how they're pretty standard guns. You can't grab items through glass because the glass creates and obstacle, and the game doesn't feature fully interactive environments, but most games don't either. Of course the shotgun will be more effective in critical moments, shotguns mow down enemies very quickly, and you don't have to scrounge around for ammo. You can't use zoom to shoot because not every gun has a scope, and the zoom is meant to be used for more of a binocular type tool. Also, I would hardly consider the Ant Lion pod (don't remember the exact name for it) to be mundane.

What were you expecting from the vehicle sections? It's not a racing game or anything.

As for the enemies, I'm willing to bet you were playing on the easiest difficulty setting

Lastly, yes, it is a linear game. It wasn't designed to be like Fallout 3 or anything where exploration and choices are crucial to the gameplay.

As for the good things you didn't mention, the environments are very well done, the atmosphere is very immersing, and the monster designs are pretty creative.

This really isn't much of a critique, more of a Yahtzee-esque rant (no offense to him or anything, I find his videos to be quite humorous).

I agree, although i seem to be the only one

so cold, lonely

I like how much exaggerated whining you fit in.

Like "The guns are mundane and boring except for the grav. gun". Would that be more mundane than, say, CoD4 or CS or any FPS that uses just the standard modern guns? Or any of the thousands of WW2 shooters?

Or "The less said about the vehicle sections the better". No, why don't you actually say what you mean. I liked them. What, was a warthog the only acceptable vehicle or something?

Or "the level designs are extremely linear". Linear levels are a design decision that allow devs to focus on delivering more highly polished set pieces because they know the players' movements. This works very well in many games, like see also CoD4. What's so bad about it?

Or "The enemies are some of the dumbest I've played against in a LONG time ". That must mean you haven't played any games in a LONG time, and I've never had an enemy pause for 2 seconds. Exaggeration?

Knight Templar:
Why do this?

It will only end bad, it has ended bad in the past. You won't change our minds and we will not change yours, so what did you hope to achive?

I wholeheartedly agree.

I did not like the presentation, it kind of seemed more of a rant.

Just my opinion :)

This trainwreck is heading for flame war, in b4 da lock!

now to make the post legitimate, like most things produced by valve are of outstanding quality, and you've got a million more people here to back me up, same as Halo, and like Halo, i wouldn't call it the Holy Grail of gaming.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
For whatever reason, if someone doesn't like a game, let it be.
Flame wars never end well for either side.

sma_warrior:

NOTE - Please read through the entire thing

<opinion stuff>

Anyone care to explain what I've managed to overlook or where my criticisms are incorrect? After all, as game of the year it does deserve some chance of a rebuttal.

So you don't like something that a lot of other people like? Fancy that... I never thought that could happen.

Seriously though, there's nothing you can do about it; the things you criticized are the same things a majority of people enjoyed. It's a question of taste and yours happens to diverge from the majority for HL2, simple as that.

sma_warrior:

I have no idea why Gordon Freeman is so highly regarded nor even why I'm killing these supposed aliens. I don't care about the original Half Life, the second game shouldn't be so highly isolated and discriminatory like it is and players new to the series should NOT be so completely clueless.

Okay, Here's your biggest problem: it's a sequel! it's supposed to pick up where the last one went off. That's the point. You don't go into a movie sequel expecting them to tell you everything that has happened up to this point. Why? Because that would be stupid. It would just be a pointless little boring section where you have a long interview with Barney detailing everything that went wrong at Black Mesa. Don't complain about the game leaving you clueless if you aren't going to take the time to find out the plot. That's just lazy.

anyway, on to a few of your other points:

The guns are the same as in almost every other FPS, so you really can't call out HL2 as a series on this one, although if you want to bash FPS's as a whole go right ahead so I can shoot you down on that one too

The gravity gun doesn't allow you to pick up objects through things like glass for the same reason you can't drink something that's inside a metal box with no holes, that being that there's something in the way. you may have noticed that you can't pick up objects if there is something else in front of your cross hair. this is because it picks up the first thing it gets to, which makes sense if you take the time to think about it.

The vehicle sections, while not great, are far from the worst that have been put into an FPS, so I'll give you partial points on that one.

The AI can be a bit off at times, but frankly I would probably be frozen in place too if a mad shotgun wielding scientist in a very shiny suit of powered armor burst through the doorway. Seriously though, The AI's were decent, I've never seen what you described where the enemies would sit and stare at you for a few seconds. If you played on easy, then the problem isn't the AI, and they reacted as they should have, based on difficulty. If you weren't on easy, then they AI genuinely did screw up, so I'll give you a point for this one too.

Finally, Linearity. Six words. It is a first person shooter. Many first person shooters have been linear. It's only relatively recently that First Person Shooters have gone into non linear or open world gameplay, and it's still relatively rare.

So no, HL2 is not the best game ever, but most of the shortcomings you posted can be applied to most of the FPS's out there, so you can't really single HL2 out for them. That's just my opinion though. I can see why people wouldn't like it, but I still say most of the things they point out are more of a general comment on FPS's.

Okay, so where to begin....

First, I WANT to like this game, I really do. I can see the potential for greatness it had. But having said that, these issues do exist and I'm trying to find out what I'm missing that others apparently are not that make up for them.

To reply to what I've seen so far:
- I'm playing through on normal mode (which is default - the game that the developers deem the standard experience for players).
- The vehicles sections are overly long or need more action and this is combined with handling that seems akin to someone with bald tires trying to drive over ice. Surely one of the playtesters should have picked up on this?
- Concerning a sequel following on from the original. Yes, it's true that seeing/reading/playing the first should give you a more in depth understanding overall, but have a look at how say The Godfather Part 2 / Aliens / Terminator 2 deals with the matter. All I'm saying is a more contained story would have been better for a game released 6 years after the first (and was never originally conceived as having a sequel), like how Resistance 2 or Gears of War 2 have approached things (you can play the games without needing to have finished the first, even though the first versions contribute to further enjoyment of the second).
- 2 seconds pause: slight over-exaggeration but makes the point, there shouldn't be long enough a time to notice.
- Gravity gun and windows: the particular instance was a section where the glass was unbreakable and the set piece required me to throw a grenade through a doorway to knock out a cable plug when the grav gun had worked fine on others.
- Linear levels: This is probably noticed more from the lack of set pieces, but was more noticeable than other games I've played

Yes, there are good points for the game. The graphics are great, the physics for the most part are terrific, and the bigger set pieces are great fun. Yet I've just found too much wanting and boring for something so highly regarded from a developer I think is great (Portal and Left 4 Dead) that I'm quite shocked and confused by what happened with HL2.

The only part that really bugged me in HL2 was the dialogue. So much of the exchanges were awful, but I think the design of Episode 1 was successful in attaching me to Alyx, because I freaked out when she was incapacitated by the Hunter at the beginning of Episode 2. Even if Ep1 seemed fairly anticlimactic after destroying the Citadel in Episode Zero (as it were).

The original Half-Life was incredibly linear. There were maybe a few parts that felt slightly non-linear, but mostly there was a bit of openness in different areas to allow for a few different tactical options. Anyhow, what's the use in writing all those amazing set pieces if hardly anyone will see them?

I don't find the original poster's views 'insulting' at all. He perfectly backs up most of his statements.

He's simply asking fans why on earth they treat it as if it's the greatest (or one of the) game of all time, despite obvious issues that plenty of other games have overcome before or since.

I'm glad of his 'rant' as it helps me justify having not bought it myself all these years after being too bored to complete the demo.

Why do this?

It will only end bad, it has ended bad in the past. You won't change our minds and we will not change yours, so what did you hope to achive?

I've changed my mind on games/ issues after rants. Not too often, but on occasion I have to admit the awful truth that someone else is right and I'm wrong.

Bring on the rants.

Wow! He read LOTR! How awesome is that! Well, if LOTR is the only thing you seem to understand, let me ask you this: Would you understand what the hell is going on in the story if you started reading it say from the middle of the 2nd book? Your answer? If you honest than its a "no".

[/steam]

Ok, now that I let the steam out lets talk about the rest:

Guns: Whats so "mundane and boring" about a crossbow that shoots red-hot metal rods that nail enemies to the wall?

Vehicles: Well, at lest here they dont do somersaults every time you hit a boulder that is bigger than average human head. (Halo, Im looking at you)

Enemy AI: I dont know, I played the game on Hard and it was always "Its Freeman! FIRE!!!" no wait, no lag in AI.

The Window Thing: I'll try to explain so you'll understand. GGun generates "magical invisible beam" that attracts items on impact. If thers something in the way, like a window, or a wall, than the "magical beam" stops at that point and can not attract an item because it has not made a contact.

Linear levels: Show me an FPS without linear levels. Fallout3 doesnt count since its actually a FPWalkArounWithNothingToDo for the most part. "Open world" wasnt such a big issue in 2004 if memory serves me right. Everyone started yapping about it around 2005, I think.

Oh, and the cake IS a lie. Companion Cube says so, so it has to be true.

You know what? Even though this is one of the most critically acclaimed games, winner of over 35 game of the year awards for that year, and claimed to be the best game ever made by PC Gamer Magazine, you've suddenly made me realize how wrong the rest of the entire world is. Thank you.

Half-life 2 is a well crafted, nicely polished gem.

I'm not interested in your ideas that Half-life shouldn't be linear. Why not? Because that's not what Half-life is about. This idea that games need to be nonlinear is such a close minded approach. Half-life tells a fantastic story (if you actually gave it a chance, which you haven't), and it wouldn't be half as fantastic if the game was nonlinear.

As for your little disclaimer:

"NOTE - Please read through the entire thing before posting some reply that just makes you look like a dumb fanboy by people who have read through it and already seen where I've made a proper and thought out critique."

As beautiful of a run-on sentence as that is, it's a little off putting. You should try not sounding like a prick just before you're about to give your opinion. I'm also bewildered by the fact that you already call people fanboys right in the first sentence of your post. As if to say that anybody who disagreed with your oh mighty opinion was to be deemed a boy who is a fan.

Can't a person be..<<drum roll>>... just a fan?

So great? Well I thought it was quite boring myself infact, I kinda gave up after the first half hour and just played portal and Team Fortress which IMO are better.

sma_warrior:
The story is a complete mess and the characters are completely underdeveloped (case in point - Dog is the only character I care about or like or even find interesting). I have no idea why Gordon Freeman is so highly regarded nor even why I'm killing these supposed aliens. I don't care about the original Half Life, the second game shouldn't be so highly isolated and discriminatory like it is and players new to the series should NOT be so completely clueless.

The game takes place in a very brief time, in which the main character does not have time to sit down and reminisce about what happened before. I don't really like HL2 all that much, mostly due to my dislike of first-person shooters in general, but the storytelling kept me going through it. I was intrigued that the game does NOT jam its entire storyline down your throat, but rather lets you ferret out what's going on. I mean, at the beginning of HL2 your main character isn't supposed to know what is going on... if you pay attention, you do figure out quite a bit though.

WitherVoice:
I was intrigued that the game does NOT jam its entire storyline down your throat, but rather lets you ferret out what's going on.

This game really does have a great story, but most of it is told by writing on the walls, or heard over loud speakers, or seen on Televisions, being talked about in the background, etc. Personally, I love that.

HL2 came out in 2004. Don't judge it by 2008 standards.

Do remember that this is a 2004 game released four years ago. it isn't going to be on the same level as modern Shooters like COD 5 or battlefield bad compny or Resistance 2. Even Episode 2 is using the same engine and AI as HL2. It does help to play the origional and maybe trawl wikipedia for a bit to get a full sense of the plot.
EDIT okay, maybe the last bit is a bit fanboyish but still. And I do agree that the gravity gun is a bit nerfed. It would help if you could use a device that can throw engines, fuel barrels and cinder blocks to smash a wooden door.

the jellyman:
Do remember that this is a 2004 game released four years ago. it isn't going to be on the same level as modern Shooters like COD 5 or battlefield bad compny or Resistance 2.

I disagree. My fav FPS is Farcry and, having played the demo of Crysis (which I still can't be bothered to play to the very end) along with a number of other FPSs, none of them seem to reach the penacle of fun that Farcry reached with me. None of them have that perfect blend of action, freeroaming and urgency.

The Gravity Gun, that is all.

The Half Life series is, and has always been, a remarkable achivement on the grounds of interactive storytelling, plopping the player right there in the middle of a series of remarkable events.

If you can't see that, you're either a soulless beast or so preoccupied with trying to validate the game as being "good" because you heard it was good that you weren't paying attention to what was right in front of you.

The story.

Play the original, and the expansions. They're on sale on Steam.

Also, the game CAME OUT IN 2004. Think about that.

Asehujiko:
HL2 came out in 2004. Don't judge it by 2008 standards.

By 2008 and standards half life looks better than ever

Why do i love this game? Because it is simply awesome. I wont give a reason, its just awesome.

sma_warrior:

(even though I did find Portal to be awesome and the cake is NOT a lie!).

Dude. Portal is just as linear as Half-Life 2, probably even more. Now you complain about a game that gave an illusion of free choice but praise one of the most linear games ever.

A lot of your points come down to personal tastes, and I highly doubt anyone here is going to change your mind, although, I don't think you can really criticise Half-Life 2 for being linear, as FPS games typically are.

The game part of Half Life 2 is, by all means, pretty good. However, the story is seriously messed up. How do you take something as simple as some scientist killing aliens and make it this convoluted? How did I go from killing an alien overlord to being some pawn in "The Rebellion"? Why weren't the combine even mentioned in the first game? Why does somebody with a PhD from MIT willingly enter a device ment for restraining prisoners...twice? The story is really what held this game back. If they would've let some better writers do it, this game's quality would be a much higher standard.

After succesfuly beating the game 28 times (including mods like SMOD) I can honestly say: I'm sick of it.
For now.