Half-Life 2 is a great game, though it's far from being one of my favorites.

I understand it has many positive aspects, being one of them the story. But for some reason, except for the first Half-Life, the narrative just didn't cater to my interests.

I have to admit it, though, that Valve has a way with storytelling and their way of presenting narratives without using "cinematics", but only in-game interactive cut-scenes, is ingenious.

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

Why not?
The only huge difference in games between now and then is graphics.
Except for physics, but I include that under the "appearance" category.

Wait... you're mad because you don't understand the story, but you've never played the first game? Alright, I'm going to walk straight into a story driven game's sequel and expect to know everything about it. Wrong wrong wrong.

Also, you're upset about having boring guns? Jeeze, does every game need a superpowered crazy gun to be good? Since when are guns boring? Were Counter-Strikes guns boring because they were real guns?

The enemies were pretty responsive for me, so I don't know where you're getting that from. If I walked into any enemy's line of sign, he and five other guys would be running at me.

And a game being too linear is a phrase that I'm starting to get annoyed at. Call of Duty was "too linear", Resident Evil 4 was "too linear". If you don't want to play a linear game then DON'T PLAY A LINEAR GAME! It's pretty easy to, you know, not play the damn game. Go buy an RPG if you don't want linear storytelling. So, I don't like romance films, I'm going to go watch the Notebook and get mad because it was a romance film.

Instead of writing the 1000 word retort I was planning, I'll just say this to your statement: ARRRGGGUGLAGAKKK! Game...so...good...don't...make...me...defend it...
Okay, back to sane me.

The story definetely could have been better....I think its a fun game, but not sure why everyone gets so worked up about it.

It's awesome because the awesomeness of the game as been decreed by the High Council of the Escapist, which exists for sures.

You've also got to judge it based on the year of its release. Half Life 2 is getting on years now. The reason it got Game of the Year is because based on the quality of games at the time, it was regarded by the majority as the best game that year.

I can't help but wonder if you are judging the game by comparing (whether subconsciously or not) with more modern titles.

And you need to play Half Life (1). Not just because it adds to the story, but because it is also an incredible game, and you are missing out if you don't.

Fraught:

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

Why not?
The only huge difference in games between now and then is graphics.
Except for physics, but I include that under the "appearance" category.

Changing themes behind games as well. As everyone has been arguing about, it seems nowadays linear games are out, and people want more choice.

for characters, all I'm saying is Father Gregori... :D Seriously, I only just started playing the games recently (I'm a retard when it comes to puzzles that require ingenuity...) but the gravity gun is amazing, and to expect it to work on everything is a little bit unrealistic, of course games often lock off aspects of the game in an attempt to lengthen play, its what they do, get over it. The characters are interesting enough, if not anything special, its also a little bit wierd that gordan, the guy with one of the geekiest PhD's known, gets on better with a self educated tought girl, than he does with the other educated scientists, but you know, I'll go with it! Apart from that the A.I. I've found perfectly servicable, the vehicle sections handling isn't anything I've had a problem with, and you haven't explained any majpr flaws in the game, just flaws that you often find in games, i.e. of course its linear, most fps' are, with an incredibly honourable exception for deus ex! Oh, also, not a fan boy, I agree that its over-hyped, but its still a good fun game i reccomend playing.

sma_warrior:
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.

You have your opinion and are entitled to it, but a lot of what is said here makes me want to scream and throw something at my screen.

To begin, I'm going to wager that you didn't finish the game if you can't figure out why Gordon is so highly regarded, because the Black Mesa incident is referenced a few dozen times. I played HL2 then went back and played HL1, and didn't have any problem understanding what is going on in HL2 with Gordon. And if you really think that the characters are underdeveloped play the original and the episodes (The character of Alyx is explored much further).

Furthermore, I found the weapons in HL2 (like all Valve games) to be very effective and fun to use. They all had the right power, kick, and et cetera. They helped make the corridor shooting parts so fun. You said that the fact the binocular couldn't be used as a sight for your weapons frustrated you, which, even if made sense for a binocular to be used as a scope, is only a nit-pick.

I do agree about the vehicle sections, though they aren't as bad as some first person games (i.e. Crysis).

Again, it's a only a matter of opinion, I suppose.

P.S. You casually mentioned that you thought 2004 was a bad year for gaming, which is insane. It may have been one of the best years for gaming, infact. HL2, Rome: Total War, ESPN NFL 2k5, GTA: San Andreas, Fable, Halo 2...

sma_warrior:
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....

So, pray tell, how does a gravity gun actually work in real life? If you complain that the gun does not work through glass, why do you not complain about it not working through walls? The reason why you can see through glass is because it just happens to be transparent to the electromagnetic waves in a very specific frequency band, which is the visible light. Gravity doesn't even come into the discussion of transparency; if you imagine that the gravity gun actually works on principles of real world gravity, then walls and glass should have the same impact on it, which is none at all.

Of course, that wouldn't work in a game at all. Just like any work of fiction it takes some poetic licence in order to make it work as intended. You are trying to make it be a game it never wanted to be, and then hold that against it. It's fine if you dislike it, but the game manages to achieve the things it set out to achieve admirably and much better than most games to this date. The only thing I would agree on are the somewhat sub par is the drawn out and somewhat awkward vehicle sections.

About the story; I played HL2 before playing HL1, and I thought the atmosphere and the story were superb. Even after playing HL1 afterwards, it only explained where Gordon comes from and why the aliens found Earth, but in terms of the whole story and the questions that HL2 poses, playing HL1 had minimal impact on understanding the whole thing. That was really the point, emphasised with the introductory level; you are dropped into a world that you don't understand and need to survive. That beginning may have made even less sense for someone who indeed played HL1 before. I therefore completely disagree that the story relies too much on the prequel.

Half life 2 does a lot of things well, besides physics that is, you'll go from crazy gunfights between you and the combine and then into slower paced areas where you're trying to get around zombies, then the next part you'll be driving along a beach swearing yourself inside out as you bump a rock and flip over, trying to get the car back up before the antlions eat you for breakfast.

sma_warrior:
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.

awww all you need is a pat on the head and a big hug... maybe a large dose of stfu.

I like it because of the fan fiction.

Having played HL2 for the first time last year, with the Orange Box, I have to say I was a little disappointed. Obviously a polished piece of work, but my guess is that many of the innovations have become so commonplace that the game can't help but feel underwhelming played now. What does hold up is the art design. Despite its bent towards realism, something that usually dates a game very quickly, HL2 still has a really attractive world. Unfortunately the story is just lame. I haven't played through the episodic content yet, but the first game's narrative definitely has big problems.

It just had a lot of qualities at the time that people were attracted to. It may not be the best game in existence (and there has yet to be any game that could claim that title) but it is a lot of fun to a large group of people, including me.

tendo82:
Having played HL2 for the first time last year, with the Orange Box, I have to say I was a little disappointed. Obviously a polished piece of work, but my guess is that many of the innovations have become so commonplace that the game can't help but feel underwhelming played now. What does hold up is the art design. Despite its bent towards realism, something that usually dates a game very quickly, HL2 still has a really attractive world. Unfortunately the story is just lame. I haven't played through the episodic content yet, but the first game's narrative definitely has big problems.

I'll admit it, I'd given up on HL2 after my purchase of the Orange Box. I loved TF2 and Portal, so I had no reason to return it, and ended up trying HL2: Epi 2 to see if I would like it better than HL2. I did. I loved it. After finishing up epi 2, I promptly went back to the original HL2 and thoroughly enjoyed.

Maybe Valve's unique way of telling the story made me overlook... whatever, but I just can't see why the story is receiving so much flak, from quite a few people now.

I'm sorry but every single one of your gripes are just lame. The weapons are pretty cool, there is this thing called bullet proof glass and indestructable materials(everywhere in games), AI is almost always bad, the best AI is only barely able to pull off a flanking manuevre, there is nothing wrong with linear games, especially if they don't feel linear, the story is great and is full of lovable characters(if you don't like them then you are a very hollow person). And finally half life 2 is four years old. The game was fantastic at the time of release which was four years ago, things have changed a bit since then. At the time it was the best FPS out there, now there are better games to compare it to and suddenly it seems not that great, but of course everything is relative (except the speed of light).

I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion.

Personally I like the game. I loved the story, even though I never played the first one until recently. The gameplay always seemed quite good. The combine were pretty good opponents.

The weapons are all fine. Especially the crowbar.

Also, It was never meant to be open-world explore fest. It's linear. Get over it.

That, and the Combine are the best.

The only things I like in half life 2 is grav gun when it can pick up enemies, G-man and Dog. The rest of the game's shit as well as the sequels which missions are all too similiar. I didn't like portal, gimmicky, boring, glados was annoying and who gives a fuck about cake. Team fortress 2 was mildly amusing but not entertaining to play.

I just didn't like a thing on the orange box and I'm glad that I'm not alone since so many gamers claim it as the messiah. It's not. It's slightly better than the average game, however, the average game is shit now a days anyway.

-Ricky

I don't see why people are trashing the story so much, I played this game through the Orange Box and I enjoyed the story a lot. Its far from many movies and books but its still better than a lot of video games. The problem is you can't expect the game to come right out from the bat and directly tell you what is going on. You have to look for more indirect ways at seeing whats going on. In the first chapter try talking to some of the people laying around listening to that annoying guy on the television and piece together the story on you're own. I did it and I'm fine.

Allow me to deconstruct your post and answer your points in order.

- RE: The story. Look... it's a sequel to a very story-heavy game that left a lot of questions unanswered itself. This is like jumping into the TV show "Lost" at season 3 and complaining you don't know what's going on or who these people are.

- RE: The guns. Valve has said in their commentary tracks (did you give those a whirl?) that they wanted to put the focus on the Gravity Gun, not the regular weapons. In the context of the game, the loadout makes sense- the CPs get handguns and light submachine guns, as they are in control of an unarmed and oppressed citizenry; Overwatch gets shotguns and pulse rifles for riot control, anti-exogen (alien) operations and other heavy operations. The crossbow and Magnum are signature Resistance weapons that rely on the element of surprise and overwhelming manstopping power (respectively) against heavily armed and armored opponents.

- RE: The AI. You're playing on Normal. The AI is as dumb as half a box of rocks on Normal. It's terrifically retarded on Easy; Hard is where it really starts to shine. You can expect flanking maneuvers, grenades and moving from cover to cover from your enemies. Granted, they still perform suicidal rushes from time to time, but I like to pin that on overconfidence due to superior technology. Your fellow Resistance members, however... look, even Valve admits they're cannon fodder. That's why you get an endless stream of them when you need them.

- RE: The vehicles. Yeah, the airboat is a pain in the neck and the buggy's turbo button is labeled "PRESS ME AND PRAY". I'll agree that the vehicle sections ran a bit long as well- but I enjoyed them anyway. They did a much better job with Ep. 2's hot rod, at any rate.

- RE: The linearity. That is a Half-Life staple. It's a guided ride, sure, but it's a very scenic and interesting one. It's not for everyone, but sometimes I like to know where I should go next instead of the game just throwing me out in fifteen acres of wateland and saying "Go get something done".

I think the reason you don't understand HL2's success is because it doesn't appeal to you. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad game, just not the game for you.

Also:

GenHellspawn:
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.

Marc Laidlaw wrote the story for the entire Half-Life series. Not only is he a published author, but his favorite game is the original Thief, and he shares an office with the guys who ran Old Man Murray. I am going to go ahead and put his narrative skills pretty high up there on my ranking chart. I'll agree that the whole "I'll go ahead and clamber into this transport 'o doom" thing was kind of silly, but that was probably a gameplay concession- and it made for a cool ride through the Citadel, at that.

And why aren't the Combine mentioned in the first game? Because nobody on Earth (save one or two people at most) knew they EXISTED.

I do agree that jumping into it without prior knowledge of the series left me a bit confused, but I really like the game. The Combine Assault Rifle shoots Disintegrating death balls, how is that mundane? I do agree that it is not the be all end all of games, but its fun and I enjoyed my time with it. I thought the vehicle sections were particularly well done, the water boat level especially, but thats just my personal opinion. and Ravenholm was a lot of fun. I enjoy the game. Its a fun time, if you let it be that.

You don't know why you're killing these aliens? Really?

Here's an idea: if you don't, they'll kill you first.

They're here to enslave and/or destroy the human race.

As to why Freeman is so highly regarded, well, either play the first game or fill in the blanks yourself. He's a scientist, and, apparently, he's done kickass things that involved saving lives and smash dumpsterloads of putrid-smelling alien ass with his crowbar, or alternatively, a variety of other guns. If that doesn't make him a hero, then I dunno what will. Maybe he's a former bassist for the Black Mesa Experience, who knows?

Secondly, what's wrong with the guns? Pistol, Reolver, SMG, Alienistic awesome Rifle, Shotgun, scoped crossobw, Grenade, RPG, Pheropod, Crowbar, and of course the Gravity Gun. I don't see what's wrong with any of these, sure, they're in almost every other FPS, ever, but at least they're somewhat visually appealing (Just try and say you "wouldn't hit that revolver" with a straight face. Seriously). And pheropods weren't original? What other games have let you unleash a pack of alien minions to rip apart your enemies with their delicious claws and mandibles of death? What repetitiveness there is in the weapons department should at least be balanced by the awesomeness of the Gravity gun and the Pheropod (and possibly the Revolver if you're like me.) Also, looking through binoculars and looking through a gun scope are not the same thing, and you can't just tape a set of binoculars to a gun and expect it to be perfectly calibrated. If you want to revolver-snipe, hold down "Z," hold down the left mouse button and when you want to fire, release the left mouse button.

And about your Gravity Gun issue: It's a Zero-point energy-field manipulator, they just call it a Gravity Gun because it sounds cool. It doesn't actually change anything to do with gravity, more like a magnet that attracts the object it's pointing at. If it's pointing at a window, it'll try to attract the window, and if it can't, that means it's not supposed to. If VALVe puts a window somewhere, it means that they want you to see something without directly accessing it. They sacrificed your view of realism for their view of awesome gameplay. Everything they do, they do for a reason, and, if you play through the developer commentary, you'll see how much work and revisions go into the areas, levels, puzzles, monsters, etc. to make them perfect. I'm sorry to hear you didn't like the game, but enh. To each his own, I guess.

By 2008 standards,the only thing half life 2 is lacking in it graphics.

Half Life 2 was the first FPS I ever played, and I loved it.
Yeah, the story is a bit weak , but the characters themselves are very fully imagined and the voice acting is terrific.
I'm surprised that you don't like the guns. I thought they were well designed and were great fun to shoot.
I will agree that the handling in the vehicle sections is iffy at best and terrible at worst, though Valve tightened things up a bit in Episode 2.
Why is it linear? To preserve the excellent pacing that is typical of Valve games. If the game had been more open, finding out where to go next would have broken up the game flow.
And the levels may be linear, but the environments and enemies are varied and interesting, and the game creates a fantastic, believable atmosphere, especially in the early parts of the game.

It was one of the very first games to successfully flaunt a working physics engine, and since it's run on Source, you can use Garry's mod to do amazing things. That's at least one reason why I like it.

Gordan is supposed to be interesting because he is YOU! The whole entire point of a silent protagonist is so that YOU can fill in the dialogue with whatever you would like...Sure, maybe it's just the dev's being lazy...but it also makes me damn excited that I don't have to listen to some annoying ass protag whining about his mommy...

With the AI staying in place for 2 seconds was a one time thing only yes? I know it was because I haven't had that happen and you only mention it once in a small little line. Besides was he looking the other direction? Take Metal Gear for instance, sneaking game. Your behind an enemy with a shotgun, you are completely quiet and sneaking up on him. He turns around and BOOM HEADSHOT. Perfect aim right between the eyes. They are not super soldiers and the guns are, as everyone else is saying, are standard. They are not like year 5467 you know and the alien weapons probably aren't meant for human use. The vehicle section has bad handling because they are rebuilt cars from probaly rusty cars that don't work. Think the rebellion as guerrillas that don't have top notch resources.

great storyline, great characters, great setting, great graphics, great atmosphere, decent level design, great artwork/creature design, interesting gameplay concepts (not just the gravity gun, btw)

etc

i like it, too, which is another reason why everyone else should

did this guy watch "the matrix:reloaded" first?
Half life 2 is not "the" perfect game, but it is a great game. at the end of the day through, it is just a lenier action shooter, but a very good one at that.

WHERE THE HELL IS EPISODE 3!?!?! EPISODIC MY ASS!

GenHellspawn:
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.

Ok just killing aliens to being a pawn for the rebellion? well first off the aliens attacked you first. Look aliens destroying the earth mommy! So? Who cares it's only our lives we have to worry about.

Your buddy from the lab is working with the rebellion. What if you woke up not sure what to do, when you see your best bud doing something to stop some strange thing from happening?

The Combine weren't mentioned because the Combine didn't rely come until after Freeman was put into his sleep or what ever, THE DEAL HE MADE WITH G-MAN

The prisoner restraining one i don't rely get so I won't try to explain that one

There's two main points that make me want to punch people here:

1. Why is linear in a game so bad? People are so god-damn spoiled for these open-world games that they forget that there is nothing wrong with going from level to level. Hell, Half Life games do it pretty damn nicely, but all you can do is whine because it's not an open world the size of the real USA, and doesn't have a million plots you can do at your leisure.

2. Why does reading The Lord of the Rings or debating plot points in The Matrix somehow make your rant more legitimate than any of the other 'Popular Game _____ Sucks For The Following Reasons' rants you see here? Reading LotR makes you capable of reading a book, not any more highbrow because of it.

Finally, my challenge to you: If you dislike the game so much that has brought enjoyment to so many other people, then either a) don't play it and don't make lame troll posts about how you dislike it, or b) make a game. Make a full sized game - hell, even Half Life 2 in your own vision if you lack the creative bone - make a game to what you think makes a good game and show it to us. Let us play it, and then we can find you wanting.

sma_warrior:

Here's a run down:

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

Cons:
- Everything else:

Dude i totally agree with you and you are right the game is boring and overated every point you made

was correct. even the good things about the game is correct

(To all HALF LIFERS,,, it is overated and does not count as a shooter only a tech demo in)

P.S. about time someone said it right