Half-Life 2

[Edfilho]

Blah blah blah. Lots of people hate WC games, and the american PCGamer mag really loathed all things wc "WC4 is all movies and sucky gameplay" and so one. Very similar acusations...

Well, which FPS games did you guys like then, so I can figure what would be a deep FPS in your opinion?

 

[ace]

Blah blah blah. Lots of people hate WC games, and the american PCGamer mag really loathed all things wc "WC4 is all movies and sucky gameplay" and so one. Very similar acusations...

Well, which FPS games did you guys like then, so I can figure what would be a deep FPS in your opinion?

Stop being a jerk. Half the things I'm saying aren't even opinions. The weapons aren't accurate. The enemies are all stupid and unoriginal. These things are directly contrary to what made Half-Life 1 a good game. People generally seem to be having more fun playing with the physics than with the actual game.

I didn't come here to talk about what games I do like or to have you figure out what my likes are. I'm sorry that you care.

 

[Pedro]

Some things really never change it seems

 

[Private_Maestro]

you guys have girlfriends? lol

seriously, you really need to stop arguing about half-life 2, its half good-half bad 2

everyone is happy

 

[BradMick]

it's called normal mapping.....it rocks. makes your 5,000 poly model look like a 5,000,000 million poly model. since it's values are RGB instead of BW, it allows more accurate display of height and what not over the old bump maps. also whats cool, with it being the RGB values, it actually interacts with lights to create realistic light play over the object. that's why in DOOM 3 it required an ungodly amount of power to run it. Normal mappings the way to go, but you really got to have a pretty high end system to get the full out effects of it.

Brad Mick

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Blah blah blah. Lots of people hate WC games, and the american PCGamer mag really loathed all things wc "WC4 is all movies and sucky gameplay" and so one. Very similar acusations...

Those bastards! How dare they have opinions differing from our own! And now they're citing evidence to support their claims?! That isn't my America!

 

[ZFGokuSSJ1]

LOAF -- Gordon has friends: Barney & the crowbar.

 

[Haesslich]

Actually, I thought the Crowbar was Gordon's only friend.

But that does remind me - outside of Halo or Halo2, has any FPS had semi-accurate automatic weapons? At least in the past few years? Half-Life 2 seems to be more a showcase for the Source engine and the Gravity Gun than anything... but at least it plays well.

 

[Delance]

"Sucky gameplay" is evidence? Or you meant HL2? It wasn't all the clear.

Well, it's too bad I didn't play it yet, because it would be quite fun to participate on this debate.

 

[Dyret]

Actually, I thought the Crowbar was Gordon's only friend.

But that does remind me - outside of Halo or Halo2, has any FPS had semi-accurate automatic weapons?

AVP1-2 had some really accurate weapons.

 

[Edfilho]

So I'M the jerk. Right...
Yeah, Delance, I agree with you, loaf's last comment wasn't very clear.

Concerning accurate auto guns, there's always Doom 1 and 2 Most FPS had 100% accurate weapons until some years ago. I think it was around the time HL and Unureal were released. Oh, Quake 2 had a SMG with recoil, I think it was one of the first ones.

After that, Unreal tournament series has some pretty accurate gatling guns.

 

[TigerNobleHeart]

AVP1-2 had some really accurate weapons.

There are some differing effects when dealing with the smartgun, IMO. AvP 1's tracking with the smartgun is often too laxing to do much good. By the time the tracking "locks on" to a bug (Or often, a gaggle of bugs), they are already clawing at you.
The tracking in AvP 2 was a far better improvement (What happened? the nameless marine in AvP 1 got the beta release or something? <G>). So much that the bugs gets splattered half a corridor down.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yeah, Delance, I agree with you, loaf's last comment wasn't very clear.

Oh, okay. Let me try to make this as clear as possible: we are all really, really tired of you being a jerk just because you see that someone has an admin avatar. It wasn't cute in the nineties and it isn't cute now.

As for Wing Commander IV, yes, I agree with the reviewer's evidence if not his opinion. Wing Commander IV did almost nothing in terms of improving gameplay -- in fact, many would argue that it *dropped* a lot of the little elements that made Wing Commander seem 'real' (cockpits, takeoff scenes, etc.). Wing Commander IV very, very clearly focused on FMV. Much like ace's claims about gun accuracy and number of enemies, this isn't an opinion that can be disputed... it's just the way the game was.

Now I, and probably you and Delance and ace and whoever else is reading this awful trainwreck of a thread, would say "but all the focus on FMV made Wing Commander IV a really unique game! I liked how it felt like a movie, they made the right choice in my opinion!". *That* is the part that's opinion -- just like the reviewer saying he thinks the game sucks because of these facts has an opinion (which, incidentally, no one is interested in censoring regardless of how it disagrees with our own.)

 

[BigsWickDagger]

But that does remind me - outside of Halo or Halo2, has any FPS had semi-accurate automatic weapons? At least in the past few years? Half-Life 2 seems to be more a showcase for the Source engine and the Gravity Gun than anything... but at least it plays well.

I thought the weapons in Doom3 were pretty accurate, especially the Plasma Rifle. The machinegun was decent and the chaingun was OK. The shotgun seemed to be the most useful, though no long-ranged accuracy there. My semi-recent favorite would have to be the Paratrooper Rifle from Return to Castle Wolfenstein- complete with a scope!

 

[Delance]

As for Wing Commander IV, yes, I agree with the reviewer's evidence if not his opinion. Wing Commander IV did almost nothing in terms of improving gameplay -- in fact, many would argue that it *dropped* a lot of the little elements that made Wing Commander seem 'real' (cockpits, takeoff scenes, etc.). Wing Commander IV very, very clearly focused on FMV. Much like ace's claims about gun accuracy and number of enemies, this isn't an opinion that can be disputed... it's just the way the game was.

Well, I disagree. WCIV did not have a new engine, but it did include some interesting gameplay improvements. The atmospheric missions were better. The game improved the concept of decision making inside the cockpit. It even introduced the mode where you have a remote wing fighting the same mission, something that WCP would build on. It was the only WC game you had an actual impact when it comes to deciding the missions. WC1, 2, 3, Prophecy and SO would basically hand you over the mission. WCIV allowed you to choose different branches, and other variables like trading armor for speed, or wingmen for a cloaking device. It's also one of the hardest. So it was not about how the game was.

Now I, and probably you and Delance and ace and whoever else is reading this awful trainwreck of a thread, would say "but all the focus on FMV made Wing Commander IV a really unique game! I liked how it felt like a movie, they made the right choice in my opinion!". *That* is the part that's opinion -- just like the reviewer saying he thinks the game sucks because of these facts has an opinion (which, incidentally, no one is interested in censoring regardless of how it disagrees with our own.)

Well, that was not my response. WCIV used a similar engine than the game before. That's nothing new. It was the same with WCII and WCSO. When it comes to improving gamplay, WCIV wasn't worse than WCII or WCSO. Of course one have the right to claim that any game had sucky gameplay, but that's not a fact that can't be disputed. WCIV had nice mission design, and a lot of variety. You go to fly ships from and fight against three different factions. There's more replayability on WCIV than on any other WC save, perhaps, WCI. So, they lost the cockpits, but by that time they simply wouldn't look good. They probably did it because they found out most people turned they off anyway on WC3 for a better view. That's why they put that option on Kilrathi Saga. Until they could make some non-intruse ones like on WCP, that was the best choice.

I also think that all those useless cutscenes of WC3 and WC4 weren't necessary. What's the point of having a FMV for an elevator, a takeoff, or Blair wandering in and out of hallways? Sure it's fun to watch once or twice, but it gets old fast.

Sure, a lot of people will disagree. But to call that undisputable fact, I don't know.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Well, I disagree. WCIV did not have a new engine, but it did include some interesting gameplay improvements. The atmospheric missions were better. The game improved the concept of decision making inside the cockpit.

Decision making in the cockpit isn't any different than it was in WC3. "Go after Catscratch? (Y/N)" isn't a huge advacement from "Go after Flint? (Y/N)".

It even introduced the mode where you have a remote wing fighting the same mission, something that WCP would build on.

No, it didn't. The 'multiple wings' idea was something that died on the table... it's spoken of in early previews, but in the actual game all that was implemented was a series of comms that plays during your mission. (The 'complex mission' stuff Chris Roberts talked about early on in development would have been an amazing improvement... but ultimately all the game did was trick the player into thinking it was there. It wasn't.)

(Prophecy didn't even come close to what WC4 had planned for multiple wings, though. The fact that that feature didn't materialize -- something which was probably in the minds of the game reviewers Ed was ranting about -- was one of WC4' s biggest letdowns.)

It was the only WC game you had an actual impact when it comes to deciding the missions. WC1, 2, 3, Prophecy and SO would basically hand you over the mission. WCIV allowed you to choose different branches, and other variables like trading armor for speed, or wingmen for a cloaking device. It's also one of the hardest. So it was not about how the game was.

These were all gameplay from the film shoot, though... and this amazing gameplay boiled down to choosing between two clearly stated options. And they're no different from WC3, anyway. WC3 had a number of 'path impact' decisions -- fly the Excalibur, go after Hobbes, save Flint, etc. In fact, Wing 3's were a bit less 'obvious' -- you had more negative effects on the longer term gameplay from a bad decision than the clearly stated stuff in Wing 4.

(And so we're left with the amazing gameplay improvement that they rendered low-res grass onto the 3D hills in the ground missions. They didn't fix all the clipping problems, mind you, they just put grass over it. *That's* worth the loss of all the 'personal' touches...)

Well, that was not my response. WCIV used a similar engine than the game before. That's nothing new. It was the same with WCII and WCSO. When it comes to improving gamplay, WCIV wasn't worse than WCII or WCSO. Of course one have the right to claim that any game had sucky gameplay, but that's not a fact that can't be disputed. WCIV had nice mission design, and a lot of variety. You go to fly ships from and fight against three different factions. There's more replayability on WCIV than on any other WC save, perhaps, WCI. So, they lost the cockpits, but by that time they simply wouldn't look good. They probably did it because they found out most people turned they off anyway on WC3 for a better view. That's why they put that option on Kilrathi Saga. Until they could make some non-intruse ones like on WCP, that was the best choice.

Your examples are awful -- a reviewer would be absolutely within his right to claim that WC2 didn't improve its gameplay over WC, or that WCSO didn't improve its gameplay over WCP. These are all very clearly true statements.

(I'm not sure how you're calculating replayability -- WC4 had a more linear mission structure than any of the 'war' games. You can count them yourself... but you were around in 1996, and I'm sure you remember what a huge issue people made of that fact.)

The loss of the cockpits and the other 'personal touch' features was a design decision that Chris Roberts spoke very highly of at the time -- he felt it'd all been "done before". Ultimately, that was a really bad decision for the franchise -- WC1 earned a whole lot of its praise originally because of things like the cockpit taking damage, the hand moving on the joystick and the excitement of the scramble scene.

 

[Nomad Terror]

Not a WC game, but the Starlancer scramble scenes were a huge letdown to me.

 

[Pedro]

Actually I'd like to dispute Ace's opinion on gun accuracy, I'd been away from the game for over 48 hours (coursework) when I first replied, I still say its enjoyable AND all weapons except the SMG are pretty damn accurate, shotgun is more so than in most games, actually usefull from a surprising large range, much larger than years of video gaming have gotten me used to. The pistol is surprisingly powerfull and has pinpoint accuracy, the pulse rifle is accurate enough that one of its very powerfull bolts is going to hit at any distance out of 5, enough to kill guy with a single round and the ammo for it is plentifull. You can't ask for greater accuracy than laser guidance with the rocket launcher.
Crossbow I don't use due to lameness in other areas
Won't comment on it in comparison to Halo 2 since I can't feasibly fit that thing into my uni room, however I'd say it gives the original Halo a run for its money, still, I doubt i'd invest the same number of hours into it which it took to complete Halo on legendary.
I think I'm around three quarters through and the plot has certainly been poor to non existant, but as I said I would never claim it is a classic, just enjoyable.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Actually I'd like to dispute Ace's opinion on gun accuracy, I'd been away from the game for over 48 hours (coursework) when I first replied, I still say its enjoyable AND all weapons except the SMG are pretty damn accurate, shotgun is more so than in most games, actually usefull from a surprising large range, much larger than years of video gaming have gotten me used to. The pistol is surprisingly powerfull and has pinpoint accuracy, the pulse rifle is accurate enough that one of its very powerfull bolts is going to hit at any distance out of 5, enough to kill guy with a single round and the ammo for it is plentifull. You can't ask for greater accuracy than laser guidance with the rocket launcher.

I'm assuming that the 'MG' in SMG stands for 'machine gun', in which case you're not really disputing ace's (no capital letters) opinion at all... since his claim was that the machine guns weren't accurate.

But it's nice to know how you feel about pistols, crossbows, shotguns and whatnot, just in case it's ever relevant.

 

[Delance]

Decision making in the cockpit isn't any different than it was in WC3. "Go after Catscratch? (Y/N)" isn't a huge advacement from "Go after Flint? (Y/N)".

What did you expect, anyway? At least the decision to defect or not is done on the cockpit, what is arguably more dramatic.

(The 'complex mission' stuff Chris Roberts talked about early on in development would have been an amazing improvement... but ultimately all the game did was trick the player into thinking it was there. It wasn't.)

But what is gameplay but the illussion that things are there? If you are tricked into thinking the mission is complex, it's mission accomplished.

(Prophecy didn't even come close to what WC4 had planned for multiple wings, though. The fact that that feature didn't materialize -- something which was probably in the minds of the game reviewers Ed was ranting about -- was one of WC4' s biggest letdowns.)

That's true, but what I said is that WCP built on what WCIV had made, so they got better at tricking the player.

And they're no different from WC3, anyway.

Sure, and if WC3 was excelent and it was the same of WC4, how can WC4 be sucky?

Your examples are awful -- a reviewer would be absolutely within his right to claim that WC2 didn't improve its gameplay over WC, or that WCSO didn't improve its gameplay over WCP. These are all very clearly true statements.

So how can they be awful if they end up making my point? WC4 was not a lot better than WC3, it just fits nicely there with those others.

I'm not sure how you're calculating replayability

Than allow me to explain. "War" games had basically two endings, one good and one bad. WCIV had two good endings, plus two bad ones. That's twice as much right in there. (OK, WC3 had 3 good endings).

The brancing was simpler, but rich. There were a lot of ways you could play either Circe or Sparadon, they were not really linear. And some missions had some random elements, like the Patrol on Circe.

The loss of the cockpits and the other 'personal touch' features was a design decision that Chris Roberts spoke very highly of at the time -- he felt it'd all been "done before". Ultimately, that was a really bad decision for the franchise -- WC1 earned a whole lot of its praise originally because of things like the cockpit taking damage, the hand moving on the joystick and the excitement of the scramble scene.

I don't think a hand moving a joystick would make a lot of difference on the franchise. As much as it looked cool on 1990, and was a featured that lots of fans liked, it probbaly lost a lot of its appeal with time. People probably truned the cockpits off anyway. Seriously, if Freespace had cockpits and moving hands would it have done any better? That's not something reviewers seem to dig. Or maybe that's the lost secret of the space combat sims.

The scrambling scene were great. WCIV do capture the excitement when the Intrepid faces the Vesivous.

Well, anyway, it's fun talking about WC games.