What PC Gamer UK said ...

[dogboy73]

... About Half Life 1 when they reviewed it back in 1998;

The 3D shooter debate is no longer about Quake II versus Unreal, Half Life silences all dissent by being so utterly and resoundingly better than either of them that it's difficult to come to terms with

Do you think that still rings true for Half Life 2 & it's direct competition? (I'd say that was Doom3 & Far Cry being as they are two of the biggest next gen shooters around at this time). I think it does still ring true. Half Life 2 is an amazing game & while it doesn't really have quite the same impact that the original had back in 1998 (A lot to do with the hype surrounding HL2 I think) it's still packed with plenty of those HL type moments that put a big smile on your face but above all seperate it from the competition

 

[Narcolepsy]

For me, Half-Life 2 does indeed blow all shooters away. But as games become more complex, shooters are becoming more diverse. You have your horror/run and gun games like Doom 3, open-ended games like Far Cry, and linear thrill rides like Half-Life. It is becoming a matter of opinion.

With that said, I believe that if a given, hypothetical person liked all of these three categories of games equally, Half-Life 2 would be the best executed out of the three.

 

[DrDevin]

I would still think that is true. I find half life way better in the gameplay department than both far cry and doom. They just didnt have the same moments that amazed me. At the end of the first half life I smiled as I remembered the ninjas, solder AI, scientists I helped and puzzles I overcame and I did the same with #2. The wait for half life 3 will be another "few" hard years. (Also yes I own both Doom 3 and Far Cry and they are both good)

 

[Sars]

most games that come out these days have only been conceived because of half life 1

 

[Vegeta897]

Very true Sars. Also true, Doctor Devin. (lol sounds so weird, my first name is Devin!)

But if you were to compare all the types of FPS's, HL2 still wins. Not as much as HL1 did, but very powerful none-the-less.

 

[JNightshade]

HL2 blew every other FPS out of the water for me. I'm unable to play any other one (minus CS:Source) due to how shitty they seem when compared with Half Life 2.

 

[Sid Burn]

Hmm... yeah me too. HL2 is so damn addicting... I think i'll stick to this game for a long time.

 

[CREMATOR666]

I would stick to it as long as Steam doesn't become a pain in the butt again

 

[dogboy73]

most games that come out these days have only been conceived because of half life 1

That's true. If you think back to when the original HL came out what other FPS's were around? Unreal was probably the biggest FPS at the time but apart from that there wasn't a great deal going on. FPS's were still in their infancy really. I think HL had a lot less competition back then than it's sequal has today. I guess it many ways that makes it all the more impressive. Roll on HL3 :cheers:

 

[Doppelgofer]

nope...i still think quake 2 and unreal are better than half-life 2

 

[dogboy73]

nope...i still think quake 2 and unreal are better than half-life 2

Now you mention it, I think Unreal2 is actually better than HL2 :naughty:

 

[Doppelgofer]

Oouf! How Dare You

 

[Rupertvdb]

unreal 2 blew so much

 

[Solver]

Now, shooters are different. So it's a matter of preference either way. Let's look at the 3 new, next-gen shooters.

FarCry - one of design goals to have relative freedom of action, which it achieves. From what many people say, the action itself often isn't up to par.
Doom3 - the goal is to have a horror atmosphere and to provide a classic "Run&Gun" gameplay, with brainless shooting of all that moves.
HL2 - the goal is to have a story-centered shooter with strong characters, as well as making it a "thinking man's shooter" with physics puzzles, etc.

It's all really up to whatever you prefer... I like both Doom3 and HL2, and don't compare them gameplay wise because they're different. Playing Doom3, it felt like 1995 once again, where you don't think, but you go forward, shoot everything you can, and go more forward. Playing HL2, it felt like actually being in an action movie with a good plot. Different games.

Back in 1998, there was really no such separation. Quake 2, Unreal, Doom2, etc., they all had a very similar idea, basically being shoot-em-up games with some background plot, but it not being of essence. Half-Life then introduced cinematic gameplay and good storytelling. Now the FPS genre is much more diverse than that.

By the way, comparing Doom3 and Half-Life 2 graphics wise isn't as simple as some make it out to be, either. Also, people often forget that textures/models are NOT properties of the engine. Look at Half-Life: Source. It uses the same Source engine that HL2 does, yet it has, for the most part, the same models and textures that HL had in 1998. So when comparing engines, you can't compare models from the games, and when comparing graphics overall, you really have to take a lot into account.

 

[dogboy73]

unreal 2 blew so much

To say it was a dissapointing follow up to Unreal was a massive understatement. It had very little in common with the original game apart from the Skarj. There were some good moments in the game though & graphically, For a short time, It was one of the nicest looking games around. The flame effects for example looked amazing at the time. There was plenty of variety in the levels but the map design wasn't really up to much at all. Also, The maps were quite small. I think it tried to be very much like Halo right down to the pulse rifle design whic hwas very similar. It wasn't a bad game. It just wasn't that good. A wasted opportunity. I wonder how Unreal 3 will turn out? From the few screensshots that have appeared so far it looks incredible (Although we thought that about Unreal 2 when it was first revealed).

 

[Stigmata]

By the way, comparing Doom3 and Half-Life 2 graphics wise isn't as simple as some make it out to be, either. Also, people often forget that textures/models are NOT properties of the engine. Look at Half-Life: Source. It uses the same Source engine that HL2 does, yet it has, for the most part, the same models and textures that HL had in 1998. So when comparing engines, you can't compare models from the games, and when comparing graphics overall, you really have to take a lot into account.

Comparing game engines is different than comparing games themselves. When you compare the graphics of games, you're comparing the polycounts, lighting, animation, texturing, and shaders, and while one engine might have "better" lighting or shading, it by no means... means that the game running on said engine looks better than another game.

It all comes down to the quality of content. Maybe Source has better animation processing and/or abilities than Doom 3, but if you create terrible animations for your models, the engine isn't going to make the animations look better.

I hope you get what I'm saying... Every time I explain something it comes out convoluted :rolling:

 

[Solver]

Yeah, that's what I meant with using the example of HL:S, which uses the Source engine, but by no means looks good by today's standards.

Actually, I find the Doom3engine vs. Source comparisons rather interesting, if written by people who understand something about tech. They are usually less biased, and can contain interesting stuff.

 

[EatChildren]

No, I dont think HL2 has the same impact as the original. As absolutely amazing as HL2 if failed in terms of puzzel detail and quantity in comparison to the original.

Unreal 2 was one of the most unenjoyable shooters I have ever played. I had to force myself to finish it. It stank of boring.

Oh, but the Flamethrower was tops.

 

[Epsi]

Burn, spiders, burn!

But yeh, Unreal 2 was fairly boring. The mercs were just no fun to fight at all.