Tbh, that’s just the difference between someone who has nostalgia for a game and someone who doesn’t.
I played Pokemon Red as a kid. I replayed it dozens of times since and it’s always really fun. Just feels good.
I didn’t play Pokemon Gold as a kid. I tried to play it quite a few times and never got throught it. Objectively, Gold is a much better game than Red in every regard. But I don’t have nostalgia for it, so it’s just an old game with bad UX, outdated gameplay and weak graphics to me. Can’t get through it without getting bored and quitting.
HL2 was revolutionary, 22 years ago. Nowadays it’s just woefully outdated in every respect including gameplay.
As OOP says e.g. about physics: That stuff was amazing in 2004, but it really isn’t in 2026. Almost every shooter includes physics and in many cases better physics than HL2 did. In part because game designers have learned from HL2 and other games and improved upon it.
If you have nostalgia for HL2 because you played it as a kid, it’s still going to be amazing to play. If you don’t, then it won’t.
I’m with you on principle, and the airboat section sucks ass (sorry Valve).
However, the rest of the game is great, and still holds up.
Some of the complaint is “the game spends too much time jerking off its physics engine”. Yes. It does. That’s the core appeal my dude.
The way the physics interact with the level design is great, allow me to jog everyone’s memory.
Ravenholm is amazing, using the gravity gun and sawblades is great, as is the use of environmental traps. The ragdolls are hilarious.
Playing ‘the floor is lava’ with the antlions is great, and the moments where you realise you may need to touch sand for a second too long is thrilling.
Storming the prison with the pheromones is great, and having endless minions to throw at turrets satisfies my latent psychopathy.
Supercharging the gravity gun is great, and pulling those energy orbs out and richochetting them off the walls to disintegrate the combine is unique and fun.
And of course, the crème de la creme, playing basketball with Dog.
The question is: Did you play the game for the first time when it came out? Then you are judging the game through the lens of that time instead of with your current knowledge and expectations.
We all know it was revolutionary back then, but that’s not the question. The question is is it still good when compared with modern games?
Put it next to some really good modern games and compare it with them. Obviously graphics are far worse on older games, so I’d ignore that point. But in regards to gameplay and story telling, does it hold up to a modern game? I don’t think so.
I first played half life 2 seven years after release (2011).
It absolutely holds up compared to modern games, and is superior to many modern games in some aspects.
I really enjoy shooters which don’t rely on ADS, its like a fusion of arcade shooters and COD clones.
The storytelling is completely fine, it’s very standard for scripted scenes to play out as you have free movement.
I think whether you think the gameplay is good compared to modern games is what you value.
I think what half-life 2 gets right is the the uniqueness. Think of all the different types of enemies, the different guns, the different levels.
What does it lack? Not much honestly. What more could you want from it? Maybe improve the movement mechanics to make climbing a bit easier?
Apart from that, it’s just missing “features”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want half-life 2 to feature weapon mods, crafting, open world exploration, bloat…
I would agree with you in theory, however I am the same age as Half-Life 2. I never got around to playing it until it was already an old game (11-12? MAYBE 13). I played other shooters before, like various CoD games, Bioshock Infinite, etc., but they never clicked with Me. They obviously took great influence from it, every shooter did, but I could tell even as a kid that they didn’t do it as well
Tbh, that’s just the difference between someone who has nostalgia for a game and someone who doesn’t.
I played Pokemon Red as a kid. I replayed it dozens of times since and it’s always really fun. Just feels good.
I didn’t play Pokemon Gold as a kid. I tried to play it quite a few times and never got throught it. Objectively, Gold is a much better game than Red in every regard. But I don’t have nostalgia for it, so it’s just an old game with bad UX, outdated gameplay and weak graphics to me. Can’t get through it without getting bored and quitting.
HL2 was revolutionary, 22 years ago. Nowadays it’s just woefully outdated in every respect including gameplay.
As OOP says e.g. about physics: That stuff was amazing in 2004, but it really isn’t in 2026. Almost every shooter includes physics and in many cases better physics than HL2 did. In part because game designers have learned from HL2 and other games and improved upon it.
If you have nostalgia for HL2 because you played it as a kid, it’s still going to be amazing to play. If you don’t, then it won’t.
I’m with you on principle, and the airboat section sucks ass (sorry Valve).
However, the rest of the game is great, and still holds up.
Some of the complaint is “the game spends too much time jerking off its physics engine”. Yes. It does. That’s the core appeal my dude.
The way the physics interact with the level design is great, allow me to jog everyone’s memory.
Ravenholm is amazing, using the gravity gun and sawblades is great, as is the use of environmental traps. The ragdolls are hilarious.
Playing ‘the floor is lava’ with the antlions is great, and the moments where you realise you may need to touch sand for a second too long is thrilling.
Storming the prison with the pheromones is great, and having endless minions to throw at turrets satisfies my latent psychopathy.
Supercharging the gravity gun is great, and pulling those energy orbs out and richochetting them off the walls to disintegrate the combine is unique and fun.
And of course, the crème de la creme, playing basketball with Dog.
The question is: Did you play the game for the first time when it came out? Then you are judging the game through the lens of that time instead of with your current knowledge and expectations.
We all know it was revolutionary back then, but that’s not the question. The question is is it still good when compared with modern games?
Put it next to some really good modern games and compare it with them. Obviously graphics are far worse on older games, so I’d ignore that point. But in regards to gameplay and story telling, does it hold up to a modern game? I don’t think so.
I first played half life 2 seven years after release (2011).
It absolutely holds up compared to modern games, and is superior to many modern games in some aspects.
I really enjoy shooters which don’t rely on ADS, its like a fusion of arcade shooters and COD clones.
The storytelling is completely fine, it’s very standard for scripted scenes to play out as you have free movement.
I think whether you think the gameplay is good compared to modern games is what you value.
I think what half-life 2 gets right is the the uniqueness. Think of all the different types of enemies, the different guns, the different levels.
What does it lack? Not much honestly. What more could you want from it? Maybe improve the movement mechanics to make climbing a bit easier?
Apart from that, it’s just missing “features”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want half-life 2 to feature weapon mods, crafting, open world exploration, bloat…
I would agree with you in theory, however I am the same age as Half-Life 2. I never got around to playing it until it was already an old game (11-12? MAYBE 13). I played other shooters before, like various CoD games, Bioshock Infinite, etc., but they never clicked with Me. They obviously took great influence from it, every shooter did, but I could tell even as a kid that they didn’t do it as well