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’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…