Half life 2

[Average Manatee]

Sorry, no. CoD and HL2 are only superficially similar, and are on separate branches of the fps family tree.

All the points you raise are reasons that HL2 is better, but not categorically different. HL2 has more interesting weapons, level-design and enemies, but it's still a scripted, linear corridor shooter built around nominally interactive set-pieces. Structurally it's very similar. For example, framing the levels as a continuous journey instead of discrete scenes was a good design move, but modern CoD's don't make you restart levels anyway so it's just a matter of elegance of presentation.

They are similar in that they are both linear shooters with scripting.

Structurally they are very different. A typical CoD game has multiple player characters, in multiple locations or even time periods. Levels are discrete locales, with cinematic briefing intros and outros. When you finish one level, you either go someplace else entirely to get up to date with what's happening with another player character, or you get a message like "90 minutes later" and continue with the same character as he continues his adventure in a new place. There are some exceptions to this -- occasionally a subsequent level really is just a continuation of the previous area -- but even then you get between level briefings and situation updates that mark out each level as a discrete entity. In Half-Life, you start the game, and you play the game continuously, going from one connected area to another, until the game is done. Level transition is marked by a brief "Loading" text, but one level flows seamlessly into the next. Every hour or so, you'll load a level and get a brief text display of the chapter title. Chapters mark thematic or narrative progression only -- the game world and the player experience is still one continuous experience. And of course you have just one player character, experiencing the whole story, from beginning to end, in one linear -- no jumping around in time or place -- stretch.

In terms of linear level design, Half-Life and CoD are both linear. What distinguishes Half-Life's linearity from Call of Duty's linearity, is that in Call of Duty there is never a question of how you will navigate your environment: it's nearly always a design corridor. In Half-Life, there's only ever one way that you're going to navigate the environment, BUT the path through the environment is often quite complex, and much of the gameplay is FINDING THE PATH. Think the laser trip mine warehouse in Half-Life 1: there's only one path, but the gameplay of the level is about finding that path without blowing yourself up; the headcrabs are there not as combat threats to you, but as dumb automatons that might set off the mines. Finding a path forward is NEVER a gameplay element in CoD. That is a huge difference, particularly when you consider that even Doom had clear navigational check points -- locked doors with color coded keys -- that in most cases had to be navigated in sequential order, i.e. truly non-linear levels are a rarity in shooter design. In other words, it's not linearity per se which separates shooter level design but whether you make navigating a path through a level part of the gameplay -- even if there is only one path -- or not.

Finally, if we're gong to say that there is no categorical difference between these gameplay elements, then there really isn't any categorical difference between shooters at all. Given that certain shooters have similar characteristics that are dissimilar from other shooters, I think it is perfectly reasonable to distinguish between different kinds of shooters. A Call of Duty clone plays nothing like Half-Life. If you've played both games, and are still saying that they play very much alike, then you aren't paying attention, or have such a small basis of comparison that you can't distinguish between pretty big differences. To a 85 year old grandma, Mario Kart and Halo are both just video games; if you actually play video games, they're pretty darn different from one another, and if you play shooters in any volume it should be completely obvious that Half-Life and Call of Duty are worlds apart from one another and represent entirely different schools of first person shooter design. But hey, they're shooters, they have scripted elements in their levels, and they're mostly or entirely linear, so therefore they're just like each other, just like Mario Kart and Halo.

I agree entirely, but we were supposed to be comparing CoD to HL2, not HL1.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

This is certainly true of Half-Life, but HL2 is so polished and focus-tested that you will never actually be stuck or have to work to find the path. Valve did a good job of disguising corridors as complex levels, but the levels in HL2 are actually very simple.

Aside from the first hour or so, no more simple than in Half-Life 1. Ravenholm, the Coast, Nova Prospekt, City 17, even the much maligned Citadel and sections of the hover craft chapter, all involved fairly frequent sections where you get to an area, see where you want to go, but it's not clear how to get there. Generally the solution involves going to one end of the area to flip a switch, then backtracking to where the gate is no open, then going up onto a series of roof tops connected by walkways, to get to where you can grav gun some explosives, which you then go back to the beginning of the area to place and then detonate, so it blows a path to the next area. There's one path -- you can only solve that puzzle one way -- but it's absurd to say that that is simple. Intuitive yes, but composed of many parts, i.e. complex. It's very intuitively designed -- none of these obstacles are meant to be headscratchers -- but it involves applying some basic problem solving to deal with not immediately obvious navigation. CoD has never once used that as a gameplay element.

Basically all the differences you mentioned in your first paragraph are differences in presentation, narrative, or aesthetics; in other words, not things I would consider valid criteria for categorizing types of gameplay.

Structure is inherent to what makes a narrative work what it is. Pulp Fiction is a different kind of movie than Forest Gump, and a big piece of it is because it uses a non-linear structure to tell its story. Half-Life plays very differently from CoD, or any shooter for that matter, partly because it's just one big level. It may be presentational, but the experience of playing one big level with occasional map loads and pacing variations within that level, as opposed to using discrete levels where pacing variation comes from between mission briefings, is very different. Call of Duty always has max volume action for the duration of each level. To keep things from getting monotonous, it intersperses things like vehicle shooting galleries between straight first person shooting, and uses fairly lengthy between mission briefings to break things up. In Call of Duty, you play to get the accomplishment of finishing the level, and then the next mission's briefing builds expectations for what you're going to see and do in the next level. In Half-Life, the game is one big level: you're not trying to "finish this mission" because there is no mission to finish. Instead you get immersed in the gameworld and keep playing for the same reason you keep reading when you get immersed in a novel -- you don't finish chapters because you want to say "I beat chapter 23" you finish the next chapter even though you should have gone to bed 40 minutes ago because you want to know what happens. In order to keep things from getting monotonous, Half-Life doesn't use cutscenes as breathers; instead it uses in-level variation. Just won a big firefight? Well the next area probably ISN'T a big fire fight, more likely it's a simple puzzle, or a dialogue between characters, or even just a view of something interesting in the distance. That feels and plays very differently from Call of Duty.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

I agree entirely, but we were supposed to be comparing CoD to HL2, not HL1.

I used the warehouse example because it tends to stick in people's minds in a way similar puzzles in Ravenholm or Nova Prospekt do not. In the latter there's a flooded room with electrical current in the water, a broken catwalk which would have provided an obvious path forward, and a bunch of barnacles on the ceiling. The navigate that room involves manipulation of physics objects and platforming -- like the laser mine warehouse in HL1. Areas like that abound throughout much of HL2. Even the initial levels in the water way feature a few of them.

 

[Abelian]

One thing I liked about HL2: Episode One was the developers' commentary mode that explained some of the level design decisions.
But I agree with the fact the HL2 went overboard with "the Chosen One" and "One Free Man" schtick. In terms of mood, I preferred the "outnumbered man on the run" part of HL2 over The Freeman Strikes Back revolution after Nova Prospekt. Kind of like First Blood vs Rambo: First Blood Part II (i.e. Rambo 1 vs Rambo 2).

 

[Major_Blackhart]

HL2 had its good parts, all in the beginning for the most part. It went down hill though for me because of the length, or lack there of when compared to the first, and the combat, which felt lackluster for some reason.
Enemies felt stale as well. There were normal combine troopers, elites, buzzers (which could have been awesome had they actually done more of them) flyer aliens, walker aliens, and the headcrab and three zombie types. I feel like the first one's battles were more pitched vs HL2, more intense maybe?
I did enjoy the boat part of HL2, and the driving part. I was upset the world wasn't bigger, or the game wasn't longer maybe. I never really felt like I was in real danger except during the first part of the game, where it was run and gun craziness and I was low on supplies like a mother. In HL1, there were plenty, PLENTY of times I felt like I was in danger. The entire alien dimension final level I felt like that, facing that two fist fire screaming boss at the train station, I felt in serious danger right fucking there. Against the assassins. I mean, I could go on.
But in HL2? Never really got that sense of danger.

 

[Metro]

Who knows... maybe it would have all made sense if they ever got around to finishing the story and explaining who the G-Man was. At this rate, though, I think Half-Life 3 is unlikely to happen. Another five or so years and no one will care.

 

[Average Manatee]

I agree entirely, but we were supposed to be comparing CoD to HL2, not HL1.

I used the warehouse example because it tends to stick in people's minds in a way similar puzzles in Ravenholm or Nova Prospekt do not. In the latter there's a flooded room with electrical current in the water, a broken catwalk which would have provided an obvious path forward, and a bunch of barnacles on the ceiling. The navigate that room involves manipulation of physics objects and platforming -- like the laser mine warehouse in HL1. Areas like that abound throughout much of HL2. Even the initial levels in the water way feature a few of them.

Say what you like, level design at Valve has massively simplified and streamlined since HL1.

 

[Carrion]

Aside from the first hour or so, no more simple than in Half-Life 1.

HL2 lacks the big set-pieces of HL1, though, like the tentacle monster in the missile silo, or the Power Up chapter. The switch you need to pull is usually nearby, and the game recycles the same few puzzles quite a lot. You still have to backtrack at times, but you never have to explore the levels quite as thoroughly as in HL1, where you may have to go through several load zones before returning that previously sealed door that is now open. In any case even HL2 is indeed still very different from CoD.

 

[Abelian]

Say what you like, level design at Valve has massively simplified and streamlined since HL1.

To be fair, the quote explains this was partly due to the audience...

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Aside from the first hour or so, no more simple than in Half-Life 1.

HL2 lacks the big set-pieces of HL1, though, like the tentacle monster in the missile silo, or the Power Up chapter. The switch you need to pull is usually nearby, and the game recycles the same few puzzles quite a lot. You still have to backtrack at times, but you never have to explore the levels quite as thoroughly as in HL1, where you may have to go through several load zones before returning that previously sealed door that is now open. In any case even HL2 is indeed still very different from CoD.

Okay yeah that's true: generally the environmental puzzles are confined to one load zone as opposed to spread out over several, like those excellent chapters you just mentioned.

 

[J1M]

Who knows... maybe it would have all made sense if they ever got around to finishing the story and explaining who the G-Man was. At this rate, though, I think Half-Life 3 is unlikely to happen. Another five or so years and no one will care.

Well, the 'writer' is on record saying that he doesn't give a shit about the story and just makes up whatever so I wouldn't expect much.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Say what you like, level design at Valve has massively simplified and streamlined since HL1.

To be fair, the quote explains this was partly due to the audience...

And it's also from Episode 2, which was quite a bit shorter and simpler than base Half-Life 2.

 

[Average Manatee]

Say what you like, level design at Valve has massively simplified and streamlined since HL1.

To be fair, the quote explains this was partly due to the audience...

And it's also from Episode 2, which was quite a bit shorter and simpler than base Half-Life 2.

Shortness of Episode 2 isn't the issue, nothing prevents the individual areas and their design from rivaling HL1's. The issue is "development by focus group" and "everyone needs to feel smart all the time" philosophy.

Who knows... maybe it would have all made sense if they ever got around to finishing the story and explaining who the G-Man was. At this rate, though, I think Half-Life 3 is unlikely to happen. Another five or so years and no one will care.

Well, the 'writer' is on record saying that he doesn't give a shit about the story and just makes up whatever so I wouldn't expect much.

Given that the G-Man was turned into a literal deus ex machina in HL2 this doesn't surprise me. In HL1 he seemed an entirely plausible human occupying a high level position in your usual super-secret organization. I can't fathom why Valve went with the being from another dimension who can do anything shtick.

 

[agentorange]

Highway 17 was the best part. Only part that succeeded in getting across the post-apocalyptic atmosphere, with all the abandoned houses and the drained oceans. Whole game should have been like that, driving around to various rebel settlements and exploring the world.

You were rushed through the other areas so quickly that I never had any sense of the world. The airboat section was cool though, running through all the hideouts.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Shortness of Episode 2 isn't the issue, nothing prevents the individual areas and their design from rivaling HL1's. The issue is "development by focus group" and "everyone needs to feel smart all the time" philosophy.

Hence shorter AND simpler.

 

[Gregz]

Is it just me, or is this game as boring as hell?

It's boring as hell.

Occasionally I'll replay the original Half-Life however, because it's such a mindfuck and oldschool fun.

 

[agentorange]

The latest word is they don't give a fuck because they found a way to print infinite money.

 

[Average Manatee]

There's literally no reason for Valve to make HL3. Even if they completely met everyone's expectations 100% and it was the greatest game of all time it still wouldn't be a single percent milkable the way Steam/TF2 hats/dota shit is.

News is that HL3 is in development hell or something and has been scrapped several times over. Think Duke Nukem Forever if 3DRealms had been sitting on an infinite gold mine.

 

[Lemming42]

Most people I know who were big fans of HL1 and HL2 don't really give a shit about ever seeing HL3 anymore. I think I stopped caring about it sometime after EP2 came out. EP2 was fine but I realized, while playing it, that I really couldn't care less whether we ever see a third installment or not.

Also on the subject of HL2 taking the "One Free Man" stuff overboard, it always struck me as weird the rebels would see him as some kind of legendary hero figure. It made sense when scientists in HL1 would be happy to see you since obviously if some guy starts a one-man war against the Xen aliens and HECU grunts then the news would get around, but I can't see any way the rebels would even know about Gordon other than a few assholes from Black Mesa mentioning him. It must be even weirder from Gordon's perspective, though, since if he was in some kind of stasis between HL1 and HL2 it's still only been a couple days to him since the test chamber.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Also, fuck HL1's Xen

Xen isn't as bad as everybody makes it out to be. It was an iconic moment in the game, and the strength of it is that the environment truly felt alien, it wasn't just a regular level with gooey looking textures. They really went out of their way to make you feel that the rules of that place were completely different from those of earth.

 

[Azrael the cat]

The other thing HL2 had at the time was how much it kicked the overloving crap out of Doom3, the other 'big FPS release' that year. It even managed to include a horror-shooter style level in Ravenloft that did Doom3 better than Doom3 did.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

God looking back, Doom 3 was such a disappointment.
But beyond that, HL2 will NEVER be cleaned up.
I have a feeling that nobody wants to go back to it because they've simply moved on to other things. They don't care anymore.
Greatest vaporware project ever.

 

[Abelian]

Speaking of HL1, has anyone else watched the Freeman's Mind machinima?
There's another entertaining sci-fi machinima called Clear Skies, made using the HL2 engine and EVE Online.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Just watching Freeman's mind now. Fucking amazing.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I played both Half-Life when it came out and Half-Life 2 when it came out, and was disappointed with the latter. It's a good FPS, but way overrated and overhyped, and worse than the first game. The first game was more original, introducing various things for the first time to the FPS genre, such as incorporating story telling into the gameplay (instead of cinematics) and really impressive AI/scripts (the marines). Half-Life 2, on the other hand, didn't really introduce anything major, other than more gimmicky stuff like the gravity gun. It was just more of the same with improved graphics/physics.

The other major reason the first game was better is how it revolves around a single place (the black mesa facility, if you ignore the shitty ending part on xen). Riding through the entire place on a tram in the intro, and then having to work your way back on foot really contributed to the immersion and atmosphere, similarly to how youw ork your way through the Von Braun in System Shock 2. Half-Life 2 lost that when they made the game take place in an entire city, and when you load from one place to another that feeling of cohesion and immersion is lost.