Half Life is shit

[Nutmeg]

As a guy who rarely plays games made after 2006, I understand completely.

 

[Morenatsu.]

is it just me or are ash's poasts getting kind of boaring

 

[LarryTyphoid]

I am so glad you asked, Sir. None are bad games, but they are all decline from 90s game design standards, especially the absolute peak of this golden era (late 90s).

I disagree. Those games all fill niches that did not exist in the 90s, for the most part. No game from the 90s can match Portal's sleek puzzles combined with smooth momentum; in fact, Portal's central gimmick is entirely unique to it, so it can't really be compared with any game from the 90s, or any game after it. Left 4 Dead also basically invented its own genre of coop horde shooter. So by what metric could Portal or Left 4 Dead be considered decline?

As for Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2: I'll admit that I don't know much about Counter-Strike and have played it myself for maybe 20 minutes in total. Despite that, though, I know Counter-Strike serves to have the same kind of deathmatch format as former multiplayer shooters, but with more grounded, "realistic" mechanics. It apparently accomplished that goal well, considering it still has a playerbase so many years later. Previous tactical shooters like Counter Strike or Ghost Recon are mostly good for either singleplayer or co-op, and their competitive multiplayer modes are pretty bad (and are completely dead). So Counter-Strike filled a niche that did not really exist before, and by that standard I can hardly call it decline.

TF2, I know more about, having played it on-and-off for about 7 years now. TF2 also can't be compared to any 90s games with the exception of its predecessors bearing the same name; that's because the multiplayer experience of Quake and of Team Fortress are completely different for reasons I don't think I need to elaborate upon. I've never played Quake Team Fortress, but if it's anything like Team Fortress Classic, then TF2 is by far the superior game. What it loses in Quake-engine mobility, it gains in better balance and a stronger feeling of teamwork being necessary for victory.

My general argument is that these games are so incomparable to games made in the 90s that any comparisons are fruitless. It's not like how you can look at Ultima Underworld or Daggerfall, then look at Oblivion, and say "yeah, that declined". What game did Portal better than Portal before Portal? What game did Left 4 Dead better than Left 4 Dead before Left 4 Dead? Maybe you could say "well, System Shock is better than Portal, so Portal declined from 90s game design standards", but that's like arguing whether or not Gone with the Wind is a better film than Die Hard.

 

[Lemming42]

Mandatory nitpicky mention that Portal's mechanic is taken from a game called Narbacular Drop, the dev team of which was hired to make Portal.

 

[ds]

It's not "taken" from Narbacular Drop, Valve literally hired the team that made that to make Portal.

 

[Morenatsu.]

Mandatory nitpicky mention that Half-Life's life is taken from a game called quiverprosperogabenfuckedyourmomdotcom, the dev team of which was hired to profit off Steembux while eating big pink cookies

 

[Lemming42]

^^ Sorry, ninja'd you there, edited it into my post because I knew someone would bring it up.

Regarding the thread at large:
People like to imagine what the FPS scene would look like nowadays if it weren't for Half-Life, but it's more fun to imagine what 1999 would have looked like. I imagine that it'd be mostly unchanged - shit like Blood 2 and Requiem: Avenging Angel must have already been long into development when Half-Life came out, already doomed by the time of November 1998 to be unimpressive and forgettable games. What would the big standout have been, in terms of single-player FPS games? Kingpin? System Shock 2? PS1 Medal of Honor?

 

[blessedCoffee]

If only that guy who said Wolf3D was better than them all was here.

I'm here.
And yes, wolf3d > half life / doom

You high, brotha? Even Doom 64

What do you mean "even"? Doom 64 is a very solid game. Even Doom3 or 4 is better than Wolf3D is a more appropriate statement. Wolf3D is a shitty 80s action game in design, it just sucks. Simplistic, clunky, repetitive, uber ugly, difficult in an unfun way. Doom did everything better and then some.

I disagree, that'd be comparing apples to oranges.

NuDOOM, or whatever you wanna call it, is a different beast.

On another note, I agree that Wolf is junk. Too many pc gamers get fooled by the nostalgia goggles.

 

[9ted6]

You're shit.

 

[GrafvonMoltke]

I challenge all CS haters to a game of CS

 

[SlamDunk]

Fixed:

 

[Ash]

Disgusting. The 2000s was the era of absolute trite first person shooters, even TPS far outshone it up until Gears of War shut down that incline. I defended HL and said it was not responsible for those shit games, it's not HL's fault hundreds of FPS took inspiration from it but failed to understand what actually made it good, or just chose to ignore it in favor of dumb shooting galleries, but to claim the opposite and that Half-Life "saved" FPS is the worst possible take. FPS was monocled until the 2000s. There is not a single FPS from the 2000s I truly respect except STALKER and to a lesser extent RTCW. Hordes of straight trash. I wish I could get back the lost time.

 

[GrafvonMoltke]

Stop embarrassing yourself

 

[Ash]

Alright Borat, list the "classic" FPS of the 2000s and embarrass yourself then. Decline incarnate across the board.

Gotta love how people always claim that without HL we'd just get endless doom clones.

1. Doom formula is still the best formula, superior to HL.
2. No one knows for sure the direction FPS would have took, but almost anything is better than the direction it DID take - graphics whoring, realism, and significant dumbing down.
3. The reality is, there are very few actual Doom clones. Most 90s FPS innovated in some way:

Quake pioneered the true 3D world and started the (declined) multiplayer obsession.
Duke Nukem innovated with set pieces, interactivity, comedic elements and other assorted.
Strafe incorporated RPG elements
Unreal environmental storytelling and continuous sense of adventure.
Terra Nova squad-based and strategy elements
Hexen puzzle emphasis
Turok Arcade elements, platforming emphasis and vast levels.
Alien Trilogy atmosphere and capturing the spirit of its movie counterpart.
System Shock & System Shock 2...well it's System Shock
Tek War all kinds of weird shit
Disruptor super powers dual-wield with guns.
Goldeneye, turd that it is, realism, mission objectives focus & unlockables.

And so on.

Sure there was an assortment of shitty FPS too, but that will always be the case.

Collectively, all contain stuff that Half-Life did later. Set pieces, realism focus, level continuity/sense of adventure, platforming and puzzles. It didn't really do anything genuinely new outside of certain minor yet impressive set piece/gimmick variety except make dumb gamers feel like they're smart because they play as a top scientist in a secret research lab, and the intro doesn't contain gameplay and that's "mature". OMG breaking boundaries!

 

[GrafvonMoltke]

Hey I'm not the one on trial here for being a sanctimonious autist who can't enjoy himself

 

[Ash]

I love over a thousand games and am never bored. I am not defect for forming actual monocled standards, but you wouldn't know what that is like as they don't have games in the desert. Probably just replayed Half-Life 100 times in your childhood. Peasant.

 

[Silverfish]

Alright Borat, list the "classic" FPS of the 2000s and embarrass yourself then.

 

[GrafvonMoltke]

I love over a thousand games and am never bored. I am not defect for forming actual monocled standards, but you wouldn't know what that is like as they don't have games in the desert. Probably just replayed Half-Life 100 times in your childhood. Peasant.

U mad bro?

 

[Ash]

Firmly embarrassed yourself. Black is straight popamole.

I 'member when they were hyping it up back in the day. fully destructive environments! and showing epic demo of it...probably running on PC which it never actually released on.
the end result was no more impressive than the destruction seen in Vigilante 8, a console game nearly a decade older. Worse even, as absolutely everything was destructive in that game, even if in crude form.

But ignoring that, it was a popamole two gun limit linear shooting gallery endlessly killing the same single enemy type (except the riot shield dudes right at the very end). Oh and you get absolute blurring/focus loss of your entire FOV every time you reload, for muh realism I suppose.
Despite being shit popamole shooting gallery, it's actually one of the better ones. But still like a 6/10 at best and a waste of one's time.

 

[Silverfish]

probably running on PC which it never actually released on.

Black came out before Steam took over the world and EA wanted to focus on people who'd actually buy it. Same reason we got Timesplitters as well.

 

[GrafvonMoltke]

Doesn't matter what game you enjoyed, some autist is gonna rate it shit cause it doesn't align with the arbitrary date range from his txt, which curiously ends at the point where some trauma destroyed his mental well-being. Sad!

 

[Ash]

probably running on PC which it never actually released on.

Black came out before Steam took over the world and EA wanted to focus on people who'd actually buy it. Same reason we got Timesplitters as well.

too bad they didn't focus on making a good game before anything else.

Doesn't matter what game you enjoyed, some autist is gonna rate it shit cause it doesn't align with the arbitrary date range from his txt, which curiously ends at the point where some trauma destroyed his mental well-being. Sad!

Keep deflecting reality. Only a dullard could think Black is greatness.

Timesplitters is more notable, you may have been on to something if you posted that, but is ultimately only a slightly better goldeneye (complete with most of its stupid flaws) with bonus mini-games at the end of the day. I like it (7.5/10 for the third game), but I don't respect it in the same way I do most monocled 90s shooters.

 

[Morenatsu.]

Ash will sooner simp for 90s trash shooters than list actually decent 2000s shooters over RTCW. Fear, Doom 3, Far Cry, and of course HALF-LIFE FUCKING 2 all kick RTCW's banal, shit, boring ass harder and faster than you can get out of here stalker. And Stalker itself, despite being wonderful, is also pretty terrible in its own ways. But muh castle wolfenstein hurr durr jesus fucking christ how braindamaged are you people

 

[Silverfish]

too bad they didn't focus on making a good game before anything else.

It's too bad Criterion never made a sequel where you ran in a circle for 10 hours.

 

[Ash]

Is that supposed to be a dunk on the 90s Doom formula? Because if it is it is incredibly dumb. The majority of 90s FPS feature significantly deeper gameplay than 2000s FPS.

Let's take Duke Nukem 3D to use as an example to educate the plebs:

-Battles involve a wide array of enemy types fought at once, each with different behaviors. this is different to 2000s shooters that universally involved less enemy types per enagement, as well as less enemy counts in total. A clear consequence of chasing graphics and realism.
-Swimming and even flying (jetpack).
-More vertical level design, which in turn comes with some degree of platforming emphasis by neccessity.
-Puzzle elements
-Managing a vast array of 10 weapons, plus a dedicated melee kick.
-Navigation challenge & secret hunting. Using the map. Using your head. Not required in 2000s FPS.
-Complex level design allowing for multi-angled approach to combat and flow.
-Minor inventory system
-Meaningful health and ammo management, instead of regen health/universal ammo and other retarded innovations of the 2000s.
-High degree of environmental interactivity - exploding walls for a new path, pressing light switches, elevator interactivity (which impacts AI encounters or even doing shit ike sending a pipe bomb up the elevator), checking enemy locations through security cameras.
-Complex AI that fly, teleport, move along the ceiling, jump, duck and more.
-Fast paced movement alongside projectile combat makes combat more a matter of skill than hiding behind cover and playing whack-a-mole.

There is not a SINGLE fps in the 2000s that even really comes remotely close to this level of gameplay depth. Hell, there isn't really in the 2010s to date either.