|
Post by ommadawn on Jun 11, 2010 2:51:07 GMT 1
Oh Jesus, Half Life 2 was terrible. I hope ME4 goes nowhere near anything like that. Casey said in some interview not so long ago that the ME universe is too detailed to leave behind, so they're planning for more than just Shepard's story. Sacrilege! ;D Seriously, it doesn't have to be HL2, but given a similar treatment with regards to plot and character development, it would be amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Jun 11, 2010 3:15:47 GMT 1
Give it the Modern Warfare 2 treatment!
Anderson: Shepard! Take out that AC-130 with your space hamster!
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jun 11, 2010 5:19:52 GMT 1
No, no, no. Bad Knight. BAD KNIGHT!
Half-Life 2 is the near perfect model for the modern FPS (though not as fun as the original Doom IMHO). Less restrictions, fully interactive environment, better pacing, and no bullshit. I've often dreamed of a Mass Effect spinoff running on the source engine, though it kind of seems like a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Jun 11, 2010 12:51:03 GMT 1
I know I'm going to be flamed so...
*flame barrier up*
Would be nice if the ME series would follow the Deus Ex route. The first one that is. I know it's either a stupid idea or it's completely redunant since Deus Ex is also an RPG as well.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jun 11, 2010 17:27:51 GMT 1
The Deus Ex and System Shock 2 route would be a pretty good idea as well. No one's going to flame you for that! It's a novel point.
|
|
N7v1K0
Lieutenant
This one has no time for your solid waste excretions.
Posts: 171
|
Post by N7v1K0 on Jun 11, 2010 21:46:44 GMT 1
No, no, no. Bad Knight. BAD KNIGHT! Half-Life 2 is the near perfect model for the modern FPS (though not as fun as the original Doom IMHO). Less restrictions, fully interactive environment, better pacing, and no bullshit. I've often dreamed of a Mass Effect spinoff running on the source engine, though it kind of seems like a pipe dream. I absolutely don't understand why people think Half Life 2 is great. Perhaps you'll be the first to explain to me?
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Jun 11, 2010 22:14:35 GMT 1
At the time, it was mostly because of the Source and Havok engines, which allowed for top-of-the-line graphics and (almost) realistic physical interaction with pretty much everything in the game. Bricks weighed as much as bricks would, plastic crates weighted as much as real plastic crates, etc. It was a big deal at the time of its release, since stuff like that just wasn't available in a game that took full advantage of it.
So, I think it mostly got popular because of the tech behind it, just like GTA IV got big because of Euphoria and The Force Unleashed (almost) got big because of DMM.
Other than that, from my experience, the story structure was unique, it sorta did away with cutscenes entirely and made them more interactive (like Modern Warfare 2 does), the world was interconnected and really expansive, the weapons were creatively implemented, and the graphics were amazing. Plus, Ravenholm is one of the scariest things in any game.
But! I still don't think it's the best game ever, as creative as it was. I don't blame you if you didn't like it. Timesplitters: Future Perfect did more for me than Half Life 2. But The Orange Box is a great deal. =O
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jun 12, 2010 0:52:32 GMT 1
I don't see how Half Life 2 was less restrictive than anything. You could not be more on a set of rails in that game if Gordan Freeman was a choo choo train. Interactivity with the environment was a huge thing of course, but it was a rail shooter through and through. That whole game was an exorcise of Heaven on my right hell on the left and the angel of death behind me...it was just better at hiding it.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Jun 12, 2010 1:14:28 GMT 1
You're absolutely right. It was better at hiding it. In my mind, the world seems so expansive because you have to travel everywhere, there's no cutscene or anything segueing you into another part of the world. That giant tower gets smaller or bigger depending on where you are in the world. It has a sense of scale, I guess, even though it's a complete illusion.
If Half Life 2 had been a free-roaming game, I'd love it long time. I still thought it was good, though, but not the Second Coming. Modern Warfare 2's campaign was more enjoyable to me, as was Timesplitters' (It's time to split!). But it's really hard for me to enjoy Point A to Point B shooters these days.
I'm the only one I know who's not excited for Halo: Reach. ><
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Jun 12, 2010 9:21:52 GMT 1
I haven't get the chance to play HL:2 but I do know the source engine well. My friend prefers that engine when he did his major project last year at uni.
As for debating for the 'best game' of all time, that's pretty subjective depending on the individual themselves, since everyone has their own taste and preference. Some people might think that certain game is the best thing ever while the person sitting next to them might think it's not. Personally for me, at the end of the day, there's no such thing as a 'perfect game'. There is such thing as "a great game that deserves to be remembered fondly in the gaming history" but a perfect game? I don't think so. In every great game there's always flaws and blemishes inside of it, due to human nature themselves being not so perfect. Also don't forget counting the factor there are "spiritual successors" that will probably outwitted the same game that they took it as a base for inspiration in the future.
Oh and while we're on the topic of linearity, this disturbing trend of "going from point A to point b" doesn't just apply to shooters only but also in other genres too... especially RPGs. Final Fantasy XIII seem to be most noctious with this trend atm. I haven't played over 20 hours yet but so far, it's does feels like "going from point A to point B" with heavy blemishes of cutscenes and battles. It troubles me so far with this sort of trend with the current crop, I just hope in the future games, the "Point A to Point b" scheme is lessen... or least give us a good illusion of freedom.
|
|
N7v1K0
Lieutenant
This one has no time for your solid waste excretions.
Posts: 171
|
Post by N7v1K0 on Jun 12, 2010 18:59:41 GMT 1
At the time, it was mostly because of the Source and Havok engines, which allowed for top-of-the-line graphics and (almost) realistic physical interaction with pretty much everything in the game. Bricks weighed as much as bricks would, plastic crates weighted as much as real plastic crates, etc. It was a big deal at the time of its release, since stuff like that just wasn't available in a game that took full advantage of it. So, I think it mostly got popular because of the tech behind it, just like GTA IV got big because of Euphoria and The Force Unleashed (almost) got big because of DMM. Other than that, from my experience, the story structure was unique, it sorta did away with cutscenes entirely and made them more interactive (like Modern Warfare 2 does), the world was interconnected and really expansive, the weapons were creatively implemented, and the graphics were amazing. Plus, Ravenholm is one of the scariest things in any game. But! I still don't think it's the best game ever, as creative as it was. I don't blame you if you didn't like it. Timesplitters: Future Perfect did more for me than Half Life 2. But The Orange Box is a great deal. =O I didn't find anything remarkable about HL-2 at all. Ravenholm is more boring than scary.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jun 14, 2010 17:22:41 GMT 1
As for debating for the 'best game' of all time, that's pretty subjective depending on the individual themselves, since everyone has their own taste and preference. Some people might think that certain game is the best thing ever while the person sitting next to them might think it's not. Personally for me, at the end of the day, there's no such thing as a 'perfect game'. There is such thing as "a great game that deserves to be remembered fondly in the gaming history" but a perfect game? I don't think so. In every great game there's always flaws and blemishes inside of it, due to human nature themselves being not so perfect. Also don't forget counting the factor there are "spiritual successors" that will probably outwitted the same game that they took it as a base for inspiration in the future. Wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jun 14, 2010 23:51:55 GMT 1
Those are wise words, Tillian.
Even though I love Fallout 1 & 2, I actually realize that neither are perfect games (especially 2). Don't listen to the more outspoken purists who claim that the game is perfect, as it isn't, and neither is Fallout 3. Many people say Contra is the best game of all time, but it kind of isn't (even though it still kicks ass).
|
|
renegadepoint
Lieutenant
Lets all take a step back from the weird alien impaling devices...
Posts: 188
|
Post by renegadepoint on Jun 17, 2010 8:33:20 GMT 1
Perfection does not exist. One of the main reason I believe HL2 is so popular is because of the mods. Counter Strike, obviously, and all the user made projects. Some are better then others. There's this one mod, Battlefield or something, that's a recreation of the revolutionary war. On of the servers was dedicated to recreating the battles just like they were, tactically any way. You had to line up while some french guy talks down to you over voice chat, and wait for your turn to get shot. It was pretty interesting and fairly accurate, if mind numbingly boring. But it was unique. And then there's Garry's Mod. Its difficult to explain, but its well worth $10 if you don't already have it. Though, there is an absurd amount of extra files per server that you need. For some of the more creative server mods any way. I still remember Space Mod, god were those good times. I had some bad ass spaceships. Guess what I'm trying to say is, where HL2 really wins out is in replayability. Yeah the main game was a linear, but who cares? At least you wont wast 2 hours trying to find the key to some door to continue the main quests or something. Every game has problems. Its a balance thats difficult to maintain. Open world games are HIGHLY over rated. Just because I can go any where, doesn't make me want to any more. Some of the worst games I've played recently were open world. Red Faction Gurella, Just Cause, Saint Row (AKA GTA:SA2), Viking. I think I typed too much, sorry
|
|
|
Post by ommadawn on Jun 18, 2010 0:30:18 GMT 1
I know HL2 was very controlled and like being on a rail, but it didn't feel like it. It also told a ripping story, had engaging characters you grew to care about, and was simply beautiful to play. Does this sound like another game we all love???
|
|