Re: 1st HL2 game memories from 2004...

On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:22:39 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 07:02:41 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:
>

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> said:
>

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:31:13 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant
wrote:

<snip>

My first HL2 memory was Dan Adams' _second_ paragraph in his pc.ign.com
review:
>

Before I really get into the review, you should know the background of
how this game was reviewed. Valve did not want to send out copies of
their game (for fairly obvious reasons) before it was released to the
public. In order to play the game, I, and several of my colleagues
throughout the industry, took a trip up to Seattle to visit Valve in
order to have some private time with the title. I was given a little
room to myself where I could close the door, turn off the lights, click
my little red slippers, and pretend that I was sitting at home. It worked
for the most part, largely because I was so engrossed with the game that
when I came out of my trance I often had to take a moment to get my
bearings. Obviously, Valve was happy to bring me into a controlled
environment for ideal playing conditions.

>
This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is] the
best single-player shooter ever released for the PC..." Yet strangely
claimed later in the same paragraph that "...[HL2] doesn't do anything
particularly new; it doesn't really innovate..."
>
Despite its touted physics and all the advertised eye candy. Hmm.

>

I thought, "That sounds like a conflict of interest."

>
Not really a conflict at all.

>
Sitting in a campus playing on bleeding-edge hardware, in a controlled,
sound-proofed space, with corporate handlers guiding you (and probably
gifting you a case of Code Red) is not a conflict? As an independent
journalist that is the definition of a conflict of interest. For
instance, Dan was playing at 1280x720... in _2004_.

>
You missed my point;  I was not talking about a conflict of interest
between game publisher and reviewer, but of the 2 statements.
1. that it did not innovate and
2. "This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is]
the best single-player shooter ever released for the PC"
>
And there is no conflict between the two.

No, I got that. You just said it in reponse to "That sounds like a
conflict of interest." So context. You seemed to be missing *my* point.
To wit, I left that statement dangling in the wrong place anyway.
Probably should of said, "That feels like it *might* be the result of a
conflict of interest."

You can be the best single-player shooter and not innovate at the same
time - you just refine the single-player shooter experience without
adding anything new.

Not in my book, but most opinions are valid. They can be informed,
uniformed, well thought through, reactionary, or even unworthy of
respect, etc. Very few are unworthy, though. Yours sure isn't.

A new game does not have to break new ground, if it can go over well
trodden ground in the best way possible.

Agree to disagree. To be "the best ever," IMO, you have to do something
innovative that other shooters haven't done. Level design. Cooler
weapons. Pacing. The first fully 3d modeled environments. Incredible
story. New way of telling a story. Something extraordinary. Incremental
improvements to graphics, improved smoothness of gameplay, better FPS,
better load times, or UI quality-of-life improvements may make for an
excellent shooter, and an objectively better shooter for the genre on
some points, but not "the best ever."

Otherwise, every new graphics technique would make a new shooter "the
best." I don't think like that. Simple progress is not exceptional to me.

In its day, the original HL was the best shooter ever. Storytelling
without cut scenes. Seemless level loads. I think it still was after HL2
dropped.

Before that, Unreal held that title, in my book, for its seemless
indoor/outdoor environments, cool weapons, pacing, and progression.

Unreal Tournament was the best arena shooter ever a few years later.
Superior maps and infinitely superior AI opponents. Amazing AI. But every
iteration of UT after that was just same-old same-old with better
graphics and a few bells and whistles, which may be objectively better in
a limited sense, but doesn't raise the bar to "best ever" imo.

We have competing definitions. Neither is invalid.

<snip>
>
Not unlike a TV show or a Detective novel or so many other things, you
can redo what's been done before, better than it's ever been done
before.
>
Go to a new steakhouse and get a pepper steak that's the best you've
ever had, even though you've been eating them for 40 years.
>

Last try: If a pepper steak is "the best I ever had," the chef did
something innovative. Spicing. Cooking method. Something. Besides, your
analogy is significantly out of scope. The analogy to Dan Adams'
statement would be that it was "the best steak ever." If it isn't
something novel, that probably isn't true, right? Well trodden paths at
that general a statement level don't make the "cut," imo.

Otherwise, we're just going to disagree here. I understand your point.
It's not worth aruging mine any further. Same data, different
conclusions.

No wrong conclusions. Just different. If you reply, I won't follow up.
I'm not trying to be rude, you just get the last word.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)