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

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_.

There's a reason why _Consumer Reports_ runs on subscriptions and not
ads. Additionally, they are very hard line about *consistent* testing
standards for all products in a review class in a particular year.

They demonstrate the way to run an independent evaluation. For a games
publication? Do it on your own equipment, which should be stock equipment
representative of what most people have, in your own building, and
absolutely no ad money from anyone you review. Maybe no one related to
gaming at all. If you're advertising graphics hardware, you're probably
pushing bleeding-edge tech in your reviews to enhance the upgrade cycle.

I think the most important and informative service Steam has is the
annual technology polling, where you get to find out who has what. Very,
very few are on the bleeding edge. Mostly professional gamers,
competitive gamers, and people with more disposable income than sense.

Hardware is king when it comes to a proper PC Master Race experience, but
it doesn't have to be pimp.

You can not innovate, but do what's been done before, only better than
it's ever been done before.
>
IE you took an existing thing and utterly perfected it, without actually
adding anything new.
>
I never thought HL2 was all that, far too on rails for my tastes.
>

Exactly. "Doesn't innovate" means exactly that, and probably more.
Therefore, not only a conflict of interest in the testing process but an
oxymoronic contradiction in terms as a result.

I mean it's opinion, so almost anything goes, but there's a limit.

The original HL was also on rails, but somehow it never managed to
*feel* like it was on rails, HL2 failed at that.
>

Yup. When I finally got around to playing HL2 I felt it was downright
claustrophobic. Level complexity was sacrificed for graphics complexity.
At times HL2 felt like a series of quicktime events. Or cheap set pieces:
Here's an unlimited box of grenades; here's a bridge; throw them now or
die.

But a lot of Half-Life fans wanted a cinematic experience in the sequel.
They got it. They got breathtaking, for the period, graphics and a
complete narrative experience. (Though IMO mediocre. Game writers at the
time were not great. See: Knights of the Old Republic.)

So, imo, Valve ran with Half-Life as if the only thing that made it
special was its cinematic feeling. The tram ride. The storytelling as
part of gameplay. The chapters. It did make the original special, but the
gameplay was just as important.

The set pieces in HL1 (e.g.: the helicopter) were interactive, difficult,
featured innovative gameplay at the time, and were less stagey. You had
recently received the weapons to deal with them, but they weren't sitting
at the door in a box because the levels were larger. You had to _decide_
how to use them. Perhaps the illusion of agency, but agency nonetheless.

Personally, I thought they doubled down on the wrong thing and could have
sacrificed some graphics, to the same effect, to enhance play.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten