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

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

Since HL2 will be/is 20 yrs. old and we're all getting nostalgia! Let's
talk about those days!
>
IIRC during the first week of its release, I bought its retail from a
local Best Buy with a $10/10% sale or something back then. According to
my detailed https://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html history, I
recently upgraded my Windows gaming PC with these parts: "... an AMD
Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2GHz 512KB Socket 754 single core CPU, ASUS K8V SE
Deluxe (VIA K8T800 Socket 754 ATX; VIA VT8237 South Bridge; Revision 2;
onboard sound disabled; onboard NIC not used/connected (using 3COM NIC
for network) and can't be disabled or else Promise Raid won't be
activate), a 3 fan HDD Peeze cooler, 1 GB of PC3200 Kingston RAM (CAS
3), and Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS." :) I think I also got
Windows XP OS too.
>
Anyways, I remember playing this game over my Thanksgiving weekend. It
was amazing! Very smooth, pretty, and fun! I don't remember how long it
took me to finish it. It was a great sequel. Of course years later,
episodes 1 and 2 (The Orange Box -- will talk about that in three
years). I don't have and want a VR to play Alyx. :(
>
What about the rest of you?

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." Reviewers,
apparently *all* of them, were being handled by Valve on their campus.
Ever been corporate handled? I have. Your objective opinions go out the
window, if you can even tell what is good information and what is spin.

So I took "it doesn't really innovate" as the actual review.

I didn't download Steam for 7 years after HL2. I didn't buy Half Life 2
until 9 years ago for Black Mesa. I loved the _original_ Half-Life.

So my first memory of HL2 was, "Well, that's the absolute end of any
chance of independent reviews."

When Jeff Gerstmann was fired, some 3 years later*, for failing to give a
good review to a corporate partnership game, my opinion was sealed.

https://bit.ly/4fWpZmn

(The bookmark link on Wikipedia had problems with pasting. So bit.ly)

I thank Dan Adams for giving me the heads up.

--
Zag

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

* Jonah Falcon and I had quite the conversation about this. I even wrote
an article. Here's a paragraph:

What we end up with is a thorough perception that the whole review
industry has been compromised by carrot-and-stick public relations
manipulation. There is a widespread belief, often unstated at the
publications themselves, that the materials for previews will suddenly
"dry up" if they give too harsh a review on a shipping product. You don't
bite the hand that feeds you, you can't. In an attempt to capture the
lowest common denominator to bring a large audience, these publications
have all but divorced themselves from what matters to the more discerning
audience. They are providing an entertainment product first, and critical
review second, a sort of *Nintendo Power* approach, but in the guise of
"independent" journalism. The perception is that there is no spoken policy
regarding these issues, just a tightening of the purse strings by overlarge
publishers when the playing field is not slightly tilted in their favor.