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

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

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.
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.

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

<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.


Xocyll