Check out Half-Life Re-imagined competition results!
Check out Skewing textures in Hammer, our newest tutorial!
Say hello to akn, our newest member!

logo

Site Stuff

Reference

Maps

Community

ShoutBOX

Poll

Feeling Blue

What's your favourite shade of blue?

Azure

15

Cobalt

32

Turquoise

10

Cyan

11

Royal

9

Teal

3

Onliners

2 mins

potatis_invalid

11 mins

Admer456

12 mins

Solokiller

14 mins

Dr. Orange

16 mins

Dimbeak

42 mins

Windawz

1 hours

JeffMOD

Affiliates

A gaming and technology blog by TWHL admins Penguinboy and Ant. A music blog by TWHL users Ant and Hugh.

View Journal

avatar NineTnine 3rd January 2016, 05:17 AM

So I finally got around to playing HL2 the other day (yeah nah don't ask why it's taken me this long).

Because the game was the first one to use the Source engine, I can't help but notice that a lot of the game puzzles and gameplay focus on the physics, as if Valve was attempting to exploit this part of the engine to the max.
ie. You get a tool that can pick up objects around the world. You can't shoot to destroy turrets, they have to fall over. You build see-saws in the sewers to escape, etc.
Maybe I'm just cynical but because I've played games post HL2 which feature similar physics engines that aren't exploited like this, I'm finding this part of the game a bit overkill. kind of like how there are games build to exploit a graphics engine, this feels like it was built to exploit a physics engine.

Also, the story isn't explained very well either.
And Alyx is actually pretty annoying.
But apart from that Its alright.

Comments

avatar DoctorAmazing says: 3rd January 2016, 06:12 AM
yes
avatar Jessie says: 3rd January 2016, 06:33 AM
There's plenty of gameplay which doesn't involve the physics, so I don't know if you can really say that. On the other hand, you gots to remember, when this came out, physics like that was new. Why would they not make every effort to use it? Considering that, I wouldn't say they went overboard, I think it uses it well.
avatar NineTnine says: 3rd January 2016, 08:52 AM
but the puzzles are cleverly disguised! I was coming at it from an angle of the original Half life - I can't just shoot a turret to destroy it like in normal HL, I have to tip it over somehow. But yeah, the other puzzles - I don't just go an open a gate normally to get my hovercraft through, I have to release a girder hanging on some chains to break the gate open.
I mean, a game like Dark Messiah which also used Source had some physics bits but I always felt like they were more subtle and less exploiting.

I mean, I loved the puzzles in original HL so when I get a puzzle in HL2 its usually like 'Ok I probably have to do something with the gravity gun, or use the environment around me in some dynamic way'
avatar Archie says: 3rd January 2016, 19:48 PM
"when I get a puzzle in HL2 its usually like 'Ok I probably have to do something with the gravity gun, or use the environment around me in some dynamic way'"

... Are you saying this is a bad thing? That combat isn't just shooting and that puzzles use a diverse and dynamic environment? I so confoos.
avatar UrbaNebula says: 3rd January 2016, 21:21 PM
I'll be honest, I don't rate HL2 anywhere near as high as I do HL1. There is no doubt that it's a better engine and the physics system is (or was) incredible. I just don't enjoy it as much as I do Half-Life 1, and beyond Ravenholm, I don't think I use the Gravity Gun very much at all.

Hell, I'd even rate Black Mesa higher than HL2. When I get into Source mapping I think I'll be playing with the BMS tools specifically.
avatar Instant Mix says: 3rd January 2016, 21:23 PM
Bear in mind HL2 had a fucking revolutionary physics engine for it's time so valve really wanted to gimmick the fuck out of it. Can't blame them to be fair for wanting to show it off!
avatar NineTnine says: 3rd January 2016, 22:37 PM
Archie - Yes, bad as in its predictable. I mean, a puzzle doesnt have to use the dynamic environment for it to be fun, but whenever I knew whenver I had to figure out a puzzle I would jump straight to assuming it had to do with physics.

Urby - I know what you're saying... I think maybe I just spent too long playing HL1!

Instant - Thats what I mean... But a game like Doom 3, which was hyped on dynamic lighting, I didn't always think the levels had dynamic lighting for the sake of dynamic lighting, even though the game was exploiting that feature. It was more subtle?
avatar Penguinboy says: 4th January 2016, 00:43 AM
HL2 hasn't aged as well as HL1, that's for sure. For the time, I think HL2 was pretty darn good, and a lot of the levels still hold up pretty well today. Give the episodes a play too, they improve on the gameplay a little bit (not as heavy on the physics puzzles), especially EP2. I agree with Urby though, HL1 is still the better game.
avatar DiscoStu says: 4th January 2016, 01:07 AM
HL2 is an engine showoff game with the Half-Life universe shoehorned in. HL1 was a perfectly well-rounded product by itself.
avatar UrbaNebula says: 4th January 2016, 15:13 PM
HL2 had way too many irritating enemies, specifically manhacks and antlions. They cut all the good stuff!

Episode 2 is probably the better game if I had to choose from the Source titles
You must be logged in to comment.