Gaming

628 readers

1 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

Weird Opinion: Half-Life 1 is actually way better than Half-Life 2 (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

First, some background: I first became aware of PC gaming in 2012 (15yrs after HL1, 7yrs after HL2). I played both games back-to-back and then later replayed both separately.

There's so much to be said about these two games, but I'll sum up my feelings in a few bullet points:

HL1 is more thematically unified. It plays true to its Sci-Fi & Die Hard roots up to the point of campiness, but that fits rather well for a game whose protagonist is effectively a nerdy Doom Marine -- more a force-of-nature embodiment of survival than traditional hero.
HL2, on the other hand, feels weighed-down by this legacy. It wants to tell a serious story about a charismatic freedom-fighter. That's an aesthetic which clashes terribly with HL1's mute, stoic survivalist.
HL1 has a better core gameplay loop. It plays to its strengths: gunplay & level exploration. Exposition & puzzling are almost always delivered through these mediums wherever possible. Those few chapters which depart from this philosophy (On a Rail, Xen) are the weakest in the whole game as a result.
HL2, by contrast, seems almost insecure. It only trusts the player to stick with the core gameplay-loop for a few chapters at most before pivoting into yet another gimmick -- almost all of which (barring the gravity gun sequence) feel painfully drawn out:
- Water Hazard: Boating
- Highway 17: Driving
- Sandtraps: Physics "Puzzling" + "Platforming"
- Nova Prospekt: Wave-Based Point Defense

What do you guys think? There's a lot worth unpacking here which I couldn't quite articulate. What are your takeaways?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They were entering a phase of what you might call “fiction-debt” where the past choices in the story were beginning to slow down the story and make it less intriguing. [...] It can also be argued that this “fiction-debt” is why they had to go into the past and do a pre-sequel with Half-Life: Alyx.

That's an interesting idea. I agree... though, I think that the choice to switch lead characters was more instrumental than the choice to go with a prequel. I wonder if Valve internally ever seriously considered ditching Gordon when they were making HL2? It's funny to imagine what the fan reception to that might have looked like!