Support NeoGAF

[ArcadeStickMonk]

The fact that you're bringing DOOM3 in the core gameplay conversation pretty much brings forth the fact that you absolutely don't know what "depth" is. The AI in DOOM3 is pretty much RUN TOWARDS THE HERO for 90% of the monsters. The combat is deep? There are mostly 2 enemies at once, and they're used in cheap spawning ways where there's always an enemy spawning behind you. That's not DEEP sir. That's freakin cheap.

What he's talking about is that in both Halo and Doom3, the developers have balanced enemy behavior against your weapons to produce crafted and reliable tactics.

And what that means is that, if you want there to be, there is more to your combat with an enemy then standing there and shooting each other. I guess it's best to lead by examples.

Halo
- Letting a Hunter whiff past you exposes there vulnerable orange area, after which they can be killed in one shot where assualting them head-on gains nothing.

- Shields are dropped by plasma faster, health is dropped by bullets faster. Hitting an Elite with a charged Plasma Pistol and then following with a quick automatic burst provides a much cleaner and quicker means of killing them then just laying in with the assault rifle. Jackal's shield can be disipated the same way.

- Killing Elites causes grunts to scatter.

- The Plasma Rifle freezes enemies while dropping thier shields, making them very vulnerable to a melee



Doom3
- Pretty much hinges on the shotgun. Most enemies have openings ripe for a shotgun blast that can be exploited. Every enemy in the game (save for bosses) can be easily dispatched with a shotgun and knowing when to hit them, even the hell knights.

- You can duck under a tentacle soldier's attack, and in fact this is about the only way for them not to hit you. If you stay too long he will kick.

- Imps will fake you out at times, seeming to release their fireball and causing you to jink, only to release the attack late and catch you by suprise.

- The plasma gun destroys the rockets from the Revenants, eliminating their primary attack. Alternately, you can kill them with two shotgun blast if you stay close enough and dodge their rocket before it starts to track. Cacodemon blasts are also destructible.


So what all this is supposed to instill in the player is that there is a more satisfying alternative in combat than shooting at the first enemy you see with the weapon in your hands when you see them. Halo and Doom3 both have crafted, per-enemy strategies in them. That is the depth that Dark10x is reffering to.

This is not to suggest that HL2 is devoid of these features. I know I enjoy catching a man-hack in my grav-gun and slamming it against a wall. But we feel that HL2 does not contain enough of these strategies and we found that a bit dissapointing after two Halos and Doom3.

 

[Sander]

I personally thought the combat was Doom 3's biggest flaw and a huge disappointment. Boring weapons, weapon sounds are absolutely terrible, no alt-fire, simplistic AI, horrible screen jolt when you get hit, lacking feedback.

HL2 on the other hand has the whole physics system you can use, which is a huge amount of fun in itself (including chucking back grenades). Other than that, more interesting weapons (although nothing special, needs more snark), great sounds, alt-fire, squads, way more variety in enemies, and let's not forget the friendly Ant Lions and turret sections, which I thought were a nice change of pace. AI however, is disappointing.

Combat-wise no FPS compares to Halo though, nowadays I miss the melee attack in every FPS that lacks it (together with a huge number of other things ).

Random thought: anyone notice that in Halo 2 - Metropolis, where the Scarab walks over you, that if you turn around too fast whole parts of the level disappear/popup? Is that because it doesn't fit entirely in the Xbox' memory or something?

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Sander's mostly right about HL2. The above examples about Doom 3 enemies having "weak points" or something all have their equivalents for every single enemy in HL2. If you haven't found em, well..

 

[tahrikmili]

I played (or am playing) and love all three (or even four, if you count Far Cry) of the games this year and for the life of me I can't tell which one I love more. Why not just enjoy them all? They were all extremely fine games.

 

[boredJonathan]

This whole "action movie" point is dumb. Every FPS is trying to be one.

And Half Life 2 fails because of the loading. Welcome to the point.

Did you play the game on hard? I dunno, but the AI was pretty good to me. And variety wasn't in the "dumb"-"not dumb" way. If you thought that, I don't know what game you were playing.

Obviously not the same one I was. Oh and BTW, playing on hard does not make the AI smarter. It makes the enemies tougher and your weapons weaker. Which, to me, is a cop out on programming actually different difficulties. If you look through the official thread, you can see a much longer disscussion on AI there and you can see my points on why I was dissapointed with it. I'm sick of rehashing it everytime someone tells me that it wasn't that bad.

I'm talking about the differences between enemy thinking patterns, enemy design if you will. Headcrabs are obviously dumb. Combines are not. And those running zombies were cool as hell. Fighting those was always giving me different experiences.

Yes, you are talking about enemy design. Not AI. For the record, Combines were just a hair smarter than the headcrabs. They would occasionally toss a gernade or try and find cover. Occasionally. And those skinless zombie things? You liked those but had a problem with Doom 3? I guess the infrequency of them might have helped, but they acted alot like the monsters in Doom 3. I personally did not find different experiences in fighting almost anything in this game. It all boiled down to shooting them before they shot me, and rarely involved any thinking or strategy. You could include the sections of the game where Valve just says 'Ah screw AI! We will just overwhelm them with guys!'. Not fun, especially since there is hardly any strategic thinking to it, and it just comes down to how many bullets you have.

But hey, different strokes I guess. I just hate DOOM 3 and think that Halo and Halo 2 are above all uninteresting, although well executed.

And with that, I think we'll just have to agree to dissagree because I think Doom 3 was a good game, with Halo and Halo 2 being classic FPS experiences.

 

[Coin Return]

if you want to get to the opening menu quicker, right click on half life 2 on the "my games" menu. click on properties, launch options, then type in

+map_background none

it will just load the blurry background. takes about 5 seconds.

 

[epmode]

i agree with your halo/doom 3 assessment, dark10x.. it's just that i think you're selling hl2 short.

The above examples about Doom 3 enemies having "weak points" or something all have their equivalents for every single enemy in HL2.

troof. i don't really see how you can argue otherwise.

headcrabs (all types)
zombies (all types)
ant lions
manhacks
rollermines
gunships
striders

each are vulnerable to specific weapons and strategies, and it's very possible to take them out while taking a minimal amount of damage. ..if you're skilled enough.

combine soldiers are the real wildcards, as the optimal strategy is largely dependent on their surrounding environment. while this is true for the other enemies, the combine aren't as easily explotable, so you're forced to get creative with the physics gun and any available cover.

 

[ElyrionX]

Can't we steer the discussion elsewhere? Yes, there are more loading times in HL2 than in other games. Some people care, some don't. Let's end the whole thread here, I guess.

Good lord, people are so dumb.

If you don't care then why the fuck are you in here shooting off your mouth? We are the ones who care enough to have discussion about it here and that is the fundamental purpose of an online forum like this.

You already saw the thread title and knew what to expect. Was it truly necessary having to come in here and troll like you did? If you don't like what we're saying, then don't click on the thread.

And in what way does having an opinion about the loading times in Half-Life 2 make us "dumb" in anyway. You are obviously aiming unfounded insults at us and I'm not sure I appreciate that.

 

[boredJonathan]

each are vulnerable to specific weapons and strategies, and it's very possible to take them out while taking a minimal amount of damage. ..if you're skilled enough.

Yeah, it's called shoot before they do. They may have weaknesses, but its pointless because the AI gives you absolutely no need to even worry about it. Just point and shoot. They'll be dead befoer they can even move and you can go on to the next loading point.

 

[epmode]

Yeah, it's called shoot before they do. They may have weaknesses, but its pointless because the AI gives you absolutely no need to even worry about it. Just point and shoot. They'll be dead befoer they can even move and you can go on to the next loading point.

i agree, the normal difficulty damage settings are too lenient. i'm having a more interesting time on hard.

 

[Gantz]

Imagine HL2 on the PSP :lol

All kidding aside loading times for me range from 10-30 seconds on my 1.8 athlon, ati 9700 pro, witha gig of ram.

 

[Yusaku]

Load times were not a problem for me. You guys are acting like the game is loading during heated battles, isntead of lulls between locations.

It's a good sign when the worst thing people can say about the game is some loading between locations.

 

[Forsete]

Welcome to PC gaming, where long load times have been a nice feature for a long time.
Im not really that bothered by HL2s load times, Im so used to seeing them, and its a nice break between the action.

But, I cant wait for the day when all games are like the Jak series, no loading while playing (no short pauses either).

 

[Bebpo]

One thing I don't see mentioned at all is WHY the load times are long and the maps are small.

Half-life 2 has more geometric detail than any other game I've ever played. The polygon count for the structures has to be 10-50x what you see in something like Halo 2 and a lot more complex than the empty islands of Far Cry or the Doom3 levels. The computer has to keep all those polygons and structures in memory right? So basically if they wanted Half-life 2 to have quicker loading times and bigger maps they would have had to scale down the environment like all those fully 3d detailed buildings in the backgrounds and hundreds of interactive objects in each map section.

Personally I think the huge detailed environments full of objects to interact with is what made the game great. It's what gave it this amazing feel of something new and beyond what other FPS games had done until now. So I'll put up with some load times and a little choppiness here and there to be able to experience the type of world Valve built.

 

[Jugendstil]

I don't currently own a pc I can play the game on, but I loved HL1, and was eagerly anticipating my first chance at playing HL2. I finally got the chance to play it last week at my friend's house. He had warned me about how annoying the load time was. but I figured he was just whining. I managed to play through the first two levels, and, well, the load times are pretty unacceptable. When you're being persued in the first level and all of the sudden it stops to load for 30 seconds in the middle of the chase, it really takes you out of the game. It's even worse because I found a lot of other aspects of the game to be truly impressive, but the issues with loading really suck. I went from being really dissapointed that I'm missing out on playing the game to not really giving shit if I ever get to finish it.

 

[buck naked]

One thing I don't see mentioned at all is WHY the load times are long and the maps are small.

Half-life 2 has more geometric detail than any other game I've ever played. The polygon count for the structures has to be 10-50x what you see in something like Halo 2 and a lot more complex than the empty islands of Far Cry or the Doom3 levels. The computer has to keep all those polygons and structures in memory right? So basically if they wanted Half-life 2 to have quicker loading times and bigger maps they would have had to scale down the environment like all those fully 3d detailed buildings in the backgrounds and hundreds of interactive objects in each map section.

Personally I think the huge detailed environments full of objects to interact with is what made the game great. It's what gave it this amazing feel of something new and beyond what other FPS games had done until now. So I'll put up with some load times and a little choppiness here and there to be able to experience the type of world Valve built.

I have a different theory.

In game, Half-Life 2 takes up about 140MB of RAM (according to task manager). The reason why the loading is so frequent is to accomidate low end systems with limited resources - which was one of Valve's claims for the Source engine.

512MB RAM is standard and higher is expected for anyone with a PC suited to gaming. In creating such small levels, Valve sold out the hardcore gaming audience for low-end compatibility.