brandonh83
Banned
StoOgE said:
:lol I had the same problem, sorta, I got through that fairly easily but just by luck. I can see where you're coming from, easily.
"The Freeman Returns" with The Official Orange Box Thread
- Thread starter The M.O.B
- Start date
:lol I had the same problem, sorta, I got through that fairly easily but just by luck. I can see where you're coming from, easily.
but I feel alot of Halo 3's AI is scripted. I shoot at them and they do the same dodge all the time. Yes they deploy shields and what not but they step out of the shield for idiotic reasons. The flanking is an aspect that is better but everything else not so much.StoOgE said:
You can tell its scripted to what you do because the friendly AI in halo3 is ass. In HL2 they do basically the same thing, oh and from what Iv'e been able to tell playing halo 3 in both legendary and heroic the AI remains the same. Halo3 just feels like it has "more" scripted reactions for "enemy" ai thus giving it that feel.
Jirotrom said:
well of course its scripted, they dont really think for themselves. But in Halo 3 Ive played most missions 2-3 times and they all feel very different every time. HL2, Ive replayed sections due to death and the battle plays out very much the same way every time. Less sandbox, more straightforward.
I just think Halo AI feels more organic and has more variety to it.. the enemies do more than just shoot you. They work together to try and flush you out. Its not perfect and they do some stupid stuff, but on the whole, its much better.
Part of it is variety, in Halo 3 there are thousands of different ways for me to approach the battle. Take a warthog, take a ghost, grab a spartan laser, chunk a grenade. In HL2 its "shoot him with this" or "throw a grenade" or "shoot these conviniently places explosive barrels". So there are only so many things for the enemy to react to.
Im not saying HL2 isnt a good game with solid AI, its just not as good as Halo 3's
not a comment on the ai in general, but playing h3 on legendary i managed to kill about 20ish enemies in sierra 117 by climbing up a ladder half way (so my head was peeking above the top) and just shooting the shit out of them with a carbine. they didn't even budge the entire time.
beyond that i've also seen a cheiftan with a hammer trap himself with a deployable cover and let me waste him from a distance.
beyond that i've also seen a cheiftan with a hammer trap himself with a deployable cover and let me waste him from a distance.
I thought you were referring to it as not being scripted, Halo has a major fault in friendly ai though. HL2 when played on hard can cause some problems, especially theStoOgE said:
turret scene in HL2 or the antlion scene in episode 2 or the final scene in episode 3
thats because the ai is the same regardless of difficulty... they are just more enemies with greater life and greater damage to be dealt.blackadde said:
Doesn't matter fear on pc has yet to be dethroned for me, though I haven't played it in years so I can't remember the fine details.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
I don't know. I think they're both completely coherent experiences, which is the most you could ask. halo 3 AI feels a bit more varied and frantic because you're in the middle of a warzone. HL2 AI feels more stark because you're walking through Castle Rock four hours after a Stephen King novel ended. They both work. They both rock.
Hard.
Hard.
StoOgE said:
QFT. The Half-Life defense force will never accept it though :lol :lol
I bet a lot of them are PC gamers who haven't even played Halo, and just automatically reply in topics like this that Half-Life 2's gunplay is perfect and hasn't been topped...
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
StoOgE said:
Absolutely. In fact, this, BioShock and Halo3 make the whole concept of ShooterBox almost laughable, as they're so varied and offer such wildly divergent experiences.
brandonh83
Banned
GDJustin said:
Beat Halo 1 and 2, loved them, was incredibly disappointed in Halo 3. In fact, I'm not even that big of a PC gamer. I generally don't like PC games, but I feel the keyboard setup is superior for Half-Life. I don't think the gunplay is perfect but I do think it works well enough within the context of the HL atmosphere and direction.
fistfulofmetal
Banned
GDJustin said:
I'm not. And I honestly prefer the shooting in Half Life 2: Episode 1 or 2 over Halo 3. The only gun that feels right when shot is the plasma rifle. Everything else is off. The BR, AR, Shotgun, it all feels and sounds underpowered. Especially the AR. When I play Episode 2 with my headphones on and shoot the assault rifle, it has a dominant, loud sound. Not so much with Halo 3's assault rifle
brandonh83
Banned
AstroLad said:
:lol
Just finished Ep. 2. Really fun experience all around. It's an awesome balance of gunplay, puzzles, scripted sequences, and open world battlefields. Those hunters would react very differently depending on how I attack them. I'd die and reload and things would definitely feel very different each time. I also loved the inside of the bug caves, very atmospheric.
You know what really impressed me the most about Half Life 2? The fact that I never quicksaved/quickloaded at all during the entire experience. I trusted the checkpoint system in the game and it never failed me, it was really well done.
You know what really impressed me the most about Half Life 2? The fact that I never quicksaved/quickloaded at all during the entire experience. I trusted the checkpoint system in the game and it never failed me, it was really well done.
all the weapons il HL2 feel pretty powerful to me, I constantly have to turn the bass down because of it. When you shoot off a rocket and it lands on a target you feel the thump of the explosion its great. The only weapon that I'm not a fan of in HL2 is the pistol. Also what do you mean feels like it makes an impact? I'm going through all the weapons in Halo 3 right now, and imo things are feeling a little similar.Kabouter said:
Jirotrom said:
It's already been gone over at length in the last few pages of this topic. Off the top of my head -
1) Targeting reticle is HUGE, When I first got the pistol I was literally like "so... a bullet can land ANYWHERE in that huge sight? Nice..."
2) Nothing in the off-hand. I don't care about dual-wielding, but dozens of times I wished I could lob a grenade with the left trigger.
3) Damage doesn't feel visceral. Compare to a game like Bioshock, where each bullet "thumps" into you and makes you wince.
4) The "recharging health" dynamic found in Halo, Gears, etc. leads to more strategic, fun firefights. Pop out, squeeze off some rounds, dive back behind cover, etc.
...those four are off the top of my head.
Also, I'd like to reiterate that this whole discussion is really pretty silly, because Half-Life 2 is 3 years old
Basically, what Ramierez, Dark, and I are saying is "Half-Life 2 is great, but since it was originally released in 2004, other shooters have improved on it." I don't find that to be an unreasonable point of view at all, and I dunno why we should have to defend it...
A bit general education in here...Portal done in 1998: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR1U7RvxLTI
(starts at 3:50)
(starts at 3:50)
fistfulofmetal
Banned
PnCIa said:
It's really too bad that their Portal tech turned out to be used as nothing more than a door.
I found myself only using the automatic rifle (which doesn't feel like its bullets make impact indeed, but it shoots quick and I like itKabouter said:
) and the shotgun (obviously).They might indeed not be that good.
and I'm not quite the Halo fan.
I found myself using the grav gun A LOT though this time around.
UnholySpectacle
Member
Yay, this thread has turned into fanboy game comparisons. How bout we go back to Orange Box and how awesome it is. The rest of you, GTFO!
1. I'm pretty sure this is a console issue, not 100%GDJustin said:It's already been gone over at length in the last few pages of this topic. Off the top of my head -
1) Targeting reticle is HUGE, When I first got the pistol I was literally like "so... a bullet can land ANYWHERE in that huge sight? Nice..."
2) Nothing in the off-hand. I don't care about dual-wielding, but dozens of times I wished I could lob a grenade with the left trigger.
3) Damage doesn't feel visceral. Compare to a game like Bioshock, where each bullet "thumps" into you and makes you wince.
4) The "recharging health" dynamic found in Halo, Gears, etc. leads to more strategic, fun firefights. Pop out, squeeze off some rounds, dive back behind cover, etc.
...those four are off the top of my head.
Also, I'd like to reiterate that this whole discussion is really pretty silly, because Half-Life 2 is 3 years old
Basically, what Ramierez, Dark, and I are saying is "Half-Life 2 is great, but since it was originally released in 2004, other shooters have improved on it." I don't find that to be an unreasonable point of view at all, and I dunno why we should have to defend it...
2. Definitely a console issue, not a pc issue. I noticed this after playing the console version, so yes this would annoy me as well as having to press the d-pad to change weapons.
3.not to sure about this.
4. HL2 does have elements of rechargeble armor , but the health packs and energy shield regeneration fall in line with the suit. Also whether or not rechargeable health is better or not is opinion based. There are times I'm glad for it and there are times where I could care less.
UnholySpectacle said:
I just wanted to know why aspects were considered better, the ai explanation made great sense, but I don't get the issues with gunplay.
PillowKnight
Member
What? That's not Portal. The portals are the central theme, but that's not what makes the game great.PnCIa said:
Even though, those portals showed there are nothing like the portals in the game.
Jirotrom said:
Wait, wait, wait. Of COURSE its opinion-based. *ALL* of this is opinion based.
Did you think we were arguing absolutes, here? "Ha ha! I can refute his point about recharging shields because its only his OPINION that it leads to superior gameplay! I win! HL2 wins!"
I mean, you ASKED what was better to me about Halo's gunplay. Did you ask JUST so you could go down point by point in order to "refute" them? How strange. Its like... I like Half-Life 2, AND Halo. (and Bioshock and Gears...)
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Edit: It's true that I prefer one experience over the other, and I've articulated pretty clearly why I hold that opinion at this point... so what's the problem?
Wait, I'm not downplaying 360 issues as there ARE no issues. I'm PRAISING the 360 Orange Box as it loads incredibly fast. 5-10 second loadtimes between segments is f*cking awesome for HL2. You don't "downplay" something positive. I've seen the game played on at least 15 different computers and the 360 loads faster than every one of them. That's not to say it could not perform better on others, of course, but it's clearly something that is still a problem on a variety of hardware WELL beyond the recommended specs. Framerate is never a problem, however. The game runs at very high framerates on most hardware today.syllogism said:
Show me some videos of HL2 loading faster than the 5-10 seconds on 360. I want to see them.
It has nothing to do with the platform. Having immediate grenades and melee is a HUGE deal. It adds a lot to the gameplay.
there isn't a problem I just wanted to know "why". For example the ai deal. In all honesty I think Halo 3s ai is better than HL2s because its more believable, but it took a long time for someone to explain as to why. The gunplay deal I could rally careless as neither version is crap. I just wanted to know why one would find the one game better htan the other in that regard.GDJustin said:
HL2 on modern hardware. 2004 HL2 was a f*cking mess on most hardware (the threads on the steam boards regarding these issues were insanely huge). Current HL2 is so much better but still has issues. That's what I'm talking about.syllogism said:
That's why I'm saying that framerate is awesome (60 fps at max details with AA and AF is not difficult to achieve). It's the loading times and occasional stu...stu...stuttering that I still notice today. Even when the machine in question is using a fast HDD with 2gb+ of ram, these problems occasionally crop up. I'd just like to know what causes this specifically.
GDJustin said:
I agree that a lot of times, I wished that grenades were more accessible in HL2, but the game isn't centered around the melee/shoot/grenade mechanic of Halo 3. It's more about using your environment and the gravity gun.
On the PC at least the grenade is a key press away.
GDJustin said:
No. It's not more strategic, or fun. It's much more interesting to me if I have a static lifebar, because it lends weight and consequence to my actions. I can be a moron if I have recharging health, but if I have finite health, the act of conserving it and playing "smart" is encouraged. It also allows good level designers to bait players into traps with power ups.
1. Mine has a dot in the middle where the bullets go.GDJustin said:It's already been gone over at length in the last few pages of this topic. Off the top of my head -
1) Targeting reticle is HUGE, When I first got the pistol I was literally like "so... a bullet can land ANYWHERE in that huge sight? Nice..."
2) Nothing in the off-hand. I don't care about dual-wielding, but dozens of times I wished I could lob a grenade with the left trigger.
3) Damage doesn't feel visceral. Compare to a game like Bioshock, where each bullet "thumps" into you and makes you wince.
4) The "recharging health" dynamic found in Halo, Gears, etc. leads to more strategic, fun firefights. Pop out, squeeze off some rounds, dive back behind cover, etc.
...those four are off the top of my head.
Also, I'd like to reiterate that this whole discussion is really pretty silly, because Half-Life 2 is 3 years old
Basically, what Ramierez, Dark, and I are saying is "Half-Life 2 is great, but since it was originally released in 2004, other shooters have improved on it." I don't find that to be an unreasonable point of view at all, and I dunno why we should have to defend it...
2. Yes. (Though I have't found a "Left trigger" button on my keyboard yet.
3. I prefer retaining control.
4. What you are describing is the opposite of "strategic", a brute force approach like infinite credits in an arcade game. Regenerating health doesn't lend itself to every game and HL2 is better for it.
It sounds like what you're really looking for is CoD4 to be honest.
KTallguy said:
THANK you. The recharghing health is such an annoying prospect... it's so unrealistic that I feel it takes away from the game. Consequences are much more fun to work with, and it certainly made HL2 feel much more like an 'edge of your seat' ride of smart strategy, rather than an exercise in taking cover for a few seconds every few seconds. That's not gunplay, that's God mode.
It is indeed 5-10 seconds on 360 (with a loading bar even, which somehow helps). That's what I'm saying, they did a damn good job. The game never stutters and it loads very quickly. The fact that it's locked at 30 fps is a bit of a downer, but at the same time, it very rarely slows down (so even the biggest explosions and demonstrations of physics have no impact on framerate). I think it's a fantastic way to experience HL2 as it delivers everything to the player as Valve intended.syllogism said:
I must admit, however, that I much prefer a mouse/keyboard for this game. It still plays well on 360 (and I actually prefer weapon switching on the d-pad), but the design is very much based around the expectation that the player is using a mouse.
I'm sure an FPS has done it before (and Resistance does to a certain extent), but I really feel that a good compromise is to let the player regain some health while resting. Even if it's a small amount. Makes scrambling around for cover or a brief respite all that much more engaging, and I don't think there's anything particularly "unrealistic" about it in most game worlds. I'd probably like it more than the all-or-nothing approach that seems to be more popular now.
dark10x said:
It inherently will make things easier, no matter what.
Resistance is one exception though. In that game I never felt like I could be a moron. The bar had four parts, and if you dipped below one part, that part would stop recharging. Probably the best "recharging health" mechanic ever, but I still prefer finite health. (beaten twice!!)
Running away from a charging enemy with 10 health left is an amazing rush. If I'm backed into a corner and I know my health will recharge, then why would I ever make a run for it? Even if enemies charge at me, I'd just dodge them until my health comes back. Having finite health means that you can't just sit back and dodge. You HAVE to scramble for your life.
I suppose that's where we differ. I never get a rush from that, I simply find it annoying. It's almost an OCD like thing for me, but I can't stand relying on quicksaves and medpacks. It forces me to play the game in a way I don't enjoy.
The problem is, the designer will never have an idea of what sort of condition the player will be in when they reach a segment and will be unable to plan for it. A segment that is cake when the player has full health could be nearly impossible when they have 10 health. I fully believe that the reliance on quicksaves and finite health can and does have a negative impact on scenario design.
Fortunately, Valve is very talented and designs their games to work well with finite health. I will never prefer finite health, but I can live with it here.
And? Halo 3 on Legendary is extremely challenging (yet satisfying). It would be absolutely NO FUN with finite health as it would be TOO difficult. Both systems can support challenging gameplay so there is no point in making the claim above.
Kamakazie!
Member
Hardly "most hardware". There was a big problem with stuttering but it was far from the majority that experienced it. Hell, the game ran fine on release with my laptop (3400+ and 97-- Mobility Radeon).dark10x said:
As for people talking about the "gunplay". it was considered fairly weak even on release, but then gunplay is not as important in half-life games as it is in a game like halo. Shooting things is, but its more about how you shoot them than what you shoot them with.
I feel many guns are overlooked in this regard anyhow, it is only really the wussy pistol and the machine gun (which isn't that bad) that are what i would call weak.
The shotgun is as awesome as ever and the combine rifle is amazing! Aside from that, the cross-bow, magnum and grav gun all rock. The power of the magnum is great.
Either way, Orange Box is amazing!
Portal, Episode2 and TF2 have provided 3 of the best gaming experiences anyone will have this year. All together that is one hell of a package (obviously HL2 and Ep1 were included for some.... also amazing!).
AZ Greg
Member
I just finished Half-Life 2 for the first time a couple of days ago. And despite the age of the game I thought it was a much more enjoyable experience than the campaign found in both Halo 2 and Halo 3. I'm not going to comment on the shooting mechanics because I think those are subjective, I personally enjoyed the gravity gun more than anything shooter related in the Halo series, but I can see why people would have different opinions.
What makes Half-Life 2 feel so much better to me is the frantic pace and the urgency it creates. I never feel that with Halo. In Halo you feel like a one man army, I'm sure that was the intent of the developers, but even on legendary you don't really feel worried about a battle. You find a good position and pick away at the enemies while taking cover to get all your health back at the proper times. As good as the A.I. is in Halo, it is nowhere near good enough to create the urgency that the shield recharge system takes away. Perhaps that is why I've enjoyed the multiplayer aspect of the Halo series much more than the campaign modes.
I'm sure everyone remembers the infamous Halo 2 E3 trailer that should the playable level with chief going through the torn up city. It was a great trailer that hyped up everyone, of course Halo 2 never delivered that. But to me that trailer is exactly how Half-Life 2 feels for 95% of the game.
What makes Half-Life 2 feel so much better to me is the frantic pace and the urgency it creates. I never feel that with Halo. In Halo you feel like a one man army, I'm sure that was the intent of the developers, but even on legendary you don't really feel worried about a battle. You find a good position and pick away at the enemies while taking cover to get all your health back at the proper times. As good as the A.I. is in Halo, it is nowhere near good enough to create the urgency that the shield recharge system takes away. Perhaps that is why I've enjoyed the multiplayer aspect of the Halo series much more than the campaign modes.
I'm sure everyone remembers the infamous Halo 2 E3 trailer that should the playable level with chief going through the torn up city. It was a great trailer that hyped up everyone, of course Halo 2 never delivered that. But to me that trailer is exactly how Half-Life 2 feels for 95% of the game.
GrayFoxPL
Member
Jirotrom said:
I started to play FEAR on PS3 and enemy AI amaze me. I'm shocked on their actions. Actually I think they have more abilities then the player! I've read somewhere that 360 fear had dumber AI. Don't know if it's bullshit or not, but the enemy AI is one of the main strong points of the game.
Edit: I'm compiling some "recharging shields are bunko" arguments in this post:
...head crabs, gravity gun, teleporters...
Edit: Also, this amuses me:
You're right, it IS a rush. And in a game like Gears or Halo, you get to experience it over and over. You're constantly threading the needle.
StevieP said:
...head crabs, gravity gun, teleporters...
Edit: Also, this amuses me:
You're right, it IS a rush. And in a game like Gears or Halo, you get to experience it over and over. You're constantly threading the needle.
QFT.StoOgE said:
HL2's gunplay, vehicle sections and AI don't hold a candle to Halo's. The only weapon (aside from the gravity gun) that I really like shooting is the shotgun, because it's the only one that just "feels right" when you shoot and most times the enemies react appropriately to it.
dark10x said:
I never quicksaved once in the entirety of HL2. It was so well balanced that even though I was scared as hell with 10 health, I felt that somehow, someway, I could find a safe spot.
GDJustin: When I said Resistance was an exception, I guess I was unclear. I meant that it's still not as challenging as games with finite health, but out of shooters with recharging health, it's probably on the more challenging side.
GDJustin said:
In Gears, I constantly popped in and out of cover. If my screen gets scary, oh shit, stay in cover! In Half Life 2, it's not so simple.
I haven't played enough of H3's campaign to comment on it, but in the original Halo, it wasn't really that hard to play it safe. I'm not saying it was totally easy and not challenging at all, but it's definitely not as nail biting when I know I can just go run and hide.