Alright so I just finished both Half Lives. I know I'm late to the party, but can we have a thread?
Which one did you like best? Do you think they're overrated?
I really enjoyed 2, 1 not so much, I just wanted to get it over with quickly the whole time. 2 was fucking insanely good. From level design, to physics, to story, atmosphere, etc
I'm a little bitch that gets easily spooked by even remotely spooky vidya, but it made sense in here, and I still thoroughly enjoyed 2.
Am I turning into a soulless valvedrone begging for HL3?
Half Life 2 is better to be honest
>actually has proper characters and an antagonist
>the vehicle sections
>better levels (Half Life 1 had lots of shitty areas like Xen)
Ok so it's clear your got hyped for HL2 before starting both. You should've probably started with it, rather than just rush through the first to get as fast as possible to the second. I suggest to revisit the original or at least try the Black Mesa mod that basically recreates the original in the Source with complete visual and audio overhaul. You can get it from ModDB.
After this or before play the Episodes. Before or after play the expansion packs (Opposing Force, Blue Shift and co-op Decay).
Lastly play Portal games as they tie into the same universe so knowledge may come in hand.
It's a decent series.
The graphics in the original Half-Life (plus Opposing Force and Blue Shift) are pretty hard on the eyes, by today's standards, and too often Half-Life 2 feels like a tech demo for shit that isn't state-of-the-art anymore. But both games are pretty good.
The one thing on which I cannot agree with you is the story. In the original game, the story was okay, but it wasn't really the main focus and, probably for that reason, wasn't really worth getting excited about. And then there's THAT FUCKING ENDING. Seriously? Mysterious G-Man steps in and says "ha ha, the game is over." Literally. Meanwhile, Half-Life 2 is full of retconned characters who praise Gordon Freeman endlessly as if he did anything in the first game except escape and then vanish. The post-apocalyptic setting is interesting, I guess, but again... THAT FUCKING ENDING. Sure, we were supposed to get Half-Life 2: Episode Three last decade, but we didn't. As of now, the canonical end of the series is the end of Half-Life 2: Episode Two. The culmination of all the shit that happened in the series, the climax of it all, is... the death of a secondary character and a fade to black. All else is left unresolved. Oh wow.
Both games were rated highly because they were a lot more varied at the time. You will remember Half Life 1 for having weird little button puzzles, or having to look for hidden, or poorly indicated switches in order to progress.
I remember Quake 1 was released a few years prior to it.
Compare Half Life 1 and Quake 1, and you can see how it somewhat managed to design a shooter similar to those we know today.
Half Life 2 was, like its predecessor, ahead of its time, in a good way.
It featured a well, fully fleshed out physics engine, and made good use of it, in the form of puzzles, and many other ways to interact with the environment on a whole new level, of which was to be made another standard amongst video games.
Both games helped to 'set the bar' for future design of video games.
Such games are held highly, and praised, for providing the guidance that was needed for all developers to take a step forward.
>Seriously? Mysterious G-Man steps in and says "ha ha, the game is over."
Oh, and yes, like suggested, try out Black Mesa. Its definitely a lot more approachable for those whom have not played the games before.
Personally, though, I prefer the original title, as the expansion packs, the Police playthrough and Military playthrough, are a ton of fun.
Black Mesa is still not finished, and worth spending cash for at this moment, being still in Early Access.
Plus, I do very much believe that people should play the original HL1 before even considering BM.