Half-Life 2 desperately wants to outdo its predecessor. The graphics, setpieces, physics system; they all scream, “Look how awesome we are!” This is no surprise, as Valve wanted to redefine the FPS genre in the same way Half-Life 1 did. Both games have awesome highs and unfortunate lows. For the sequel, however, I do think those lows drag it down enough for me to say I prefer the first game.
Weirdly, the biggest flaw is situated towards the first half of the game. This comes in the form of two chapters where you drive a vehicle. The first is a hovercraft and the second is a dune buggy. You drive through empty roads with no obstacles and are constantly forced to make pit stops to open security gates. I understand wanting to break up the driving with combat and the occasional puzzle, but this stop-and-go pacing got tiring after the second gate. It also doesn’t help that the driving controls and camera are shoddy compared to other vehicle-based games.
In addition, the combat feels underutilized compared to the first game. The weapon roster is solid, if not a little underwhelming with the removal of novelties like the tau cannon, gluon gun, and hive hand. At first, the gravity gun seems like a suitable replacement. Indeed, it can be useful if there’s furniture or sawblades around for dispatching foes. Because of this strong dependence on the environment, however, it is too situational. The Pheropods fall into the same category. Antlions only appear in Sandtraps and Nova Prospekt, and you are unable to command them until the former is over, so its only useful during the latter. It’s unfortunate too because Half-Life 1 had an equivalent weapon in the form of snarks. They weren’t a great weapon, but they didn’t become obsolete after a single chapter. As for the enemies, they can be summed up as 70% Combine soldiers, 25% zombies and headcrabs, and 5% other. Spreading them out like this hurts the pacing, especially when the first game not only had more distinct enemy behaviors, but did a fantastic job introducing and mixing them together without going overboard.
For the things I like about the sequel, a few of the characters were charming, such as Grigori. Fighting alongside him in Ravenholm was when the campaign started to pick up for me. Everything after Highway 17 was also great. Leading an army of antlions through Nova Prospekt, leading the Resistance to victory against the Combine, and destroying the Citadel with a souped-up gravity gun all made for a strong victory lap. I also never had to break out a guide to figure out where to go, unlike Half-Life 1. And while I don’t think the physics gameplay was developed much here, it was nonetheless cool to see ideas that would be expanded upon in the Portal games, like the energy balls and movable turrets.
In conclusion, Half-Life 2 is the weakest Valve game I’ve played. But that should tell you just how great their catalogue is. This title still has their stamp of quality in many areas. More importantly, it represents an evolution in technology and how Valve would make games going forward. When talking about Half-Life 1, Gaben said the company was interested in exploring the “phenomenological possibilities of [video games]”, and not just building shooting galleries. Both Half-Life entries pursue this goal, and the lessons Valve learned from their development would no doubt influence the Portal duology and other games of theirs I haven’t touched, like Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress. No matter what the future holds for Valve, I will always appreciate their contributions to the medium.
Weirdly, the biggest flaw is situated towards the first half of the game. This comes in the form of two chapters where you drive a vehicle. The first is a hovercraft and the second is a dune buggy. You drive through empty roads with no obstacles and are constantly forced to make pit stops to open security gates. I understand wanting to break up the driving with combat and the occasional puzzle, but this stop-and-go pacing got tiring after the second gate. It also doesn’t help that the driving controls and camera are shoddy compared to other vehicle-based games.
In addition, the combat feels underutilized compared to the first game. The weapon roster is solid, if not a little underwhelming with the removal of novelties like the tau cannon, gluon gun, and hive hand. At first, the gravity gun seems like a suitable replacement. Indeed, it can be useful if there’s furniture or sawblades around for dispatching foes. Because of this strong dependence on the environment, however, it is too situational. The Pheropods fall into the same category. Antlions only appear in Sandtraps and Nova Prospekt, and you are unable to command them until the former is over, so its only useful during the latter. It’s unfortunate too because Half-Life 1 had an equivalent weapon in the form of snarks. They weren’t a great weapon, but they didn’t become obsolete after a single chapter. As for the enemies, they can be summed up as 70% Combine soldiers, 25% zombies and headcrabs, and 5% other. Spreading them out like this hurts the pacing, especially when the first game not only had more distinct enemy behaviors, but did a fantastic job introducing and mixing them together without going overboard.
For the things I like about the sequel, a few of the characters were charming, such as Grigori. Fighting alongside him in Ravenholm was when the campaign started to pick up for me. Everything after Highway 17 was also great. Leading an army of antlions through Nova Prospekt, leading the Resistance to victory against the Combine, and destroying the Citadel with a souped-up gravity gun all made for a strong victory lap. I also never had to break out a guide to figure out where to go, unlike Half-Life 1. And while I don’t think the physics gameplay was developed much here, it was nonetheless cool to see ideas that would be expanded upon in the Portal games, like the energy balls and movable turrets.
In conclusion, Half-Life 2 is the weakest Valve game I’ve played. But that should tell you just how great their catalogue is. This title still has their stamp of quality in many areas. More importantly, it represents an evolution in technology and how Valve would make games going forward. When talking about Half-Life 1, Gaben said the company was interested in exploring the “phenomenological possibilities of [video games]”, and not just building shooting galleries. Both Half-Life entries pursue this goal, and the lessons Valve learned from their development would no doubt influence the Portal duology and other games of theirs I haven’t touched, like Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress. No matter what the future holds for Valve, I will always appreciate their contributions to the medium.
rockabully
5 months ago