How did Crysis score higher than Half-Life on Gamespot?

[nigerian_businessman]

Not sure what you mean by that, HL2 did not feature better animations, so I'm not sure what your basis for comparison is.

HL2 does have better animations.

Yes, I used both.
Obviously you haven't played the game in Delta mode.

Delta mode takes away the cross hair, and the laser sights can then help you to at least get back some of that lost aiming ability on guns such as say the pistols.
Also, they can help you to pull off headshots.

You're right, I didn't play it in Delta mode. Don't really feel compelled to, either.

That may be so, but now you are digressing.
For before, you were saying that "prettier textures" is all this game is vs Far Cry.
This simple point (regardless of whether it was done better elsewhere or not) is proof that there is more to this game than just prettier textures.

Please quote where I said that this game is Far Cry with prettier textures, cause I'm sure at no point did I say that.

And the HL/2, CoD4 stories don't suck, they aren't cliche?

CoD4 is cliche, but again, quote where I said it wasn't? HL isn't cliche, considering they refined the alien invasion story to actually have some content instead of just providing a reason for you to be shooting things. Sure, there was Quake 2 and Duke Nukem with their alien invasion stories, but neither of these games used it as anything more than an excuse to pit one man against impossible odds. Crysis and Far Cry haven't either. For all these examples, the story has been an afterthought.

"Modern Warfare" has been done to death by countless games.
HL2 was written as the games evolved, the story is a discombobulated mess that left people with more questions than answers.
Also, the story was thin and sparse.
Every few hours you came across some story-related element, but by then you didn't really care what it was or why it was, you just wanted to complete the level.

You want a good story, look to a game such as Mafia.
But people using games such as HL2 to discredit Crysis in terms of story really need to take off the rose-tinted glasses.

I'm not using it to discredit. And you are either in denial or playing devils advocate if you're honestly stating that Crysis has a better storyline than Half-Life. Crysis is definitely an achievement, but certainly not on the level of Half-Life or Deus Ex and shouldn't be rated as such. Those games are classics for a reason. The only real compelling thing going for Crysis is graphical improvement. Otherwise, it brings very little to the table.

 

[Hamidxa]

I admit the suit powers are pretty sweet, and it brings some neat gameplay mechanics into a world which is essentially FarCry (at least until the end part).

Pretty much agree with that.

But that other stuff you listed is trivial.

You seem to forget why I even listed that "other stuff".

You said that the only thing that differentiates this from Far Cry is the prettier textures.

Whether you hold the contention that the new features are trivial or not does NOT take away from the fact that they are still new features evident in Crysis that were missing in Far Cry, which was the very point I was contesting.

At least stay consistent with the arguments you make.

 

[Hamidxa]

HL2 does have better animations.

The animations in HL2 were great for their time, but they are not on the same level as those in Crysis.
You can tell just by looking at the characters talk in both respective games, the skeletal animation systems in Crysis are far more intricate.
Also, in Crysis, Ive actually seen enemies climb over fences, trip up, fall, etc.
Ive never seen anything like that in HL2.

You're right, I didn't play it in Delta mode. Don't really feel compelled to, either.

Then you are not qualified to offer a purely objective rebuttal.

Please quote where I said that this game is Far Cry with prettier textures, cause I'm sure at no point did I say that.

Was not quoting you, another member brought that up as a point of contention.

CoD4 is cliche, but again, quote where I said it wasn't? HL isn't cliche, considering they refined the alien invasion story to actually have some content instead of just providing a reason for you to be shooting things. Sure, there was Quake 2 and Duke Nukem with their alien invasion stories, but neither of these games used it as anything more than an excuse to pit one man against impossible odds. Crysis and Far Cry haven't either. For all these examples, the story has been an afterthought.

There is little to nothing memorable about Half Life's story.
All we know is the player is thrust into a world where things go haywire with some experiment, and for the next 10+ hours in each respective game, he has to kill as much of the aliens that were unleashed and those human combatants trying to cover it up as possible.
Oh, and then there's the mysterious guy walking around in a suit carrying a brief case.
Oooohh, spooky, cue the X-Files music.
More like yawn give me a break.

That's not a dramatic or compelling story by any measure of the words.
It is cliched, predictable, and tried at best.

Like I said, it is truly sophistic and laughable to even argue that HL's story is somehow what makes it so great.
There is like virtually little to no story. Rather, It's 95% run and gun. 5% story.
Let's not try to make it out to be something that it clearly is NOT.

Mafia on the other hand, now there's a story.

 

[spicey]

I played Half-Life 2 Episode Two and Crysis almost simultaneously. There is nothing in Crysis that matches the Strider battle at the end of Episode Two for sheer excitement. The one I wanted to return to play was HL2 EP 2. Says it all really. You can stick your fancy graphics and clever physics engine and I'll take the game that has a soul every single time.

 

[ObscureTerror]

Technically, they scored evenly, first-off.

Crysis only got .1 higher (9.5) over HL2's 9.4 because they changed their number scoring method. So technically, they rated it as equal.

Second point (and people really have to understand this): stop comparing one game to another, in general.

True, there are aspects of a game - visuals, technical aspects etc. - that can certainly be compared. However, different games offer different things, and should be judged on their own merit and not in comparison to something else.

For example: Crysis vs HL2.

HL2 has incredible atmosphere and extreme aesthetic.
Crysis has extreme action, visuals and technical advancements.

You cannot compare two totally different things such as "action vs atmosphere", and one game (Crysis) has more action than the other (HL2), while HL2 has more atmosphere than HL2.

Understand? Crysis, while the concept of energy-absorbing aliens who obviously have some mysterious love for/powers of cold is interesting, it could have been delivered in a more atmospheric way. Crysis is a little more action-based than HL2.

So, the action and things it does have to offer is why it got such a great review/score.

It doesn't mean it's "equal" to HL2 in other ways, or vice-versa.

"Equal", "better" and "worse" much of the time are relative opinions when it comes to things that are of quality. Some things are just horrible, then a comparison can be made. But when two things are both great, they might be great in different ways, which earns them both the same rating (who cares for ratings anyway) for different aspects/things of that particular game.

No, generally speaking, I don't think Crysis is all-around as phenomenal as HL2 was, but in it's own way, it offers things that nothing else does, hence makes it excellent in it's own right for what it has to offer.

Maybe my perspectives are a little too "open-minded" for many... wouldn't be the first time... but if you get what I'm saying, maybe it'll open your mind a little more as well, and you'll stop worrying so much about friggin' numbers on a page that someone gave as a rating "dictating" that something is "worse", "equal to" or "better" than something else.

 

[phide]

From what Crysis I've played so far, it's a decent game. It has interesting moments, but I really dislike the pacing and the overall "feel". Additionally, I had that lovely game-stopping bug in the Rescue mission that I couldn't bypass without downloading a save, meaning I had to switch from the highest difficulty to Normal and continue on from that point. The game's absolutely rampant with bugs and problems, and these aren't limited to the non-game-stopping variety either.

Visually, it's stunning, the audio's pretty solid, setting the bar for what's achievable with a totally software-processed soundscape, and the gameplay is okay, but do I feel it deserves a 9.5 score? No. 9.5 out of 10 means it should practically be a masterpiece, and masterpiece Crysis is not. As much as I liked HL2, it was also certainly no masterpiece in my mind.

Half-Life, on the other hand...

 

[Wrench00]

I hated Lalf life 1 and 2 they were boring and just imho stupid.. Story sucked, game play sucked.. Nothing but jumping puzzles. No outdoor open areas to walk around and piss time away.

Crysis by far is a better game. Yes it has its quirks but its still hell of a lot better then the shit Gabe Newell and his talentless hacks released.

 

[nigerian_businessman]

I was talking about Crysis having a higher score than the original Half-Life.

Half-Life, at the time of it's release, and to this day, is a masterpiece. It is a timeless classic that will be fondly remembered decades from now for bringing a cinematic feel to FPS gaming. While I think Crysis is absolutely stunning in many ways, it didn't feel like a masterpiece to me. It feels more like a (amazing) tech demo than a cohesive gaming experience. I just don't think it belongs on the level of HL. Maybe they should just change Half-Life's score to something higher.

 

[finalgt]

Everybody has different criteria for what makes a good game, but I immediately disregard the opinion of anybody for whom graphics is a significant concern. WTF did these people think when they played PacMan? "OMG LOOK HOW LOW RES THIS IS"

 

[pazhman]

Reviews are different for each time. I still base my opinion on the way I like it.

 

[Tim James]

No Crysis comment here, but every time a Half-Life 1 discussion comes up, I always wonder why the hype is there. I've played shooters for a long time and don't remember any life-changing experience when HL came out. It was a really great game, with cool scripted scenes, some fun mechanics, and a few entertaining weapons and enemies.

Then I always realize that there wasn't much better out at the time, so I guess I can empathize. Perhaps shooters don't draw me in as well and really have a powerful effect on me. I love blasting through them, but Deux Ex and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. are the only ones that consistently made me say "wow."

HL and HL2 had some of those moments for me too, but in the end I realized that I didn't give a shit about City 17 or anyone there. I love dystopias and it still didn't grab me. Maybe I simply like different things.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

At least stay consistent with the arguments you make.

Crysis is a glorified FarCry. It's almost embarrassing how much it plays like their first game. The suit powers are it's only saving grace. That's my consistent opinion, and the fact that you're arguing differently doesn't make you correct, you arrogant prick.

 

[zamardii]

The new rating system on Gamespot does not help. Everything in .5 divisables is stupid. 9.5 is plain overrated.

I agree that the Half-Life games are a hell of a lot more fun than Crysis. For all Crysis' graphical splendour it's just an average shooter at it's core. The storyline is weaker than a soggy paper bag and the alien theme is dreadfully clichéd. I really lost interest in completing the game once the linear alien level designs and alien storyline took over. I was relived when it was over - not a good sign!

Just for the record, everything you stated about Crysis is true about Half Life 2. I mean, if you had not put Crysis in there, I would have thought you were talking about Halfe Life 2. Because for one thing, how the hell can you say the level design for Crysis is linear? Wtf...lol. Crysis is the opposite of linear level design.

Doom 3 was linear level design, Bioshock was linear level design... which made them very good for what they did. But Crysis... the story could have been about nothing, and it would have still been fun to play over and over again b/c there is no set path for you... yes, on some levels there are, but most there weren't.

But then again, that's only my perspective, and yours is yours so we won't agree, but calling Crysis's levels linear is basically saying that there's more to do on a straight line then in a circle.

 

[Shottah_king]

I didn't like Farcry, and I don't like Crysis thats my opinion. I'd have more fun playing MOH Airborne than Crysis.

 

[Droc]

I have been a big fan of HL2, always have and always will.
However
The love affair that gamers have with HL2 reminds me of how Mac users defend their machines against PCs.

As much as I love HL2, Crysis is the clear winner for me. It looks better, gets the atmosphere better, had a more enjoyable storyline, more enjoyable AI, and for me, better gameplay.
As much as I would like to, I cant think of anything that HL2 does better.

And who gives a shit if its like FarCry? Thats like bashing HL2 for being like Half Life.
Im sorry, but lush jungles and beautiful beaches kicked the crap outta sewers and linear city streets.

Im not saying that I think HL2 is bad...Its not, for its time it was amazing, and still is...But Crysis excels in every aspect for me.

I had a few gripes about HL2.
Weapons were just stupid....Sorry, but it felt like a cartoon and none of them felt belivable.
Vehicles didnt feel at all like vehicles.
Environments were...bland...
Gameplay was extremely linear...honestly, being forced down streets and corridors...It felt like slightly widened Doom3.
Combat was average at best. Compared to combat from, say, FEAR, HL2 just didnt deliver.

I was all over HL2 like a fat kid on a cupcake...But the game never grabbed me...Much like Bioshock, I kept playing it to see what everyone was raving about.

Crysis, pulled me in and gave me the best gaming experience I have had in years.
Now I know how God feels when he plays a videogame.

(MOH:Airborn can rot in hell)

 

[pigwalk]

Half-Life, at the time of it's release, and to this day, is a masterpiece. It is a timeless classic that will be fondly remembered decades from now for bringing a cinematic feel to FPS gaming.

All I remember about HL1 were some cool levels scaling up a cliff, and a really boring area with railroad carts which was where I stopped playing. Still haven't finished it to this day and doubt I ever will. Enjoyed HL2 and E1 so far, except for one thing.

Gordon Freeman is a shitty character. And he has no fricking hands. The guy turns valves with his mind and never says a word, yet people still find him charming and lovable. The whole "it's more immersive because you put yourselves in his shoes" line is crap. If I was in his shoes I'd smack alyx in the ass, take speech therapy and ride one of those go-karts straight to cancun.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

I just read reviews now for the opinions/facts mentioned during the written part; the number s don't mean shit anymore. It's a really fucked up exponential curve; everything below 7 is reserved for movie licensees/Barbie's Horse Adventure, 8 is for sports games/guys who didn't pay enough, and 9+ is for games that have forums amazed and publications spooging about it and a large bandwagon.

Not to mention that when HL earned its rating back in 1998, it actually meant something.

this really is the post of the year, how can anyone really argue with it? good show man!

 

[brucedeluxe169]

If I was in his shoes I'd smack alyx in the ass, take speech therapy and ride one of those go-karts straight to cancun.

wow, runner up for post of the year! the first post to actually make me "lol" in a long time, and for the record, I do agree with the rest of the post.... gordon freeman is really starting to get old.

 

[Hamidxa]

I have been a big fan of HL2, always have and always will.
However
The love affair that gamers have with HL2 reminds me of how Mac users defend their machines against PCs.

As much as I love HL2, Crysis is the clear winner for me. It looks better, gets the atmosphere better, had a more enjoyable storyline, more enjoyable AI, and for me, better gameplay.
As much as I would like to, I cant think of anything that HL2 does better.

And who gives a shit if its like FarCry? Thats like bashing HL2 for being like Half Life.
Im sorry, but lush jungles and beautiful beaches kicked the crap outta sewers and linear city streets.

Im not saying that I think HL2 is bad...Its not, for its time it was amazing, and still is...But Crysis excels in every aspect for me.

I had a few gripes about HL2.
Weapons were just stupid....Sorry, but it felt like a cartoon and none of them felt belivable.
Vehicles didnt feel at all like vehicles.
Environments were...bland...
Gameplay was extremely linear...honestly, being forced down streets and corridors...It felt like slightly widened Doom3.
Combat was average at best. Compared to combat from, say, FEAR, HL2 just didnt deliver.

I was all over HL2 like a fat kid on a cupcake...But the game never grabbed me...Much like Bioshock, I kept playing it to see what everyone was raving about.

Crysis, pulled me in and gave me the best gaming experience I have had in years.
Now I know how God feels when he plays a videogame.

(MOH:Airborn can rot in hell)

Beautiful post.
Exactly how I feel.

 

[RESTfulADI]

because Gamespot is a bunch of tools? Remember these are the same people who gave Assassin's Creed a 9.1 rofl.

 

[kriminal]

How did this get to so many pages?

We might as well start debating which religion is better

 

[hfk]

So, you want to compare two games irrespective of time period, even though HL was released 9 years ago? Of COURSE crysis is going to look better. That's just ludicrous. That's like challenging a biplane from WWI to a race with an SR-71. Without taking the contributions of the predecessor into account, you're completely ignoring a huge part of what makes HL the amazing game it is. Crysis owes a lot to half life and to completely ignore that contribution is doing exactly what you rag on PoweredBySoy for doing.

You keep speaking of immersion in the game. HL was (one of) the first games to rely completely on scripted sequences instead of cutscenes keeping the playing in the action at all times. It's literally like playing a movie. You talk about immersion in the game, well HL was far and away more immersing than any game that preceded it.

And yes, I would probably be more immersed into a movie with high def, 5.1 etc like in your example, but if the movie sucks, all that technology isn't going to do shit. If the old school 320x240 BW movie is flat out a better movie, then I will be more engaged by that one. New technology is all well and good, but putting it to good use is far more important. Eye candy won't keep me interested anywhere near as long as a good story will.

I can appreciate the relative merits of crysis. It truly achieved something amazing with the new engine. That said, the storytelling pales in comparison and for me, that's the key. A lot of people pan HL and it's successors for having a linear type of gameplay, but to have the cinematic experience that the HL series provides, you can't have someone walking all over the place exploring irrelevant nooks and crannies. Part of the art of storytelling is pacing, and that is one thing that far cry and crysis have never been able to master.

Ultimately, this discussion is moot since it's all opinion anyway. No one is going to enjoy the same type of gameplay. However, my point stands that judging something without acknowledging the innovations and contributions it made is simply asinine.

QFT

 

[Tenebrus]

They're just different types of games. HL2 is a linear FPS while Crysis is a sandbox FPS.

A Linear FPS sets you on rails but makes it much easier to deliver a cinematic and engaging experience (and I'd say COD4 is the best example on how to do this)

A Sandbox FPS puts all the freedom in your hands and is much better at transmiting the feeling that you are in control and your decisions actually have an impact on the outcome.

Both are games that defined new standards for all the games that follow. As to which is better? It really depends on the player. I think they're equally good.

 

[Blazestorm]

TF2 rapes Crysis.

TF2 is about what makes games fun, fuck realism. We play games to get away from real-life. Why are we trying to emulate it? The amount of time that Valve put into the theme and enviroment in TF2 is astonishing. The voice acting is hilarious and entertaining. Every little detail makes the game fun. If Valve does an MMOFPS in TF2 style it would be godly.

I played the Crysis MP Beta, the SP Demo, and almost thought about "obtaining" it via a certain source, but chose not to.

I don't play SP, so I can't talk about HL or HL2, but I can say the multiplayer for both of them was incredibly addicting. I almost shit a brick when I had HL2 on pre-order for 2 years and it didn't have HL2DM... shortly after valve released an update, but I was scared for a moment. Someone already started a mod, but it fell apart once the real thing released. Use of physics in HL2DM is sooo much fun.

Crysis can't compare. Huge open enviroments are cool... for MMO's... fails on smaller-scale FPS's... the MP Beta sucked... I spent more time trying to join a server than playing it...

If anyone remembers Planetside... MMOFPS with 600 player continents (10 continents total) with 5 servers total (2 west coast, 2 east coast, 1 europe) now it's 1-2 servers because the community is basically dead.

Regardless, the open enviroments worked, because it was a constant battle going on across the entire world, multiple ways to attack, you could bypass the enemy and put-up a mobile spawn in their backyard and take over the base before they knew what happened (well it took 15 minutes for the base to become yours after hacking, so you had to take down the spawn-room and setup a defense.

It was an incredibly fun game, the amount of bugs, poor performance, lack of support from SOE fucked it up, but when it was in beta and shortly after it was the most addicting game I'd ever played... The graphics were sub-par, and it wasn't super fast-paced... but having 10 drop-ships dump 80 people ontop of a base and 10 vehicles was downright amazing. The sheer scale of it made it so much fun.

Either way, Crysis, like Halo 3 was incredibly overhyped. Same with COD 4... just wasn't fun... Same run-of-the-mill shooters...

 

[brucedeluxe169]

A Sandbox FPS puts all the freedom in your hands and is much better at transmiting the feeling that you are in control and your decisions actually have an impact on the outcome.

hahaha, o please, outside of maybe getting to the big yellow dot on your screen by approaching from different directions, what else is there? really, crysis is "look, theres a big yellow dot on your radar, go towards it and when you are near you can sneak around a back way if you want, but just get there!" thats it....

seriously, once the high wears off people will realize it isn't even that open....

besides, after u start up with the aliens, you cant even do THAT... and thats like the 1/2 way point...

 

[aKrippler]

You people say "linear FPS" like thats a bad thing. So what if I like being immersed in the story, with heavy action from the beginning till the end. Instead of spending 5 mins running somewhere (I wouldnt mind on a MMO or something but cmon this is singleplayer)
Someone said they disliked the cutscenes in HL2. I thought this was a incredible idea. I loved being able to walk and move my head like im really there while teh story unfolds instead of taking my hands off the keyboard/mouse putting them on my lap and watching a fucking cutscene that has completly different graphics from the game I am actually playing therefore feels like its a tottaly unrelated event.

Look HL2 had great graphics, great storyline, great voice acting, great playability by low end users, great animation, great storytelling (actually delivering the story), intense moments, made you switch up gameplay consistently to combat different challenges....etc

Yeah the game might have been linear IE you could only go one way, but shit....half the time it didn't seem like that. Of course every dungeon/cave/building is going to be for the most part linear so you cant use that (STALKER was all about being open but even inside buildings and underground there was usually only one way to go) But outside even though theres only one place to go, HL2 deceived you with open scenery (expecially in EP2)

I havent had a chance to play Crysis yet so anything I said was not directed at Crysis. Im lookin forward to playing it, its just from what ive heard its a good game, great playability, and a fun time, but the story isnt all that special. And for me the story is one of the most important things.

 

[Hamidxa]

I havent had a chance to play Crysis yet so anything I said was not directed at Crysis. Im lookin forward to playing it, its just from what ive heard its a good game, great playability, and a fun time, but the story isnt all that special. And for me the story is one of the most important things.

But there was absolutely nothing novel or great about HL's story.
Hell, it was barely memorable.

This is a quintessential case of a nostalgia through rose-tinted glasses.

Really, HL/HL2 were ~ 95% run and gun, and then ~ 5% story tied in through scripted scenes, if that.

All that was memorable about HL/HL2:
Train ride to work
Some shit blows up
Run and gun for the next 10 hours
Troops get involved in a cover-up
Run and gun for another 3 hours
Blow some more shit up
Done

What's this story you guys keep referring to with respect to HL/HL2?

It had very little in the way of dialogue (especially the original, and especially after the opening level).
It also had very little in the way of character development (you were a guy who couldn't even talk for crying out loud! ).

HL/HL2 typifies the generic sci-fi shooter story for that matter.
I can't even begin to recall how many "experiment goes awry, so lets blow shit up" stories have been done prior to HL.

Take off the rose-tinted glasses I say.

 

[phide]

hahaha, o please, outside of maybe getting to the big yellow dot on your screen by approaching from different directions, what else is there? really, crysis is "look, theres a big yellow dot on your radar, go towards it and when you are near you can sneak around a back way if you want, but just get there!" thats it....

I pretty much agree. Realistically, though, that makes sense given the confines of the player character's purpose (he would need to follow orders and so on), but I can't fathom how Crysis could be perceived as being "open".

Oblivion was nonlinear and open, and about as open as was practically possible in 2006. Crysis is linear -- perhaps a bit less "on the rails" than other shooters, but still very much linear and confined. As I said before, that isn't really a problem, but the idea of portraying Crysis as being "open" is kind of a farce.

 

[saan44]

What's this story you guys keep referring to with respect to HL/HL2?

**SPOILERS BELOW**

Wallace Breen with the help of the combine triggers the resonance cascade failure allowing the Xen to invade earth. THe portal is opened using technology under development by Aperture laboratories stored aboard a ship that is lost mid voyage and thought lost until it's found in the middle of the antarctic.

The G-Man is aware of the entire situation and dispaches troops to combat the aliens and contain the information leak while Freeman fights his way out of the compound. During his successful escape, he gains the interest of the G-Man. At the end of HL1, Gordon is hired by the G-Man and put into stasis.

The lambda satellite Freeman successfully launches allows the combine to create the portal storms, invade earth more directly and win the 7 hour war and enslave earth.

Gordon is removed from stasis by the G-Man at the beginning of HL2 and fights the combine through city17. He frees Alyx's father from Nova Prospekt (a prison and human processing facility). The G-Man attempts to put Gordon back into stasis, but he is pulled out by vortigaunts allied with the human resistance.

In episode 1, we find out that the combine have lost their method of communication with their overlords and attempt to blow up the citadel in city17 to send off a last ditch communication. Gordon and Alyx manage to restabilize the energy core long enough for the resistance fighters to escape the city which Gordon and Alyx do as well on a train as the citadel and city17 are vaporized from the ensuing explosion.

Episode 2 opens with gordon trying to make his way through white forest to launch a missile to destroy the satellite and close the portals allowing the combine to continue to travel to earth.

We still don't know everything about the G-Man; why the vortigaunts pulled Gordon out of stasis; why they saved Alyx at the end of HL2; How the borealis (the ship carrying the aperture science device) is related to the first resonance cascade.

The various mysteries and plot twists combined with the excellent writing and voice acting make the game interesting and plot driven. I don't know how you say there isn't a story and keep a straight face.

 

[Hamidxa]

**SPOILERS BELOW**

Wallace Breen with the help of the combine triggers the resonance cascade failure allowing the Xen to invade earth. THe portal is opened using technology under development by Aperture laboratories stored aboard a ship that is lost mid voyage and thought lost until it's found in the middle of the antarctic.

The G-Man is aware of the entire situation and dispaches troops to combat the aliens and contain the information leak while Freeman fights his way out of the compound. During his successful escape, he gains the interest of the G-Man. At the end of HL1, Gordon is hired by the G-Man and put into stasis.

The lambda satellite Freeman successfully launches allows the combine to create the portal storms, invade earth more directly and win the 7 hour war and enslave earth.

Gordon is removed from stasis by the G-Man at the beginning of HL2 and fights the combine through city17. He frees Alyx's father from Nova Prospekt (a prison and human processing facility). The G-Man attempts to put Gordon back into stasis, but he is pulled out by vortigaunts allied with the human resistance.

In episode 1, we find out that the combine have lost their method of communication with their overlords and attempt to blow up the citadel in city17 to send off a last ditch communication. Gordon and Alyx manage to restabilize the energy core long enough for the resistance fighters to escape the city which Gordon and Alyx do as well on a train as the citadel and city17 are vaporized from the ensuing explosion.

Episode 2 opens with gordon trying to make his way through white forest to launch a missile to destroy the satellite and close the portals allowing the combine to continue to travel to earth.

We still don't know everything about the G-Man; why the vortigaunts pulled Gordon out of stasis; why they saved Alyx at the end of HL2; How the borealis (the ship carrying the aperture science device) is related to the first resonance cascade.

The various mysteries and plot twists combined with the excellent writing and voice acting make the game interesting and plot driven. I don't know how you say there isn't a story and keep a straight face.

First of all, I was specifically referring to HL and HL2, not any of its "Episodes".

Secondly, even then, that's not a very compelling or engaging story.
It's just a series of loosley tied events that unfold over the course of like 7 games (including the original HL expansions/"episodes"/what have you).

Like I said, there is very little dialogue in the grand scheme of things. For every 5 hours of running and gunning, there is about 5 minutes of dialogue -- so that's no story.

Secondly, there is 0 character development.
We don't grow attached to any of the characters, and certainly not the protagonist.
He can't even talk.
I also don't care much for the excuse that "well, he is you, that's why".
No, he is NOT me, he is Gordon Freeman, an MIT graduate.
I don't know about you, but Im not an MIT graduate.

Seriously, and allow me to reiterate:
For every 5 hours of running and gunning, there is about 5 minutes of dialogue.
You call that a story?

You're simply reading too much into the background of this, because the presentation of the games themselves are far more esoteric than the lucid descriptions you posted.

 

[saan44]

First of all, I was specifically referring to HL and HL2, not any of its "Episodes".

Secondly, even then, that's not a very compelling or engaging story.
It's just a series of loosley tied events that unfold over the course of like 7 games (including the original HL expansions/"episodes"/what have you).

Like I said, there is very little dialogue in the grand scheme of things. For every 5 hours of running and gunning, there is about 5 minutes of dialogue -- so that's no story.

Secondly, there is 0 character development.
We don't grow attached to any of the characters, and certainly not the protagonist.
He can't even talk.
I also don't care much for the excuse that "well, he is you, that's why".
No, he is NOT me, he is Gordon Freeman, an MIT graduate.
I don't know about you, but Im not an MIT graduate.

Seriously, and allow me to reiterate:
For every 5 hours of running and gunning, there is about 5 minutes of dialogue.
You call that a story?

You're simply reading too much into the background of this, because the presentation of the games themselves are far more esoteric than the lucid descriptions you posted.

Even without the episodes, the story is very compelling. And not getting attached to the characters? Are you kidding? The entire reason valve introduced NPCs such as Alyx and Barney is BECAUSE you get attached to them. There's a reason characters like Eli Vance, Dr. Kleiner, hell, even his toothless headcrab Lamar has more character than" action suit man" in crysis.

Are you telling me you get more character development out of Crysis (generic soldier #82919340) than you do out of HL? And for every 5 hours of running and gunning, how much dialog does crysis have? I fail to see what you're holding up as a paragon of storytelling in FPS games if it's not HL. You keep coming back to your ratios of gameplay to dialog/plot. It seems to me that you're only willing to accept a story if it's in a movie and driven by dialog. In that case, then I guess no games have a good story because all of them contain shooting sequences.

I think in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree. I simply cannot comprehend how you can say that HL doesn't have a compelling story, much less ANY at all.

 

[Lightbulb]

Look just because one does not like a game, does not mean it is a terrible game. It just might not be your cup of tea for various reasons. Everyone is entitled their own opinion on this game since we all have are own likes and dislikes. That being said, Crysis was highly rated by most professional reviewers, and the majority of people who played it. That does not make them idiots, it just means they have a different opinion of the game than you did. Lets grow up people. We don't need to flame each other over a game.

 

[FrozenLiquidity]

I have been a big fan of HL2, always have and always will.
However
The love affair that gamers have with HL2 reminds me of how Mac users defend their machines against PCs.

As much as I love HL2, Crysis is the clear winner for me. It looks better, gets the atmosphere better, had a more enjoyable storyline, more enjoyable AI, and for me, better gameplay.
As much as I would like to, I cant think of anything that HL2 does better.

And who gives a shit if its like FarCry? Thats like bashing HL2 for being like Half Life.
Im sorry, but lush jungles and beautiful beaches kicked the crap outta sewers and linear city streets.

Im not saying that I think HL2 is bad...Its not, for its time it was amazing, and still is...But Crysis excels in every aspect for me.

I had a few gripes about HL2.
Weapons were just stupid....Sorry, but it felt like a cartoon and none of them felt belivable.
Vehicles didnt feel at all like vehicles.
Environments were...bland...
Gameplay was extremely linear...honestly, being forced down streets and corridors...It felt like slightly widened Doom3.
Combat was average at best. Compared to combat from, say, FEAR, HL2 just didnt deliver.

I was all over HL2 like a fat kid on a cupcake...But the game never grabbed me...Much like Bioshock, I kept playing it to see what everyone was raving about.

Crysis, pulled me in and gave me the best gaming experience I have had in years.
Now I know how God feels when he plays a videogame.

(MOH:Airborn can rot in hell)

QFT!

HL was a great game in its' time. But I would highly doubt I'd feel the same if I played it again today. ZZzzzzz -_- snoozefest. (waiting for Black Mesa Source ). HL2 aside from the physics engine and revamp felt completely off for me. 100% agree with the weapons and vehicles comment quoted above. And aside from a few brief moments of meeting with resistance members there was no character interaction or major storyline advances that I saw. Story, no story, I would have played the game the same way. I was pretty much forced down a single route to arrive at the inevitable destination. Episodes 1 and 2 I though were well done and offered much more substance though. All in all though, the HL "story" has never grabbed me like the story offered by games such as Deus Ex or System Shock 2. Both of which include other game play elements which further enhance the experience. Stalker fell short story wise, but I'd like to mention it with the previous two.

Crysis on the other hand, still has some bugs to sort out. They're quite annoying, but I still find the game quite playable and enjoyable in spite of this. The single player game gives you a large amount of choice in your actions, so I'll probably end up playing the game through at least three times to experiment with gameplay styles, and being able to take different paths every time. This is something which I will never be able to do in any of the HL incarnations, and what ultimately keeps the game replayable for me.

 

[Hamidxa]

Even without the episodes, the story is very compelling. And not getting attached to the characters? Are you kidding? The entire reason valve introduced NPCs such as Alyx and Barney is BECAUSE you get attached to them. There's a reason characters like Eli Vance, Dr. Kleiner, hell, even his toothless headcrab Lamar has more character than" action suit man" in crysis.

Are you telling me you get more character development out of Crysis (generic soldier #82919340) than you do out of HL? And for every 5 hours of running and gunning, how much dialog does crysis have? I fail to see what you're holding up as a paragon of storytelling in FPS games if it's not HL. You keep coming back to your ratios of gameplay to dialog/plot. It seems to me that you're only willing to accept a story if it's in a movie and driven by dialog. In that case, then I guess no games have a good story because all of them contain shooting sequences.

I think in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree. I simply cannot comprehend how you can say that HL doesn't have a compelling story, much less ANY at all.

Shooting/action sequences are fine, and are to be expected in a FPS (no kidding, right).

However, HL fans have a propensity to embellish it to the point that you would think it was written by a Nobel Laureate or that its story was so engrossing that you couldn't wait to turn the page (so to speak) and take in whatever happens next.

Well, what happens next after turning the page on a scene, is that about 95% of the time (yes another one of my ratios) you would simply end up running and gunning yet AGAIN.

It was not a thinking mans game.
It was also not a game that kindled a feeling of attachment to the characters, despite what you say.

What did Barney say by the way in all of the Half Life's?
In the first one, he had about 10-15 lines.
In the second one, he had perhaps at most, twice that.
You grew attached to him that quickly?
Wow, I have more lines than that in this very post, and forgive me for being presumptuous, but I can't help but to think you will have grown attached to me by now as well.

Oh, and Alyx had a dog that was a robot, that was her "thing".
Her father had some sort of "portal" and that's what he was known for.

You (as in Gordon) were known as the guy with the crowbar who couldnt talk yet held an MIT degree.

That's about as engrossing as it gets, huh.

Like I said, there was very little in the way of dialogue, very little in the way of character development or interaction aside from the obviously trite and cliched run-ins with the odd NPC here or there, once every few hours!

At any rate, we can agree to disagree.

Like I said before, you guys want a good story, play Mafia (yes I am very well aware its a Third-Person shooter).
You want mindless shooting, play the HL series.

 

[Hamidxa]

QFT!
And aside from a few brief moments of meeting with resistance members there was no character interaction or major storyline advances that I saw. Story, no story, I would have played the game the same way. I was pretty much forced down a single route to arrive at the inevitable destination.

PRECISELY my point.

 

[FrozenLiquidity]

PRECISELY my point.

QFT

 

[exe163]

HL series known for its good pacing of game, it's not a game about running and gunning like most fps now, you find half of the time you are solving puzzle, using the in game engine. Farcry and Crysis just about running, killing the enemy, and more running, after you find a the most effective tactic, just keep using it ( e.g. Kill, invisible, repeat ).

Valve's games have way deeper game design than any other fps's, a why then sentry gun is here but not few feets to the right, all the little things they tweaks you might not notice just individually, combine to give you the full HL experience like no other.

 

[Dethred]

I played through about half of COD4, which is essentially the same gameplay dynamics as HL, HL2, and most FPS's to date. I watched a friend play through past my end point and it was EXACTLY the same as when I played it. This is the same problem I had with the Half life series. I played through once, and it was pretty fun. When I tried a second time I could hardly spend a few minutes without this strong feeling that I had done the exact same thing the first time I played it.

I played through the Crysis demo about 15 times. Each time it was completely different. Different weapons, paths, intensity, etc. I have a strong feeling that I'm going to be able to play Crysis at least 5 times through and not get completely bored. If you can do that with a halflife or other corridor shooter game, you must be very simple or have absolutely nothing better to do with your life.

On a Saturday morning I'll wake up and have a few options, two of which are "mow the lawn and get it over with" or "immediately play a video game". With a game I've already played before I am a lot more likely to avoid my day to day responsibilities to play Crysis a second or third time. If I had the choice between HL or HL2 for a second time or mow the lawn? I'd much rather mow the lawn and then get some work done around the house.

This is essentially what I think many people look for. If they are going to spend $50 on a video game, wouldn't the replay value be significantly more important? Crysis has so much more replay value for the money. HL took longer, but playing a second time through was a waste of time. Crysis might be shorter, but there are seemingly endless possibilities.

 

[spicey]

Just for the record, everything you stated about Crysis is true about Half Life 2. I mean, if you had not put Crysis in there, I would have thought you were talking about Halfe Life 2. Because for one thing, how the hell can you say the level design for Crysis is linear? Wtf...lol. Crysis is the opposite of linear level design.

Doom 3 was linear level design, Bioshock was linear level design... which made them very good for what they did. But Crysis... the story could have been about nothing, and it would have still been fun to play over and over again b/c there is no set path for you... yes, on some levels there are, but most there weren't.

But then again, that's only my perspective, and yours is yours so we won't agree, but calling Crysis's levels linear is basically saying that there's more to do on a straight line then in a circle.

You misunderstood. The 'Alien' Levels are very linear. Crysis lost it's way after the free-roaming goodness of the earlier levels.

Play over and over again. No way, once was more than enough.

 

[GregP24]

I think Crysis is scoring high because the graphics, physics, and AI are set a new standard for games. Ok, gameplay wise there's nothing new. But it's not like the gameplay is bad - it's polished and well done. You guys act like Crytek shit in a box and slapped it on store shelves.
The game is great and it does set new standards - just not story and gameplay ones.