Shagittarius wrote on 2023-02-04, 16:56:

If you thought the intro to Half Life was too long, you're either too young to have played it when it came out, or a hipster. I suppose you could also have been a mac only user at the time.

The tram ride intro to Half Life was notoriously long. But even that was cut down from an E3 demo version where nearly every journalist who viewed the game complained about it. I think this biased them to appreciate the "short" intro when the game finally released. By modern standards it's downright brisk. By the standards of the day, you weren't pointing and shooting the very instant the first level finished loading.

You know, this actually reminds me of the many, many nerd arguments I got into with my friends about Half-Life 2. I didn't care for it overly much. I mean, I played it from start to finish several times in a row, as I did when I had 12+ hours of free time a day and little disposable income. But after the intrigue about the world they built wore off, I was just left feeling empty. The gunplay felt like several steps backwards from HL1. The weapons were simpler and less varied, the enemy AI was pretty dumb. The story seemed to be all about getting to some place so that nothing could happen and you'd go to some other place where nothing would also happen. The physics puzzles were gimmicky and janky, and feel of a kind with "waggle controls" off the Wii. Which is to say, they seemed fun at first, but nobody has done them for 10 years. Ravenholm left an impression, but the sections of the game felt totally disconnected from one another, and haphazardly stitched together to ship something. An impression that was largely confirmed when Valve said the set pieces of the game were made by different teams that by and large didn't communicate with one another. The ending was famously disappointing, ameliorated by the promise of "episodic" expansions at a brisk pace. Two slowly trickled out and the third which was supposed to resolve a mother fucker of a cliff hanger never materialized.

In some ways I get it, but I don't. I know Half-Life 2 is basically PC Gaming royalty. It's playable, even enjoyable, no doubt. The world building is deep and subtle and unlike almost any other game. However as a game, I could not stave off the feeling that I was tricked or gaslit about it being as great as everyone thinks it is.

HL intro might have been long, but it was quite unique for it's time and most of us were transfixed.

FarCry from no.2
I enjoyed 1 and still give it a go from time to time.

I can see the limits of HL2 and the other two episodes, but I still like it.

I have come to dislike the new Doom series. I just want to get it done.

I hope for some new Bioshock game.

Waiting for Dead Island 2 to come out and play it.

Never liked Left for dead.

lowenz wrote on 2023-01-22, 13:20:

Pariah?

I enjoyed it. Was funny on LAN.
Cutscenes you couldn't skip, replay and die and replay and quit. 🤣
Story is weird, but it's either hate or love.

I can't see the point in Chrome btw, has many bugs and could have been better.

I don't want to imply that this holy goat is bad, but if you replay it, it certainly isn't what many people remember it to be:

Star Wars : Knights of the Old Republic

I know a lot of people revere this game but when was the last time you played it? It's rather tedious and barren in its level design. I don't think it sucks, but I don't think it's as good when you look back on it from current standards.

Kahenraz wrote on 2023-02-04, 16:30:

ratfink wrote on 2023-02-04, 15:53:

I got bored watching the long-winded intro scene to HL1, so I shut the game down and never went back to it. I had played the demo, and even then wondered why it was so popular.

This was my first experience as well. Why was the intro so long. Why was this thing so popular?

Contemporary me never understood it.

Back then all the FPS rushed you into the killing, afraid to let it breathe. The opening ride and long time without a gun prepare you for a thinking man's shooter, the first of its kind built around set pieces, where you are supposed to read the environment first and shoot later. Plus there is a meta-level of Mr. Freeman being on the rails...
That was the revolution. Other shooters gave you a power trip. HL made you feel smart.

Namrok wrote on 2023-02-05, 00:48:

You know, this actually reminds me of the many, many nerd arguments I got into with my friends about Half-Life 2. I didn't care for it overly much. I mean, I played it from start to finish several times in a row, as I did when I had 12+ hours of free time a day and little disposable income. But after the intrigue about the world they built wore off, I was just left feeling empty. The gunplay felt like several steps backwards from HL1. The weapons were simpler and less varied, the enemy AI was pretty dumb. The story seemed to be all about getting to some place so that nothing could happen and you'd go to some other place where nothing would also happen. The physics puzzles were gimmicky and janky, and feel of a kind with "waggle controls" off the Wii. Which is to say, they seemed fun at first, but nobody has done them for 10 years. Ravenholm left an impression, but the sections of the game felt totally disconnected from one another, and haphazardly stitched together to ship something. An impression that was largely confirmed when Valve said the set pieces of the game were made by different teams that by and large didn't communicate with one another. The ending was famously disappointing, ameliorated by the promise of "episodic" expansions at a brisk pace. Two slowly trickled out and the third which was supposed to resolve a mother fucker of a cliff hanger never materialized.

In some ways I get it, but I don't. I know Half-Life 2 is basically PC Gaming royalty. It's playable, even enjoyable, no doubt. The world building is deep and subtle and unlike almost any other game. However as a game, I could not stave off the feeling that I was tricked or gaslit about it being as great as everyone thinks it is.

I am right there with you. HL2 should not be among the shorter best PC games lists. The physics were ground-breaking, but by today's standards, it adds to the junk. The leap in texture detail was insane and water looked like water... It became a Master Race legend because it put consoles to shame, but those were never good with FPS to begin with.

Putas wrote on 2023-02-13, 19:41:

Back then all the FPS rushed you into the killing, afraid to let it breathe. The opening ride and long time without a gun prepar […]
Show full quote

Kahenraz wrote on 2023-02-04, 16:30:

ratfink wrote on 2023-02-04, 15:53:

I got bored watching the long-winded intro scene to HL1, so I shut the game down and never went back to it. I had played the demo, and even then wondered why it was so popular.

This was my first experience as well. Why was the intro so long. Why was this thing so popular?

Contemporary me never understood it.

Back then all the FPS rushed you into the killing, afraid to let it breathe. The opening ride and long time without a gun prepare you for a thinking man's shooter, the first of its kind built around set pieces, where you are supposed to read the environment first and shoot later. Plus there is a meta-level of Mr. Freeman being on the rails...
That was the revolution. Other shooters gave you a power trip. HL made you feel smart.

Namrok wrote on 2023-02-05, 00:48:

You know, this actually reminds me of the many, many nerd arguments I got into with my friends about Half-Life 2. I didn't care for it overly much. I mean, I played it from start to finish several times in a row, as I did when I had 12+ hours of free time a day and little disposable income. But after the intrigue about the world they built wore off, I was just left feeling empty. The gunplay felt like several steps backwards from HL1. The weapons were simpler and less varied, the enemy AI was pretty dumb. The story seemed to be all about getting to some place so that nothing could happen and you'd go to some other place where nothing would also happen. The physics puzzles were gimmicky and janky, and feel of a kind with "waggle controls" off the Wii. Which is to say, they seemed fun at first, but nobody has done them for 10 years. Ravenholm left an impression, but the sections of the game felt totally disconnected from one another, and haphazardly stitched together to ship something. An impression that was largely confirmed when Valve said the set pieces of the game were made by different teams that by and large didn't communicate with one another. The ending was famously disappointing, ameliorated by the promise of "episodic" expansions at a brisk pace. Two slowly trickled out and the third which was supposed to resolve a mother fucker of a cliff hanger never materialized.

In some ways I get it, but I don't. I know Half-Life 2 is basically PC Gaming royalty. It's playable, even enjoyable, no doubt. The world building is deep and subtle and unlike almost any other game. However as a game, I could not stave off the feeling that I was tricked or gaslit about it being as great as everyone thinks it is.

I am right there with you. HL2 should not be among the shorter best PC games lists. The physics were ground-breaking, but by today's standards, it adds to the junk. The leap in texture detail was insane and water looked like water... It became a Master Race legend because it put consoles to shame, but those were never good with FPS to begin with.

I'm not sure it became PCMR Royalty just because it put consoles to shame. It was a visionary sequel to an equally visionary first game. I just...question the direction of that vision. Kind of like the Star Wars prequels.

There was also of course the frothy anticipation for the game. Radeon owners had been holding onto Half-Life 2 vouchers for over a year at that point, if memory serves. There was the hack of a bunch of their alpha assets that got released to the wild, which caused a ton of talk. It's contemporary competition was Doom 3, and the "rivalry" between Doom fans and Half-Life fans increased the buzz. The first Farcry also came out that year, and while graphically impressive, as a game I found it meh. There was Painkiller, which I adore, but I recall that being a bit of a sleeper hit or cult classic. You had Unreal Tournament 2004, but if you were interested in a single player FPS, Half-Life 2 really was the cream of the crop that year.

2004 was also a banner year for PC hardware. Athlon 64's were kicking major ass, the Geforce 6000 series was probably the largest great leap in graphical performance we'd seen before, or since. Although the RTX 3000 series got pretty close, were the value not so bad. So some game from that year was bound to go down in legend.

As a classic Doom fan, I was very disappointed by Doom 3. I did play that game to the end, but after about half way through, I was chomping at the bit for it to end. The graphics were cool, I guess, but I was never as impressed as the articles suggested. Everything was too dark, the flashlight swapping mechanic was stupid, and the story was really boring. I felt that they could have done a lot more with the dynamic lighting, but instead they turned them all off and kept you in a perpetual state of miserable darkness.

Yeah, I guess whether you like or dislike the darkness, the mechanics, the story, the jump scares, etc - one thing that everyone will agree on is that Doom 3 is very different from Classic Doom, so fans of one will not necessarily like the other.

In that sense the 2016 reboot is closer to classic Doom gameplay, although, of course, does not recreate it 100% (nor do I think it should have).

dr_st wrote on 2023-02-15, 09:18:

Yeah, I guess whether you like or dislike the darkness, the mechanics, the story, the jump scares, etc - one thing that everyone will agree on is that Doom 3 is very different from Classic Doom, so fans of one will not necessarily like the other.

IMHO Doom 3 is a remake of System Shock 2 with enhanced graphics and the rest much simplified (story, experience and skill points, inventory, puzzles, etc.).

Planescape Torment, but I'm not giving up on it just yet.

I've heard nothing but good things about Planescape Torment. I wasn't disappointed with it, but I could never get into it after being completely spoiled by Baldur's Gate.

Bruno128 wrote on 2023-02-15, 16:35:

Planescape Torment, but I'm not giving up on it just yet.

This is probably one of my favourite games ever made but you need to get deeply invested in it to really appreciate it.

I recall it was overwhelming and difficult back when I first played it but I was a teenager at the time and my level of English or literary knowledge wasn't quite high enough to grasp the essence of the game.

I've replayed it several times since I've gotten older and the game (and story) just kept getting better and better with each playthrough. It's one of the few RPGs where high Wisdom and Intelligence will get you the best rewards.

You can play it for the combat and it'll be an alright game but its true riches lie buried beneath the surface. You got to enjoy reading and lore, though.

Hezus wrote on 2023-02-15, 21:44:

You can play it for the combat and it'll be an alright game but its true riches lie buried beneath the surface. You got to enjoy reading and lore, though.

Because I love Arcanum and exploring the lore through dialogues I'm planning to give it another chance

Arcanum was wonderful. A true classic, although I don't think it has aged well.

dormcat wrote on 2023-02-15, 16:09:

IMHO Doom 3 is a remake of System Shock 2 with enhanced graphics and the rest much simplified (story, experience and skill points, inventory, puzzles, etc.).

I didn't like DOOM 3 on release because it didn't feel like DOOM to me. I replayed it a few years ago and appreciated it more for what it was, but yeah creeping through darkness and checking all corners is a horror game in my mind, not an action packed run and gun thrill ride.

F.E.A.R was my DOOM 3.

badmojo wrote on 2023-02-15, 22:37:

dormcat wrote on 2023-02-15, 16:09:

IMHO Doom 3 is a remake of System Shock 2 with enhanced graphics and the rest much simplified (story, experience and skill points, inventory, puzzles, etc.).

I didn't like DOOM 3 on release because it didn't feel like DOOM to me. I replayed it a few years ago and appreciated it more for what it was, but yeah creeping through darkness and checking all corners is a horror game in my mind, not an action packed run and gun thrill ride.

F.E.A.R was my DOOM 3.

Doom (2016) was my Doom 3. Prodeus is now my Doom 3.

Bruno128 wrote on 2023-02-15, 22:01:

Hezus wrote on 2023-02-15, 21:44:

You can play it for the combat and it'll be an alright game but its true riches lie buried beneath the surface. You got to enjoy reading and lore, though.

Because I love Arcanum and exploring the lore through dialogues I'm planning to give it another chance

Hope you like it as much as I do! 😀 Remember INT, WIS and CHR are your best friends in this game.

If you're playing the original release version, I'd highly recommend installing some MODs to increase playablity. Here's a good article on what to install:
https://torment.fandom.com/wiki/Mods_and_Tweaks_(PS:T)

It's also not a sin to refer to a a guide after your first playthrough. It's likely that you've missed about half what the game has to offer because you didn't have the right items or stats to trigger certain events or dialogue options. Here's a great resource:
https://shrines.rpgclassics.com/pc/planescape/

The dog companion in Arcanum is my favorite.

Kahenraz wrote on 2023-02-04, 16:30:

ratfink wrote on 2023-02-04, 15:53:

I got bored watching the long-winded intro scene to HL1, so I shut the game down and never went back to it. I had played the demo, and even then wondered why it was so popular.

This was my first experience as well. Why was the intro so long. Why was this thing so popular?

Contemporary me never understood it.

For me, it's the plethora of hilarious, immersion-breaking bugs and glitches. 😆