Half-Life 2 is far superior to the first games. Half-Life has really aged badly

Disagree; the first game is amazingly fun to play.The only really distracting agedness to it I find is the audio quality. Everything else is acceptably period.

The PS2 version is a slightly dumbed-down port from the PC, although has better NPC models, and also has slight differences in some of the maps to make it easier for console users to navigate them.

For the original PC version of Half-Life (as opposed to the Source version, Valves' direct port of HL1 into the HL2 engine), be sure to install the high definition pack, which will update the NPC models and some textures, to make the graphics look a little better: http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/fu....php?id=105708

There's an unofficial fan-made HD pack for Half-Life: Source too, but it the site it's hosted on doesn't seem to work anymore. :(

I disagree too - Its age may show, but it's aged a lot better than many other games from the late 90s. I've been spoiled by the features that most modern games offer, and many older games bore me now - Half-Life 1 is one of the few that I still find fun.

Graphics don't make the game, people who believe that are complete morons.

It's the atmosphere, general gameplay, and flow of a game that makes it.


Half-Life 1 is one of the best games I have ever played next to Half-Life 2 and it's two episodic sequels.
I HIGHLY recommend it indeed if you haven't tried any of those games.

Plus I find HL1 to be extremely replayable. I have replayed it about 11 times since I got it back in 2000 or around then, I still enjoy it alot.

While the graphics do appeal to most audiences, and actually does play a part of the game being good or not, it's nothing compared to the rest I mentioned at the top.

The game is enjoyable for it's story and that's the only reason I really tried playing trough it. But even with the Source graphics 'updated' version of the game I kept being bothered by the low level graphics. Maybe because I played HL2 before playing HL1, but it kept bothering me.

Half Life is a classic though, I just wished Valve would get off their asses and continue the franchise already.

Agreed. look what Valve are making INSTEAD of Episode 3
http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=23667

They aren't making that instead of Episode 3. They are making that as well as Episode 3.

The longer it takes to make EP3 the better, frankly. It means they're putting a lot into it. And since DOTA (as far as I know) was (and is) a really popular game for a lot of people, I'm glad Valve's doing it. Better them than...pretty much any other publisher. I trust Valve to do a decent job on everything.

I really hope they use a new engine for the Ep3, or at least make a drastic overhaul(Like Halo 3 to Halo Reach) to improve the graphics. There really is no excuse, even Bethesda is abandoning their disgusting Gamebryo engine.

I'd be willing to bet that Source2 is on it's way.

Most likely.

I hope HL Ep3 is more like a sequal as opposed to a canonical addon with no new weapons, physics or innovations.

Not even because I like the franchise but because I don't think I'd be able to stand the hilarity if it wasn't.

For now new tech is still being developed for the original Source engine, however the Source engine was always made to be very modular so instead of creating a Source 2 engine, I suspect that the original engine is simply going to get a major upgrade as soon as it's done.

Also there are rumors floating around that Ep3 is canceled and that Half Life 3 will be taking it's place. If that's true then it will prolly use the improved Source engine (hell, it better use a new engine).

I don't get why people care so much about what engine a game is built on. It's the content of a game that matters, not the tools it was made with.

Depending on what tools they use, the content of the game could be limited.

The delay of Ep 3 will make me fondly remember the boring wait for it.

Most engines have almost no major differences. It's all down to the art direction and the gameplay design, and you could probably build near-identical games on different engines.

Engines are serious business in the Valve community, don't go there.

Valve has put itself on the map as a pioneer in gaming engine technology, so yeah I'm pretty curious to see what they will be coming up with next.

I heard they purchased the rights to Havok Physics and Game Maker.

I think they did. The Source Engine like all Game Engines now-a-days are heavily modified Havok or Quake Engines.

What about the Unreal engine?

It wasn't about how good it was, it was about how many games are based off of it.

If anything you just helped my point.

My original point was that Havok is an awful engine and Valve buying it would be ridiculous. I'm just continuing that theme.

*Insert obligatory name joke here*

I don't see how Havok is a bad engine. It's been used in countless games as a base and does the job pretty well if you ask me. To be in a position to call the Havok engine awefull you'd have to play a game that was actually built with the Havok engine's original base, not with the engine a third party developer built around it.

Havok does physics and it's damn good at what it does IMO. Havok is damn good, wether you write it with a C or a K.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z537VOpiNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h7MwXZGGy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGTN9rEzxa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MPoFWMRKtk

In my opinion Havok games generally have really floaty and unrealistic physics. Not that I'm complaining, though - look at all the hilarity that ensues as a result.

(Side-note: Source uses a heavily modified version of Havok Physics)

OddHunter, please reference a physics engine you prefer that can out-perform Havok at what Havok does.

I can't; I don't really know all that much about physics engines.

However, simply being the best in its field doesn't excuse it from having problems.

Indeed, but calling it ‘awful’ is a stretch. It may be buggy, but it’s useable.

Those examples you posted are hardly what I'd call bad. Tiny glitches which could just as easily have been caused by bad additional coding from the developer using Havok as a base engine. Or bad prop placement. Or wrong parameters during map making. Seems a little bit easy to just blame just blame the physics engine while there's a whole other engine built around it.

I suppose that's true. And hey, physics bugs are amusing.

While that's possible, physics glitches seem to be a common trait shared by games using Havok. Like, a lot.
It could be down to various different game developers not doing their job properly, but you have to admit there is a common denominator.

Of course, correlation does not imply causation and I'm not a programmer so I should probably shut up.

No reason not to play both, I say. While you only require a rudimentary knowledge of Half-Life 1 to understand references and the very beginng in Half-Life 2, it's still a brilliant game. And it has aged remarkably well, as it's gameplay is still as fun as ever, if you ask me. Though, if ya can only get one...well, I'd have to say Half-Life 2. Especially if you get the Orange Box. Best deal in gaming.

^ What he said.

I never played HL1. I did get HL2 on the Xbox years ago and loved it to bits.

Then, I got the Orange Box to play the add-ons, then was happy again because the loading times weren't as long, plus everything was alot shinier.

I do hope Episode 3 delivers, Ep1 was okay but albeit too short though Ep2 was fantastic. Given Ep2's epilogue, Ep3 may take place in a frozen tundra area. Shall be interesting.

Episode 1 was pretty shitty imo. Ep. 2 was pretty good.

Magnusson made Ep2 good.

I still think killing Breen was a mistake. He was a good character.

Of course, now he's dead in real life too...

Yeah. So all in all, a pretty good choice. A Breen voiced by someone else would be no real Breen.

The problem was that EP1 was way to short. It would of been amazing if they added more features and maps.

The Chapter Low-Life in the Car park was awesome. Killing zombies in pitch black