Half-Life 2 reviews?

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Null

that part stood out. not entirly correct. Many games have gotten multiplayer right. Quake, UT, Battlefield....

the difference is the sheer number of people. more people that are there, more mods are made to keep it alive, which draws in more people. once you get that cycle going, one of the few and only ways to break it is to bring in the sequal which often snaps the community into 2. oens who like the new sequal better, and one who dont.

Thats one of UT's main problems right now. UT04 was a great game, but theres many stubbern people who refuse to switch from the original UT, which cuts the amount of people in half. meaning less mods, and when a mod does come out, less people to play and keep it running.

and that and 80% of the 70,000 playing HL are playing the CS mod. it would be interesting to see what woulda happened to HL without that mod.

The original Quake was good, I'll admit, but I dislike UT. But then that's just me. Battlefield is fun as well, but it's a blatant rip-off of Tribes, and if I want to play a game on that scale, I'll bust out Tribes, or just wait a few more days till Halo 2 comes out.

Quake reigned multiplayer king for a while, with it's awesome rocket launcher.....because let's admit it, Quake's single player sucked. Quake 2 lacked multiplayer, which really gave Half-Life the opening to take over multiplayer on the Internet, and I think that is why Half-Life took off. And by the time Quake 3 and UT came out, the genre had already begin to shift towards more realistic gameplay (TFC,CS).

My gripe against Unreal Tournament, and even Quake 3 to avoid biases, is the sheer lack of realism. I'm not saying that I need to be playing a game where every gun can achieve a headshot, but I think it is retarded to run around the map and be able to blow someone up with every single gun. To be fair, I was hooked on Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 for a few months, but I eventually made the transition back to Half-Life to focus on TFC again. Unreal Tournament probably beat Quake 3 as far as balance went, because you could rip someone to pieces with just about every gun in Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament attempted to incorporate some balance with the guns. I probably wouldn't be so against UT if it wasn't for UT2K3/4, which I think is a horrible sequel that really lacks ambition, aside from the graphic power. I thought that UT2K3 and 4 both dumbed down gameplay of the original game, and brought very little to the table.

Unreal Tournament is still fun on the occasional LAN, but there is no way I would make that my multiplayer game of choice........

Battlefield can be fun, but it's by no means an original game, and I think it receives way to much credit for what it does.

I do respect the fact that it took the ideas of Tribes, and made them more mainstream however, because Tribes had a pretty narrow fan-base.

But hey.....who am I to complain about Battlefield. Halo leeched off of Tribes too......so yeah. That's been the gaming industry lately.......recycling ideas over and over again.

*sighs

[Null]

Tribes wasnt original either. and IMO, battlefield does much more on its own then tribes did. battlefield did indeed take things from tribes, but tribes took things from other games, and newer tribes games borrow even more.

aside from original game elemets, idea's for this and that. All FPS games are a rip off of the first FPS game. They all take the same idea and add thier own twists. nothing can be done about that.

As for UT series, 2k3 wasnt much a sequal and was dissapointing, but 2k4 is very much better then the original. and had some very good creative idea's put into it. the whole Onslaught idea in 2k4 will have many games taking that idea for years to come. (only certain attack points open at a certain time.)

But ya, its very easy to go around each FPS game and point out what they took from another, and another. but most add thier own ways to make the taken idea's thier own in a way.