I made a post in this thread about a game. This game is a FPS. Why this is significant is because I really don't play FPS titles all that often. In fact, outside of Left 4 Dead, I haven't really fallen in love with one since Perfect Dark back in the N64 days. I did play a little Unreal, but not really hard core, as well as been though Bioshock once.

Recently, however, I've played through the Half-Life series. Which is a total of 4 games: Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2: Epsiode 1, and Half-Life 2: Epsiode 2. These are FPS titles and are quite an amazing experience. The storytelling and game progression is just amazing. And it's games like this that make me wonder why a series like Halo gets so much freaking attention while something that is as well done as HL goes unplayed. Seriously, who here has played these games all the way through? Who here is looking forward to Epsiode 3? Please, at least one person here.

I think this is why I don't really get into FPS titles that much. Is multiplayer deathmatches THAT much greater than a good story?

I'm not a PC gamer.

Aside from Unreal, all the FPS's in question are console.

Just sayin...

When did Half-Life go to console? And if Half-Life did, did Portal?

http://www.amazon.com/Orange-Box-Xbox-3 ... 341&sr=8-1

The orange box has ALL of the current Half Life 2 titles as well as Portal (and Team Fortress 2). Best price you could ever find for such good games.

I picked up the Orange Box - but I'm just not one much for FPS. Although I certainly agree with you about Halo - why is that garbage so popular when HL sits on the side gathering dust?

I hear the future of gaming is multiplayer, and everything else will be secondary to that. I don't know if that's entirely true, but it wouldn't surprise me if developers favor MMOs with subscriptions for a constant revenue stream over single-player titles.

So is there any reason to get Half-Life Episode 2 when you've never seen or played Episode 1? Although I'd probably only get it for Portal, if I did get it, but eventually I'm sure I'd be curious.

On the subject of the topic title, I found TimeSplitters: Future Perfect an enjoyable single- and multi-player romp. Story was humorous enough. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but still enjoyable, and solid, in a perplexing sort of way. And the multi-player? Hehehehe.... Flamethrowers and remote mines.

The Orange Box also includes Episode 1.

Gee, it wasn't supposed to be that simple. Alright, fine, tell me what the game is about and what it's like, and I'll consider getting it. And considering the OP, that shouldn't be too much to ask for.

Well, if you've played Half Life (the original), it takes place some years after that (but you don't need to have played the first one to understand what's going on - it helps, though).

Basically, you play as Gordan Freeman - a physicist who is fighting, more or less, to liberate humanity from evil aliens from an alternate dimension who were released when an experiment you were a part of went awry and tore a hole between our world and theirs. They have conquered the Earth (actually, we surrendered) and subjugated the human race.

As a freedom fighter, you are a symbol of hope (Labeled as the "Last Free Man"). You and your compatriots (also scientists) work on a means of liberating humanity and closing the way between our world and the aliens' (with some help along the way from a race of rebel, alien, ex-slaves).

The story is actually pretty deep, and there is a lot to the game. It isn't just some clichè, hollow, shooter where you just kill and blow things up. It will also help if you are a fan of science fiction, of course. And most geeks are quite tickled that the main character isn't some burly, stereotypical, action hero, but a scrawny physicist.

The world is big, and there are secrets hidden throughout the large maps. There's lots of action, awe-inspiring sights, difficult challenges, a great story, and characters that are emotionally involving.

Granted, it's been quite a while so my description may not be terribly accurate.

But HL2 is what I would consider masterpiece of the FPS genre.

Here's the best way to describe the Orange Box as a game: The main menu

Seeing as there's no real way to play Half Life 1 on console yet (it's still PC only... or PSP if you have it modded), I guess going over it will actually help a good deal as well. I'll put it in spoiler never the less.



One think I'd like to point out about this series is that the storytelling takes a quite an amazing direction. The entire game, every last second and scene, is ALWAYS from Gordon Freeman's perspective. Never once does it cut away to another person in a cutscene, nor do you ever leave first person mode. You experience everything in the game as if you were literally there. Hell, you could go stare at a wall during important scenes if you really wanted to. Not sure why you would but still. Also, the entire game is just that... the entire game. It's not segmented into levels. From the first step to the last, you feel like you've are doing all in one go. Granted, you can save at ANY time. But I feel like this kind of storytelling is the most immersive kind.

I personally think story is very important in any game, be it an RPG or an FPS. That's probably why I don't like Halo that much (Halo 1 was ok). This is also why I like Portal, it's story may be simple, but it's also pretty awesome.

Here is my qualifier: I have never played any Half Life games save a demo for Half Life 2 I think. I personally didn't like it that much but I recognize that it is very well respected.

Now my point. With respect to Halo, Combat Evolved (i.e. Halo 1), in my opinion it is a perfect game through and through. I think in many ways it ruined me for other shooters because the way it handled limited inventory (i.e. only 2 gun carrying capacity) and using right trigger for guns, left for grenades, etc. to me is by far the most fun (and in some senses, realistic) way of handling a shooter. It is not realistic in that it is very arcade as opposed to sim, but I despise the idea of a 'realistic' shooter requiring me to scroll through a myriad of weapons (including grenades) to get the weapon to equip. But I admit I think that it comes down to the difference between a preference for arcade versus sim.

Nevertheless the real question here is about story and about campaign versus multiplayer. The key here is that the original Halo in my (and in many people's) opinion handled both the campaing and the multiplayer to perfection. Each half was 10 out of 10 and yet they were part of a single game. And it is really inaccurate to call them halves because they were actually thirds of when you include campaign co-op which itself was whole different 10 out of 10 experience than single player co-op.

Now I felt the story of the original Halo was as good as they come with respect to being necessary to make the gameplay worthwhile. In other words maybe the story was not as in depth or intriguing as other shooters but it was fleshed out perfectly well to give you a sense of purpose. In many ways it was archtypal in a way that allowed the gamer to bring something to their own experience. When you add the music to the environments, you transcended, especially if you played it on Legendary.

The problem is that the stroies of Halo 2 and 3 were poorly done. By trying to be too specific in detail and storyline, it lost a lot of mystique and added a lot of unimpressive and distracting aspects. In my opinion the gameplay also lost something but not nearly as much as the storyline. The campaigns of Halo 2 (especially) and Halo 3, are not in the same class as the original.

Now for mutliplayer in 2 and 3 things like power ups and power downs seem to distract in my opinion from the fun and the flow, but other areas have improved, mostly due to technology and a little due to revamping. And here is where I admit that I have no other basis for comparing multiplayer. But online multiplayer is tremendously rewarding especially with all the different game types. One of the reason is that even though it doesn't have a storyline per se, all maps are remiscient of the variety of locations in the Halo world, desgined specifically for multiplayer. Halo 2 and 3 multiplayers, while not as perfect for their time as that of the original Halo, are better overall than the multiplayer of the original Halo.

Nothing will ever compare in my opinion to the sense of purpose experienced in the single player Legendary campaign of the original Halo, but my hope will be that someday something will, not in the form of multiplayer but in the form of a true co-op. Left 4 Dead doesn't give this. It has no story. Maybe Half-Life does, I wouldn't know.

But Halo, Combat Evolved deserves all its recognition.

Oh, it won't be a big deal if I skip Half-Life 1 for Half-Life 2. I did the same with TimeSplitters 1 and 2.

So, um, what's the difference between "Half-Life 2" and "Halflife: Episodes 1 and 2"?

I'm also curious if the Portal fan-made sequel is compatible with the 360 version or if you have to own the PC version in order to play it.

Half-Life 2 ends in a very similar way that Half-Life 1 did. And fans of the series thought that was it. Then Episode 1 released, which is an extension of the storyline. Half-Life 2: Episode 1 and 2 are much shorter than HL2, but all add to the greater scope of the world you are in. And Episode 2 has some really interesting info at the end of the game as to what to expect in Episode 3.



Kind of like Counterstrike, Left 4 Dead, and many other Valve games, it's only PC. They are pretty open source with their games, and they even provide the tools to make changes to them... but only for PC. I doubt they'd be able to get that to work with a console ever.

Wait a sec, hold up. I know that isn't the case.



Sorry, but after working at a used game store, you know these things.

As for which I prefer? I usually don't play or even like FPS. The only one I really got into was Perfect Dark, and both single and multiplayer were great for that game.

Actually, I think I remember Insultobot telling me that it was on PS2 as well... I really need to learn to pay attention. But yeah, thanks 1ce. I was in the same boat as you... only playing Perfect Dark hard core and then kind of backing away from the FPS scene. I played Halo, Call of Duty, Killzone, and a few other FPS games that are apparently supposed to be the sh*t that friends had and I really just didn't like any of them. All of which lack a really immersive story. It's all based on what you are doing at the moment with a very vauge goal at the end. They are all segmented by levels which also pull me out of the experience... and ALL of them focus more on multiplay more than anything else. And yes, that's kind of what the genre is geared for... but it's a pity because, if done correctly, FPS can be a GREAT form of storytelling.

And to that, I actually have to mention that there is a FPS I never played that genuinely looked like it would be wonderful. It was Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. It was a story based FPS with no multiplayer. And, in fact, the game had no HUD either. Here's an LP of it, if you are interested. I never got it myself because I was kind of burnt out from all the other sub-par practically storyless games. But I watched the whole thing and was really impressed.

Lantis,

Did you play the original Halo campaign on Legendary? Not to rehash my whole speech but I can't see how you can say that ithe original Halo was more focused on multiplayer. It was a perfectly balanced experience with respect to gameplay and level design. It just so happened it was packaged with an equally focused perfectly balanced (for its time) multiplayer. I do agree though that Halo 2 (especially) and Halo 3 lost some of their focus on the campaign and those games both WERE more about multiplayer (i.e. campaigns got relatively worse, while multiplayer got relatively better). Just to note, Halo 3 Legendary Campaign while not as good as the original and not as important as the multiplayer, is worlds better than Halo 2 Legendary Campaign and in addition it has 4 player online co-op, so it is not that the campaigns got progressively worse, just that the first was clearly better than the second and third but the second is what really brought down the Halo campaigns, not the third.

So what is it specifically that you like about the storytelling in Half-Life that all the other games don't have?

Answer to first quetsion: To my understanding Legendary was just the hardest diffficulty. I hardly see how that would have made the game and/or story of Halo any better. But no, I didn't play it on Legendary.

Answer to second question: It's already been stated. a few posts back. But to rehash quickly, it's basically how the game isn't segmented by missions and is one whole world that doesn't pull you out to scroll though menus, levels, documents and the sort. From the begging to end, you are actually IN the game. Also, you never leave the characters shoes. It never leaves the protangonist and all events unfold right before your eyes. Also, the bond and development with all the characters in the game hold much more meaning. For example, look at the post I linked to in the first post of this thread. No FPS has achieved such an emotional reaction from me like that one scene.

Halo 1 had a pretty good campaign, but the repetitiveness of some levels was just disgusting. Sometimes I went backwards because I didn't pay attention to the game enough or I paused and came back after a good half hour. I never did the online play, but I didn't have XBox Live then. Halo 1 is a worthy play, but after that, you're playing to play with others or to just see how the series ends.