Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

Well, I'm not going to take the time to write a very long response, but just a few points I'll mention.

Farcry AI. I don't think it's better. They're better at killing you, but they don't react more intelligently. You can make a game hard without having good AI. This is, of course, purely a subjective analysis, but I don't think it was that good. I liked the game a lot, so I'm not complaining, just noting. Same goes for the marines in Half-Life. They may be better at killing you than the enemies in Half-Life 2, but they're not smarter.


As far as the game companies you mentioned, I totally agree with you. There are many very good game development companies. I'm just of the opinion that there are many more that are more interested in making a dollar than a good game. id, no doubt, is a very good company, and I very much enjoy their games. No argument here.

As far as Doom3 graphics setting the bar... I disagree. Again, this is entirely personal, but I believe that Doom3 looks good, but it's not as flexible as Half-Life 2. No, I can't prove it, but that's what I feel whenever I play the two games. Doom3 looks nice, no doubt, but it's essentially a very specific implementation of very specific effects. Feel free to disagree with me, but that's the way I see it.

STEAM. Of course they make more money on a copy of Half-Life 2 bought via STEAM than one bought at retail. That's part of the aim. The other part of the aim, however, is to take out the middle-man in delivering the game to consumers. Ultimately, distribution just causes problems, and if it can be done by the development company itself, I fully support it. How many games do we see that are pushed out too fast and are buggy almost to the point of being unplayable? I would argue that most of the time it's because a publisher is breathing down the development company's neck to get the product out there. How many people want to put out a game that doesn't work?

And this brings me to my main point, and the reason I say Half-Life 2 is revolutionary. They're taking a new approach to everything. They want a world that is entirely interactive. Until this point, we've seen a few walls that can be blown up, and a few chairs than can be kicked around. Half-Life 2 goes a long way beyond that. The gameplay had to be rethought entirely to accomodate the freedom of movement inherent in this design. The AI isn't perfect, but it's not going to be. It's essentially built from the ground up to react dynamically, not to a specific set of conditions (the main reason I think the AI is better than Farcry). Of course this isn't entirely true, but again, I'm talking goals here.

Everything about this game is designed so as to push development forward. I don't think this is the best game ever. I think the design, plot, and gameplay of the original Half-Life are all better than Half-Life 2. There are lots of games that are more fun than Half-Life 2, but there aren't any that are as innovative. I totally agree with you that there are issues, and some of them interfere with the gameplay. There are issues. But I think this game does more expand the field of FPS and gaming in general than any other game since, perhaps, Half-Life.

So my response actually was long. Sue me.