HL2 post game analysis [spoilers]

[Denny]

Originally Posted by sfx1999

Denny, do you mean the Icon of Sin?

I think it was funny that you got to kill John Romero. In fact, I hear if you play the challenge at the level backwards, it says something about it being him.

Yeah, that's the level, god was that next to impossible to beat. I mean having to face all them enemies that keep respawning and then having to hit the actuall skull in a certain spot was frustratingly hard.

Lethal brings up a very good point i forgot too mention, HL2 runs way better than Doom 3 graphic wise. I averaged 30-35 fps on Doom 3 with some lag almost constant (bearable though) but in HL2 i experienced absolutely no slow down's at all except a couple real minor one's. Kudos goto Valve for making the engine run so smooth.

Maybe i should try HL2 on Hard, i played it on normal (like most games), maybe it's just time for me to start playing initially on hard mode for every game because man am i dusting through games fast these days not to brag or anything but they don't seem to be getting any harder on normal skill setting.

[HangFire]

Making a game artificially difficult isn't a good way to extend game's longevity. You're dusting through them fast because apparently according to developers most gamers don't finish their games, so they think that $70 CDN is only worth 7 hours of game play.

[Denny]

Originally Posted by HangFire

Making a game artificially difficult isn't a good way to extend game's longevity. You're dusting through them fast because apparently according to developers most gamers don't finish their games, so they think that $70 CDN is only worth 7 hours of game play.

So in short, developers are making them shorter so more people finish the game, correct?

[MarD]

Heyyo,

No what he means is most people don't finish the game cause they usually get frustrated with it, or get a different game. So usually the span of attention to a game isin't too high (well, at least for games in the past this was so..), so developpers know they don't have to make huge storylines and hours upon hours long longevity fun. So in other words:

Average gamer attention span to singleplayer (According to developpers): 5-6Hrs.

Average time to complete the campaign (According to us gamers): 7Hrs at the most.

So you see, they usually try to make games at least longer than our spans, so they think it's a huge campaign n' stuff. Nowadays, most games are getting good storylines and good gameplay, so most people do try and finish them.

Ya know whats sad though? we get short storylines (that's our standard) and for RPG's if the game's less than 20hrs of gameplay it's not worth it. (Many people hate $boxes 'Fable' cause it's beatable in 8hrs...)

If only we could raise our gun-ho standards to a few extra hours....

[HangFire]

RPGs and RTS game campaigns are usually pretty decent lenth, but FPS game campaigns are much too short. The last FPS game that I played that had a decent lenth to it was "The Suffering", and its a few years old.

I think 15-20 hour single player campaign lenth would be great for FPS games, but sadly they always have the shortest lenths. I usually don't play through the entire campaign in RTS games, and most RPG games get boring long before I've beaten them.

My attention span is longest for FPS games, theres only two FPS games that I didn't beat; "Will Rock" and "The Fortress of Doctor Radiaki".

"Will Rock" was awful. They took all the worst elements of FPS games and packed it into one big heap.

And the Radiaki one, I was really young when I had it, and all it was was a knock-off of Wolfenstein. There was no competition there as to which one to play.


Edit: Got all nostalgic on Radiaki, looked it up here. It was out in '94, later than I thought. I guess I had Doom to play instead, not Wolf. Mobygames score: 1.5/5 , ouch.

[MarD]

Heyyo,

Lol, will rock, yeah, I read it was ghey, so I just stuck with the good ol' Serious Sam series... I heard will rock diddn't even have MP coop... One of the main reasons I'm probably not gonna buy Painkiller.

[HangFire]

No, Will Rock has MP coop, but its still unplayable.

[stefanhendriks]

can't wait for HL 2 cooperative

[MarD]

Heyyo,

Stefan, you can already do really cheaply emulated HL2 coop:

disconnect
net_start
sv_lan 0
deathmatch 1
maxplayers *number*
map *mapname*
restart


then for the other computer type:
connect *ip and port*


then there ya go.... the built in gordon model is fugly since it's just there for hitboxes I bet (lmao, all guns shoot out of his 3rd leg )

Also, bots are only so far programmed for 1 player eh? so it only shoots at whoever's hosting, so anyone else gets a walk in the park.

Careful, don't whip too much stuff at eachother, or else it can crash the server... also, for a better gordon model, go to http://www.hl2files.com and get that gf_gordon model or whatever it's called...

Or, if you want an actual good coop experience, wait in line with us all for svencoop2... there's some cool dev pics at the official site: http://www.svencoop.com

[stefanhendriks]

i already know that method, heh, but it sucks!