Half-Life 1 weapon animations compared to Half-Life 2

I know something that made the weapons in Half-Life 1 seem much more real and satisfying was the fact that the hands reacted to the weapon and even caressed it at times, this is something which is totally lacking from Half-Life 2, anyone know why? It seems that Half-Life 1 was generally a lot more detailed than Half-Life 2, which is a shame because the detail and graphical sophistication was what defined Half-Life for me.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

I really don't know how you can say HL1 was more detailed than HL2, I really can't. Your comparing HL1 which came out in 98 with HL2 that was on newer technology, you can't make any argument that HL1 was more detailed because of the technical limitations of the HL1 engine. Hell even the story on HL2 had more detail to it because of the main characters/scrips (of which HL1 HAD none except the G-Man and gordon freeman).

If your playing HL2 on the lowest detail settings, then yes you could make a comparison, but when you tick the resolution in HL2 to high, and turn on AA to at least 2x and set some of the settings to high, then you will really see that HL2 is FAR more detailed than HL1 can/will ever be.

I think some of the members here will agree with these HL1 threads fulfilling nostalgia that older games are better than newer games, but your guys claims that HL1 was more detailed/better atmosphere aren't going to fly with a majority of the community here.

The fact remains: HL2 has more detail, it had more "atmosphere", the HL1 engine doesn't create a atmosphere like the Source engine purely on the source engine has better lighting, textures, particles, soundscapes, facial animation etc. - in terms of location and architecture, yeah HL1 did a better job I think.

I think what your doing is your comparing HL1 and HL2 as the same game, and making cross comparisons on the weapons, enemies, but the reality of it, is that HL2 is its own game in its own respect, and now your comparing apples to oranges, which can't be done, each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Your also approaching this from the perspective of having played HL1 first, you feel the nostalgia from the game, so your going to give it an unfair bias. My friend who played HL2 first said the game was awesome, then played HL1 and said that it was a piece of shit.

My point is both games are different, im not saying your wrong in saying HL1 > HL2, but you can't say that HL1 had more detail than HL2 because its just not true, purely on the technical limitations of the HL1 engine. I think where the source engine really comes into play is when you tack the settings up high and then play the game through. Maybe your computer can't handle the source engine at these levels, but if you leave the source engine at the lowest possible settings, then its going to look like HL1 with a little more detail, then your argument is "sorta" right.

Hey buddy, my computer is more than up to spec to handle the Source engine on 1024x1377 resolution in widescreen aspect ratio and 2x AA with 4x antisotropic and all detail levels on high.

It is interesting that you have completely ignored the detail levels which I am refering to. Can you see any idle weapon animations in Half-Life 2? No. I have been watching videos of HL1 on Youtube and I can assure you that my vision is not clouded by nostalgia. Half-Life 1 (especially with the HD pack) has far better graphics than HL2 has. For example, in HL2, where is the solidarity to objects that there was in HL1? In HL2 you can go through most things, in HL1 everything was satifyingly solid.

Your friend must have played HL1 with everything on low and not appreciated the attention to detail on HL1 if he thought it was shit. I hate people like him, so ignorant The fact is, there was far more loving attention to detail on HL1 that does not exist on HL2, for example where is the idle chit chat from NPCs on HL2? Where are the weapon animations? Where is the interactivity with the environment that was omnipresent on HL1?

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

It is interesting that you have completely ignored the detail levels which I am refering to. Can you see any idle weapon animations in Half-Life 2? No.

If your referring to the fact that there are more idle weapon animation in HL1, then sure, you can make an argument that HL1 has more idle weapon movement. TBH I don't think this is a very valid point, do I care about how many different ways gordon freeman plays with his weapons when hes not shooting them? Not really. If you wan't to call this 'detail' then sure, but I think valve put their animation budget in HL2 into the facial animations, which IMO makes the game more believable than how gordon tinkers with his guns 5 million times.

Half-Life 1 (especially with the HD pack) has far better graphics than HL2 has

You cannot say this, purely based off of the engine tech alone. Therefore your argument is null.

For example, in HL2, where is the solidarity to objects that there was in HL1? In HL2 you can go through most things, in HL1 everything was satifyingly solid.

What are you talking about? Solidarity? Give me a concrete example and I will think about it.

Your friend must have played HL1 with everything on low and not appreciated the attention to detail on HL1 if he thought it was shit. I hate people like him, so ignorant

He played it on max settings, in the Half Life: Source game (so we know it had "kinda" updated graphics).

The fact is, there was far more loving attention to detail on HL1 that does not exist on HL2, for example where is the idle chit chat from NPCs on HL2?

There is idle chat. Play the first level again, the NPCs had idle chat, and they interacted with you if you pressed the action key. If you want more? That wouldn't fit into the atmosphere valve was making! There was a dictator ruling over them, and the lack of chat created that.
Combat chat? Play the game again, theres combat chat.

Where are the weapon animations?

In every weapon? Did you not play HL2? If your referring to idle weapon animations, then I don't really care to see freeman play with the loading mechanism on is Assult rifle. I would have to take valve's side here, they put more animation effort into the NPC's faces/movement/death/hits than they did with useless idle weapon animations, your argument here is still null.

Where is the interactivity with the environment that was omnipresent on HL1?

Uhhh Hello? Physics is one of the first things that comes to mind, sure is kinda a gimmick, but with your initial arguemnt of interactivity, HL2 has WAY more than HL1 would ever have.
So far your not really making any valid poins here. Maybe I should just follow your sig and just assume your "just kidding, just kidding"

Well, half-life was an original game. It came from nowhere into the lime-light based on it's creative story, environments and execution. Also, it was released at an apt time for the game industry, no one had ever seen anything like it and it's been used as a standard ever since.

Half-Life 2 is a different beast. It comes sailing in on the success of the first, and yet it still needs to redefine itself to have its own identity. The capabilities of the Source engine outnumber the Goldsource engine, that's just fact. It's a more recent engine, with newer programming to back it up. And more HL specific care put into it. We know Source can recreate the original Half-life experience almost perfectly and seamlessly. They did this already with Half-Life: Source.

My point is, it boils down to game mechanic decisions. I can't say what Valve's excuses were for not adopting some of the above features you mentioned into the Source engine, but they obviously made a choice somewhere along the way not to adopt those features. And I'm sure they were well-aware of the many 'issues' you've pointed out Flynn. What I can say (based on Omegaslayer's rebuttal), is that indeed the Source engine is not only capable of what we might consider "more detail" but it indeed employs this greater processing budget to its advantage.

Perhaps we should make a distinction between the games, and their engines. The Source engine has more functionality, and thus more potential. But what I think you're pointing out here are purely the difference of the engines within their respective games, and nothing beyond.

Was HL a better game? If it was released after HL2 in its original form (that is, within the gold-source engine), I'd think people might have the same interpretation as Omega's friend had. However, if the game critic of this imaginary release line-up were to analyze the game on its own merit, one might find beauty in the pacing, and game mechanics. Details like solid dead enemies, and extra weapon animations don't hold up for a second IMO in this hypothetical scenario outside of what matters about the game. I mean, if you could describe what makes half-life great, in that description, would you include the solid dead enemies and extra weapon animations? Or would you most likely describe the types of weapons, or varied enemies, or levels. IMO, that and the context of when it was released are what partly make HL so great. Remove the context, and you have only a few points to touch on.

The same could be true for HL2, remove the context, and it to doesn't have too much going for it. But what it does do is improve the greatness that was half-life. Or at least I think it does. It holds its own right with the levels; they are very different and almost nothing like what HL1 felt like. It's an entirely different setting to say the least. If I were to describe in a short summary, what made HL2 so great, (without mentioning context dependent examples, like comparisons to other games of the same time), that summary would include talking points like the story, and the setting, and the levels, and the enemies, and especially the characters. I mean, I can't say out of those points which ones are better or worse from HL1, because they really are a different focus from the developer. These things that make each of these games great are direct consequences of developer decisions to go, or not to go with them.

Well, I better shut-up. I can already count about 5 major flaws in my own thinking already. I suppose I'll see if they get picked up, or maybe not of importance and I'm perhaps missing something

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

My point was never that HL1 is better than HL2. But your argument that the graphics are better on an older engine isn't correct.

oh, did I say that? I don't think the graphics are a contest here. I mean in that department, it comes down to art assets, which clearly, HL2 has over 4 gigs more of.

I mean the topic is about the weapon animations, so I suppose I went on a tirade there. For the record, I'm not saying one game is better than another.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

What I dislike about newer games is the tendency of the weaponry to obscure your view. Many new games seem to have weapons that are huge.

/2cents

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Riven said:
oh, did I say that? I don't think the graphics are a contest here. I mean in that department, it comes down to art assets, which clearly, HL2 has over 4 gigs more of.

I mean the topic is about the weapon animations, so I suppose I went on a tirade there. For the record, I'm not saying one game is better than another.

No not you riven. I was addressing Flynn.

Orpheus said:
What I dislike about newer games is the tendency of the weaponry to obscure your view. Many new games seem to have weapons that are huge.

I can't think of any current games where this is an issue ... especially because of the trend right now, thanks to Call of Duty, is to encourage aiming down the sights.

Larger weapons in like, Far Cry limit your vision ... but thats things like rocket launchers.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

No offense to anyone, but what is this about anyways, I mean, now we're even comparing a few weapon animations between the Half-Life games.

Half-Life 1 had its good stuff and so had HL2.

In my opinion HL1 is better. In others' HL2 is better. Does it really matter?

---

Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Nibgames

Well it seems that the general concensus is that people prefer Hl2 to HL1. Niborious, I guess I just felt short changed when I played HL2 after the mastwer peice that was HL1. There were so many things lacking compared to HL1 that I just couldn't understand weren't there.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

HL1 has a lot of dead spaces where nothing much happens and are just tedious. (Railways and Surface Tension come to mind). HL2 didn't really have those, it was like all the fat got trimmed and it was a more focused experience.

The episodes are a different matter. But, there's a lot of stuff in HL1 that I would hope would be removed in the Black Mesa mod, or at least reworked so it's better.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Surface Tension rules.

Pretty much nothing needs changing in HL's single player. Luckily Black Mesa will never be released so I don't have to see some moronic reinterpretation of Xen.

Perhaps the Black Mesa Mod will reunite us all together

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Crono said:
I can't think of any current games where this is an issue ... especially because of the trend right now, thanks to Call of Duty, is to encourage aiming down the sights.

True but I was thinking about the non-sighting times. Especially while sprinting.Be that as it may, I prefer to not see my weapons at all, if the option is permitted.

There was a game or two where you cold m.ke the weapons less noticable.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

omegaslayer said:
I really don't know how you can say HL1 was more detailed than HL2, I really can't. Your comparing HL1 which came out in 98 with HL2 that was on newer technology, you can't make any argument that HL1 was more detailed because of the technical limitations of the HL1 engine.

Suddenly shiny new graphics outrules every other valid point made in the OP.

EDIT:

There is idle chat. Play the first level again, the NPCs had idle chat,

Only the rebels had idle chat after the disaster, but all\\almost all (human) NPC's talk pre-disaster in Half-Life.

Dynamic chat that is, prescripted scripts in half life 2 don't even come close to falling under 'idle chat'.

Uhhh Hello? Physics is one of the first things that comes to mind

Physics generally are just props lying around, not much that affect the actual environment, or maps, in the original half life, remember you had to turn on the oxygen and power, and then go back and then you can use the flamethrower?
Physics props aren't exactly the same, and if you mention the 'physics puzzles' then I've lost a little respect for you.

Your raking my comments out of reference Crollo -

Graphics don't make a better game. But saying HL1 had better detail than HL2 is wrong. I don't care what you say. Its like trying to say a Pentium 3 will run faster that a Core2Quad. It's just not logical. If Flynn had originally said "I prefer HL1's detail to HL2's" then there wouldn't be a problem. But the OP states:

"It seems that Half-Life 1 was generally a lot more detailed than Half-Life 2"

Which implies budget if that engine. Im not arguing that HL2 > HL1, you just cant base arguments off of flawed logic.

Physics generally are just props lying around, not much that affect the actual environment, or maps, in the original half life, remember you had to turn on the oxygen and power, and then go back and then you can use the flamethrower?

But compared to interactivity with the enviroment in HL1 vs HL2, HL2 has more interactivity WITH the prop physics. The reference you are making to "Blast Pit" does "kinda" affect the environment (moving bubbles and an electrified puddle), however I think a better suited example (with physics) is in the HL2 level water hazard when you open the water lock with the battering ram. Both examples (HL1 being the fuel/electricity, HL2 being the water hazzard level) serve to redirect the player to solve a puzzle to open up the next path way to move forward. Both puzzles are good in their own respect, but in "Blast Pit" you hit a button to make something happen, where-as the HL2 one you actually affect your environment though a more logical approach (running a battering ram into the door).

Physics props aren't exactly the same, and if you mention the 'physics puzzles' then I've lost a little respect for you.

I don't expect you to have respect for me. However if you play Research and Development then you can see the physics puzzles (when used right), can be very fun and challenging.

omegaslayer said:
Your raking my comments out of reference Crollo -

"It seems that Half-Life 1 was generally a lot more detailed than Half-Life 2"

And now you're taking quotes out of context, which is better?

omegaslayer said:
I don't expect you to have respect for me.

But we still can though, right?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

However if you play Research and Development then you can see the physics puzzles (when used right), can be very fun and challenging.

Yeah RD is a really great example of physics puzzles but even still the grav gun physics was a bit too clunky for my liking and effected my RD experience.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Nice to see the Snarkpit active again, it's always great to stir up a big of controversy The little touches that made HL1 great simply aren't in HL2. The realism of the weapons is just one example. There are less enemies in HL2 as well, like no A grunts for example. The sights, the sounds and the smells (?) that represented HL1 have, by enlarge, been left out of HL2.

On a side note, I have been reading Raising the Bar recently and better scenes are described in it which would have made HL2 better but which were droppped in favour of a more sci fi and less realistic experience. There is a battle scene described which features salvaged Bradly tanks, for instace. It is one of the polar ice cap maps and you are part of an army defending the weather station. Human artillery peices are featured and there is much more of a sense of 'fighting the Combine' which you don't get from the original HL2 levels.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Flynn said:
Nice to see the Snarkpit active again, it's always great to stir up a big of controversy The little touches that made HL1 great simply aren't in HL2. The realism of the weapons is just one example. There are less enemies in HL2 as well, like no A grunts for example. The sights, the sounds and the smells (?) that represented HL1 have, by enlarge, been left out of HL2.

There now I can accept that statement. I will say however where HL2 left out stuff from HL1, HL2 made up for it in other areas.

Flynn said:
On a side note, I have been reading Raising the Bar recently and better scenes are described in it which would have made HL2 better but which were droppped in favour of a more sci fi and less realistic experience. There is a battle scene described which features salvaged Bradly tanks, for instace. It is one of the polar ice cap maps and you are part of an army defending the weather station. Human artillery peices are featured and there is much more of a sense of 'fighting the Combine' which you don't get from the original HL2 levels.

It's funny, I take the exact opposite view of the stuff present in Raising the Bar, for both HL1 and HL2. Much of it would have been terrible, and its a good thing it was cut.

Also, most of the HL2 stuff was dropped to make it more realistic and less sci-fi, so I have no idea where you got that.

Well if you actually think about it, who are we fighting in HL2? Humans, mainly. I want the face of the Combine coming at me and I want to blast that same face with the shotgun, I want to feel like I am getting at them. Not some trans human puppets representing them.

What's not to like about using good old human armour and fire power against the evil invaders? What would be 'terrible' about assistanting a platoon of soldiers travelling in Bradly tanks equipped with mounted cannons bombarding the enemy positions causing damage on a scale that you could only dream of in HL2.

My sci fi complaint is like why have the crappy 'Pulse Rifle' rather than the OICW? A proper rifle would have been more realistic and more satifying to use that some generic cliche sci fi weapon.

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Flynn said:
What's not to like about using good old human armour and fire power against the evil invaders? What would be 'terrible' about assistanting a platoon of soldiers travelling in Bradly tanks equipped with mounted cannons bombarding the enemy positions causing damage on a scale that you could only dream of in HL2.

Probably because that would have been beyond the scope of the engine? That's why you could only dream of it in HL2. And I wasn't referring to that specific example as terrible and deserved cutting, just that a good amount of the stuff in Raising the Bar would have been terrible and was justifiably cut.

My sci fi complaint is like why have the crappy 'Pulse Rifle' rather than the OICW? A proper rifle would have been more realistic and more satifying to use that some generic cliche sci fi weapon.

I would consider the OICW unrealistic, since the OICW was cancelled almost a decade ago and never saw production let alone combat. Plus the pulse rifle rules and is by far the best of the HL2 weapons...

Regardless, the OICW being dropped in favor of the pulse rifle is like one pro-sci-fi drop in the bucket compared to pages and pages of sci-fi stuff in Raising the Bar that got cut for a focus on increased realism. For example, stuff like this:
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Combine_Guard
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Cremator
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Alien_Assassin
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Manhack_Arcade
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Kraken_Base

I do wish they included the Manhack Arcade, even though I agree with the justification over leaving it out. It does seem like a fun idea on linking enemies deeper into the fiction of the world. Plus I'd just like to control one too, kinda like in the mod: Combine destiny II.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Yak_Fighter said:

Flynn said:
What's not to like about using good old human armour and fire power against the evil invaders? What would be 'terrible' about assistanting a platoon of soldiers travelling in Bradly tanks equipped with mounted cannons bombarding the enemy positions causing damage on a scale that you could only dream of in HL2.

Probably because that would have been beyond the scope of the engine? That's why you could only dream of it in HL2. And I wasn't referring to that specific example as terrible and deserved cutting, just that a good amount of the stuff in Raising the Bar would have been terrible and was justifiably cut.

My sci fi complaint is like why have the crappy 'Pulse Rifle' rather than the OICW? A proper rifle would have been more realistic and more satifying to use that some generic cliche sci fi weapon.

I would consider the OICW unrealistic, since the OICW was cancelled almost a decade ago and never saw production let alone combat. Plus the pulse rifle rules and is by far the best of the HL2 weapons...

Regardless, the OICW being dropped in favor of the pulse rifle is like one pro-sci-fi drop in the bucket compared to pages and pages of sci-fi stuff in Raising the Bar that got cut for a focus on increased realism. For example, stuff like this:
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Combine_Guard
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Cremator
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Alien_Assassin
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Manhack_Arcade
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Kraken_Base

I wish they'd kept them in TBH buddy. That is the sort of creepy stuff that I'd like to fight and put the human 'stamp' on with good old military hardware. I know the OICW never went into production but neither did the Osprey until the early 2000s so that argument is null and void Teleportation technology doesn't exist yet either

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

Flynn said:
I wish they'd kept them in TBH buddy. That is the sort of creepy stuff that I'd like to fight and put the human 'stamp' on with good old military hardware.

That Combine Guard would have fit right in with all the Quake II enemies, the kind of childish, 'looks cool and edgy' garbage that Half-Life 1 soundly rejected in its enemy designs.

You're also arguing in circles, seeing as you earlier complained of content being cut "in favor of a more sci fi and less realistic experience" and when I point to all the sci fi stuff that was cut for a more realistic experience you say that you really wanted a more sci fi experience? uhhh...

I know the OICW never went into production but neither did the Osprey until the early 2000s so that argument is null and void Teleportation technology doesn't exist yet either

I can remember playing Ghost Recon in 2001 that has an OICW, and even then it was hokey because it was obvious it was never ever going to be the actual 'future soldier' weapon it was supposed to be. That's the whole point. You claimed HL2 would be more 'realistic' if it were the main rifle, and no, no it would not. It would be just as unrealistic as the AR2 only with the added baggage of real-world facts.

Well, while we're wishing, lets wish for an OP4 for HL2. Since it was the best addon/mod for HL1, why not have another "best" again for HL2? Seems only logical to me...

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The great Orpheus has spoken Do you remember me from my more immature days as 'Freeman'? Probably not. I agree, Op4 as an expansion to Half-Life 2 would be very nice, it would be good to have Adrian Shepard again, hopefully he could break free from the Gman like Gordon has. Just thinking of Op4 brings back memories of that old rusty Black Mesa metal...

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

There is Opposing Force 2 for HL2, but it's not developed by Gearbox. Here it is: http://www.moddb.com/mods/opposing-force-2

And personally, I think Flynn has a very good point. Yeah, in HL, the hands are moving with realistic speed, and they are reacting to the weapons. But in HL2, all the weapons are reloading too fast and there are no idle animations.

---

Never think about bad things!
TNKqwe:The New Killer qwe
[img]http://images.quiz.wegame.com/production/personalities/22/badge.jpg[/img]
I am Engineer - Play Free Online Games
[img]http://media.moddb.com/images/global/moddb_88x31_v12.png[/img]
Citizen Arms

Yep, finally someone who sees the point. It really spoils the immersion, I was shocked when I saw the unrealistic static animations of HL2. I'm surprised no one else really notices as it was one of the first things that jumped out at me. Coupled with the cartoonish looking USP pistol (ugh, shudders).

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding

I'll agree with ya there Flynn and tnkqwe; The weapons are loaded extremely fast (except the .357)

The "USP" fits the environment I think. It may look somewhat cartoonish, but I don't have a problem with that

I don't know if I can hinge the weapon reload animations (or lack of idle anims) on the immersion factor. It's like there's too much going on in HL2 to even want to focus on that. I mean, in HL1, there was a lot of downtime; quiet moments where it was just you and the cold offices of Black Mesa walking around, exploring.

In HL2, they wanted to infer that feeling of tension and emergency. If there was a downtime, it was still serious, or falsely comforting (exmpl: Dr. Kleiner's Lab in "A Red Letter Day").

I'll comment some more, but for the moment I need to leave for a doctor's appointment...

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Can we just let these worthless threads die please?

There will never be an agreed upon consensus, but....

-If you're willing to start up a better one!

...Then maybe

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

omegaslayer said:
Can we just let these worthless threads die please?

Oh I can just imagine all the worthless threads removed. My post count would be under 200.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

omegaslayer said:
Can we just let these worthless threads die please?

There are no worthless threads because a thread always has worth to at least one person in the world.

Exactly!

---

Just Kidding

Just Kidding