New school vs. old school.
by AC - permalink
I was going to write up a fairly detailed review of Half-Life 2: Episode One tonight, but then I read this review at 2404.org. Just read that, because it's what I would have said, with only a couple of modifications. First, I don't agree that Half-Life 2 was artificially lengthened with the long vehicle sequences. They may feel a little out of place if you've played four or five dozen other shooters, but that doesn't mean those levels don't have their own merits -- and it definitely doesn't mean they aren't fun. Second, I like HL2's weapon load. I think it takes a lot of time to get used to them, but eventually you realize that every one of them is useful throughout the entire game, and the hugely diminished ammo capacity from Half-Life is, in the end, a plus. I also don't have a problem with the "bucket" weapon-selection method, but that's probably because I've spent so much time playing the original Half-Life series and Counter-Strike: Source.
In any case they made a lot of right calls in their Episode One review, so read it if you still haven't decided to get the game. After I finished it, I let it simmer for a couple of days, then plunged back in, and had a much better time with it. I tackled a couple of areas with a completely different strategy, and I'm already kicking around new ideas.
The brilliance of the gravity gun in HL2 and Episode One is how it lets you move around almost anything in preparation for an upcoming fight. You can gather explosive barrels so they're easy to reach for toss-and-bangs when the baddies advance on you, or you can strategically place them for remote detonation via pistol. Or you can move around heavier objects to create a defensive bulwark, funnelling enemies into presighted avenues. This is no tactical shooter, it's simply an action game with an unprecedented amount of depth.
But speaking of tactical shooters, I've just about finished my new campaign in Ghost Recon. I'm up to the last mission, the one at Red Square in Moscow. The depth of this game is just phenomenal, which is probably why it still has an active fan community five years after it was released. This time around I've reversed strategies on a number of missions, moving hard and fast through maps where I had previously had success with stealth, and creeping my way through the missions that had always seemed to call for full-on assaults. I also ended up taking a couple of the standard operatives - a support soldier and a demolitions guy - much deeper into the campaign. The demo tech in particular has been upgraded to the point that his stats are on par with the specialists, and in fact I'm taking him into Moscow on a tank-busting fireteam with Tunney.
I'm really going have fun with this mission. Instead of two versatile fireteams, I'm putting a stealth team of Ramirez and Grey on point, with my demo team of Tunney and Allen following to take out the tanks, and a sniper team, Ibrahim and either Stone or Galinsky on reserve to pick off distant sentries on the push through Red Square. In the past I've always used two teams with OICW-using Jacobs and Cohen leading, each with a sniper and a demo in tow. But what fun is that? If you didn't need more than one demo to clear all the tanks, you could get through that mission with just one team of three guys, and that's hard to justify realistically when you're talking about wiping out thirty or more entrenched enemies.
Besides, Ghost Recon is just more fun when you've got half a dozen armed badasses under your mouse -- especially when a fireteam you've left alone for a while unexpectedly comes under fire and cuts down all the attackers before you can even switch back to them. I love that game.
by AC - permalink
I was going to write up a fairly detailed review of Half-Life 2: Episode One tonight, but then I read this review at 2404.org. Just read that, because it's what I would have said, with only a couple of modifications. First, I don't agree that Half-Life 2 was artificially lengthened with the long vehicle sequences. They may feel a little out of place if you've played four or five dozen other shooters, but that doesn't mean those levels don't have their own merits -- and it definitely doesn't mean they aren't fun. Second, I like HL2's weapon load. I think it takes a lot of time to get used to them, but eventually you realize that every one of them is useful throughout the entire game, and the hugely diminished ammo capacity from Half-Life is, in the end, a plus. I also don't have a problem with the "bucket" weapon-selection method, but that's probably because I've spent so much time playing the original Half-Life series and Counter-Strike: Source.
In any case they made a lot of right calls in their Episode One review, so read it if you still haven't decided to get the game. After I finished it, I let it simmer for a couple of days, then plunged back in, and had a much better time with it. I tackled a couple of areas with a completely different strategy, and I'm already kicking around new ideas.
The brilliance of the gravity gun in HL2 and Episode One is how it lets you move around almost anything in preparation for an upcoming fight. You can gather explosive barrels so they're easy to reach for toss-and-bangs when the baddies advance on you, or you can strategically place them for remote detonation via pistol. Or you can move around heavier objects to create a defensive bulwark, funnelling enemies into presighted avenues. This is no tactical shooter, it's simply an action game with an unprecedented amount of depth.
But speaking of tactical shooters, I've just about finished my new campaign in Ghost Recon. I'm up to the last mission, the one at Red Square in Moscow. The depth of this game is just phenomenal, which is probably why it still has an active fan community five years after it was released. This time around I've reversed strategies on a number of missions, moving hard and fast through maps where I had previously had success with stealth, and creeping my way through the missions that had always seemed to call for full-on assaults. I also ended up taking a couple of the standard operatives - a support soldier and a demolitions guy - much deeper into the campaign. The demo tech in particular has been upgraded to the point that his stats are on par with the specialists, and in fact I'm taking him into Moscow on a tank-busting fireteam with Tunney.
I'm really going have fun with this mission. Instead of two versatile fireteams, I'm putting a stealth team of Ramirez and Grey on point, with my demo team of Tunney and Allen following to take out the tanks, and a sniper team, Ibrahim and either Stone or Galinsky on reserve to pick off distant sentries on the push through Red Square. In the past I've always used two teams with OICW-using Jacobs and Cohen leading, each with a sniper and a demo in tow. But what fun is that? If you didn't need more than one demo to clear all the tanks, you could get through that mission with just one team of three guys, and that's hard to justify realistically when you're talking about wiping out thirty or more entrenched enemies.
Besides, Ghost Recon is just more fun when you've got half a dozen armed badasses under your mouse -- especially when a fireteam you've left alone for a while unexpectedly comes under fire and cuts down all the attackers before you can even switch back to them. I love that game.
No comments:
Post a Comment