Quote:
Originally Posted by Despare
You're comparing a 3rd person action game to an FPS... it seems like you just prefer one genre over the other. For me Tomb Raider was an overhyped platformer that failed to deliver solid controls or a decent decent story and simply rode to stardom on the ample knockers of Lara. To each their own, I won't get after you about your opinion but stating that HL2 is repetitive is a ridiculous statement. It is a linear experience that can be played in different ways with a brilliant story that's executed almost flawlessly. The excitement from escaping the combine, the thrill of fighting a strider, the rush of running through the sand trying to avoid ant lions, the strategy of setting up turrets to fend off a combine attack, the joy of fighting off a gunship from a catwalk... some individual sections can be repetitive but they're few and far between and that's the nature of the FPS and HL2 sets the standard as far as level diversity goes. Even the "non-linear" Far Cry didn't throw such different scenarios at you. To feel that Tomb Raider is better is your opinion and you're welcome to it but to say TR is less repetitive is ludicrous. Shoot, shoot, shoot, jump, push something, repeat.
|
It's not a matter that I prefer one genre over the other. I loved the Halo series. Even though you were on a track, you had more open landscapes and the vehicle combat was phenomenal.
I own both of the Condemned games. Both of those are story driven, first person games. I also own both of the Vegas games and Conflict: Denied Ops.
Comparing Tomb Raider (a third person ADVENTURE/PUZZLE game), to Half Life 2 (a first person ADVENTURE/PUZZLE game), isn't far off at all. That's kind of like saying that Halo 3 and Gears Of War aren't both comparable because one is a third person game, and one is first. They are still, shooters.
The way Tomb Raider is less repetitive, is the way that it breaks up the action and the puzzle solving. (And in this, I mean that it isn't running, go around a corner, see your blocked, go back, shoot 3 guys in front of a switch, then go back. At least you had some segments that were just one or the other.) Not to mention the change in locations. I mean come on, I get sick of the first 2 hours of the game, staring at nothing but the inside of the airboat, and orange backgrounds with water that you can't jump into. At least in Tomb Raider, everywhere looked different.
Yes, Half Life 2, does have some interesting parts, and some very fun ones. But when you're running on foot, up and down hills, just to back track because you couldn't use your grav. gun in the same way you used it in the previous puzzle, now that's ludicrous.
Play through it again, or read the strategy guide on IGN. The whole game has a pattern. Especially the vehicle parts. And look at the survivor parts, you have to constantly battle off combine, area, after area, after area, as they die off. Solve one puzzle, get back to your path, and three more join you, to go and do the same thing, in a slightly different way.
Tomb Raider may be repetitive like every game, but it's not as drawn out. And it's not like you come to a dead end, turn around, go into a room, shoot 3 people, flip a switch (that you should be able to hit with your grav. gun), then go back. And that's what gets annoying with Half Life 2.
Honestly, the most adrenaline pumping part of The Orange Box for me, was when you are in the Antlion tunnels in Episode 2 and have to fend off the separate tunnels. Why that held my attention, I don't know. It's nothing more than a "defend the base", like all of the other "action sequences" in the game.
And just for the record, I never said Tomb Raider was better. I was using it as a comparison. Kind of like I did with BioShock, which you seemed to say nothing about.
Was Half Life 2 a good game? Yes.
Was it repetitive? Yes.
Did the enviroments change enough? No.
Would I play through it again? Maybe.