Egregoros

@wizardmanperson @WandererUber You guys probably should be talking to an old fag about this because a lot of nostalgia pieces are garbage. That said, that entire year was absurd. I was at the store buying a game every other paycheck.

HL2 was the first game to have proper physics for most everything in the environment. Valve did an incredibly good job making the Source engine and the gravity gun was fun as hell. The level design never took the controls away but they knew how to get you looking at the action at the right time. The puzzles felt logically in place and weren't just some bullshit slapped in your way.

Also Far Cry was pretty, but that's all it really had going for it. It wasn't until Far Cry 2 that the series got its legs.

@badneighbor @wizardmanperson >unc already got a paychecks in 2004
looks like I found an oldhead to talk to!

>HL2 was the first game to have proper physics for most everything in the environment.
Far Cry and Painkiller came out in the same year. Valve licensed Havok. I don't understand why this is so special. Everyone and their mother did it. Not being sarcastic.

>Far Cry 2
You lost me. The successor was obviously Crysis and that game was so much better than Far Cry 2 it's not even funny

@WandererUber @wizardmanperson The objects in HL2 had weight, momentum, and buoyancy that the player interacted with. Until then it was just visual. A couple examples, the puzzle that has you moving floating barrels under a ramp to lift it up was something no one had been able to pull off until then. Carrying an object like a lawn gnome with you for (nearly) the entire game wasn't possible in any other game at the time.

I'd have to replay Far Cry, but I don't remember ever interacting with the physics in the environment. I mostly remember the fight with the helicopter. I don't think I've played Painkiller.

Everyone wanted to say Crysis was the spiritual sequel to Far Cry and reviews said it was gorgeous, but *no one* had a PC capable of running it. It was a running gag on review sites because none of the consumer level hardware could run it. Far Cry 2 had realistic fire and ran on an affordable PC.

@badneighbor @wizardmanperson I didn't much care for FC2 to be honest. Played a bit of the campaign, made a few levels, but it never took off in my circles the same way Crysis did.
>but *no one* had a PC capable of running it.
I did. Didn't run graphicsmaxxed for the first few years, yet I played. For quite a while. So did many others. It sold 3 million copies.
I don't imagine "crysis had high system requirements" is much news to anyone. My point was only that Far Cry 2 started basically a distinct new thing.

But back to my original question, about half-life 2
>physics
Well, they DID use the Havok physics engine which implemented all those features, and Painkiller specifically also had a gadget gun, the stake launcher and a gravity mechanic. Didn't play that much I don't think, the point was more so that many titles at the time had the new shiny.
>puzzles felt naturally in place
I distinctly remember thinking that some of them in the sewers were total bs. I would agree that interacting with proper environmental objects feels more natural than some contrivance like a minigame.

For me personally, physics puzzles and debatably realistic fire are more or less gimmicks.
I think that and the way you describe them putting set pieces in and having you look there are both very good indicators that I'm right about Half-Life 2 being a kind of precursor to modern AAA practices following its release, which were rightfully hated.