.. makes no sense to me. OK one is so far better in gameplay, situations, etc... but come on, both have different engines performances, different texture set, etc... and have been released at different time, with many years of difference.
It is like comparing Doom and Doom3, or Commando with Quake.... and for this you can only have a personnal taste..
Game comparison makes sense when you are comparing games that have been released let's say the same year, and having more or less the same technology (e.g Doom3 s HL2, etc...): Let's try to compare apple to apple ;) 

I disagree, there's no reason not to compare games that weren't released in the same time frame, the gameplay has evolved, but not so much that you can't compare it.

I agree with rj about HL1, it's a great game, but there are really alot of instant death situations that are pretty annoying, they fixed that nicely in HL2.

Can't wait for EP3, want to see the Aperture Science tie in, and maybe eat some cake. 

It is like comparing Doom and Doom3, or Commando with Quake.... and for this you can only have a personnal taste..

i didn't imply anything else :)


it all boils down to personal taste at the end of things. 

Well, I'm just saying that I don't see the point in comparing a game that uis 10 years old with a nowaday game... not the same technology, not the same performances, not the same visual... so for me difficult to say yes, X was better than Y... when there is 10 years between each release... It is not the case for HL1 / 2 but, anyway, I guess it is more clear now ;) 

measure of fun ;)

i'm not looking at each game objectively here, just saying one was more fun to play than the other. 

We aren't really talking about tech/performances/visuals, we are talking about pure gameplay, and that to me is always comparable.
It's important that we do compare games, because new games don't always have better gameplay. 

because new games don't always have better gameplay.

Exactly, and in fact in recent years this is especially true because people keep over-complicating things and trying to pack too much into one game.

Reminiscing about (and re-playing) classic games isn't just for the sake of nostalgia. I think to some extent people like myself are yearning for the simplicity and purity of the game mechanics found in those older titles. 

I agree with you, kinda...

In a way I think the fact I like HL1 really god IS due to nostalgia! I just think that HL1 reminds me of when I started really getting into shooters! I remember playing Quake2 on my P133/16Mb, and being pissed off cause the coloured light's wouldn't work because I had nee 3DFX card. Then playing HL1 - first off it was the first game with a software coloured lighting renderer! (and one of the last)
And second - I think the most classic moments of my gaming career came from that game! The intro sequence, "we've got hostiles", and all of the stuff with the big aliens in the desert towards the end. AND the part's with the "assassins" - soo atmospheric with the footsteps and glowing eyes! And also I seem to recall HL1 having more play time that its sequels - the game is a truie epic!

But I also agree - there were plenty insta-death moments - like Distrans's last map!
I remember many occasions where I would be quick saving with 5% health, to try and take out 3 soldiers with a pistol and 4 shotgun shells...

But hey - like you say - it is down to personal taste, and nostalgia! In short I love all the HL games, and I'm really looking forwards to EP3!!! :D 

Is what HL wanted to be, but wasn't. 

Is Quake 1.5 

the HL engine maybe... 

Yeah. 

like HL2 and Doom3 before the cds turn to dust :)

But KoToR has taken up most of my last few weekends. I only this game had real time combat, it would be almost perfect (actually and skippable cutscenes). 

you might like Mass Effect then. 

I find more Lovecraftian themes in HL1 than in Quake2 - Colour out of Space, Walls of Xyrix.

The tenticles are a very Lovecraft creature, and the Alien Grunt factory had a strong similar theme. 

And yeah, quake's take on lovecraft is ... highly interpretive. Pretty much some borrowed names and maybe a creature description or two, loosely followed. The Cthulu mythos wasn't really on anyone's mind, except Petersen who probably exerted that influence with the occasional "oh hey what about". Given quake's chaotic development, there was probably plenty of room for influence like that.

Quake is no more lovecraft than doom, but the important influences in both cases are more atmospheric/characteristic than literal. 

Q2 isn't the sequel to Q1 - basically. 

Quake was just the military code name for Shub's evil other-wordly hordes, why couldn't the same military, having vanquished Shubby, use that code name for the next earth-menace, the Strogg? 

Because that's a fairly large reach.

Quake2 had nothing to do with Quake1, whatsoever. 

 

vs Ron Perlman 

nuff said. 

excellent game, one thing star wars always has had is a well realised world and this exploits that fairly well. I could have done with less cutscenes and also less story/dialogue but ovrall its was very enjoyable. Even the turn based combat became tolerable :) 

and finished about half of it in one sitting I think. Definitely has flawed and repetitive gameplay but I still think it's great fun. So much atmosphere and so much polish, its pretty involving stuff so far (finished alpha labs and up to endor area). 

but on the PC version I couldn't get past the gatekeeper. Completed it on the xbox a couple of years earlier.... (?!)