You should read your reviews before posting them - you often start a paragraph by stating something, then spend the remainder of the paragraph contradicting that statement. Example:

"The gameplay was mostly good" ... " The tasks are boring" ... "What action we do get in EFBB, you get limited with just a few different weapons, and probably less than ten enemies to use them on, all with rather poor AI"

Or above that "Comparing the graphics to other 2004 releases like Doom 3, it wasn't quite as flash" vs "Overall, however, the design and graphics definitely live up to 2004 standards".

What is it? Was it not as flash as other 2004 games, or did it indeed live up to those standards? Maybe my English isn't good enough, but I can't make out what you are trying to say with that review. 

haha i know dude i was contradicting myself a bit. what i meant was it wasn't as good as doom3, and maybe halflife2 and thief3. but it was better than everything other than those 3 i think (not that i played everything).

the reason why i do these reviews is actually so that in 10 years when i decide to play these games again, i'll know what to expect, so they tend to talk about all the negative stuff even when something is 'mostly good'.

oh and i can't be bothered proofreading it anyway 

Alright. Now we can discuss why you think that Doom 3 and Half Life 2 are in the same league - I'd say that HL2 > D3! 

please. 

Because graphics are the main criteria for judging games... 

 

yeah for me graphics are easily the most important thing. i find it weird how all these top reviewers like gamespot and ign never even mention "level design" and architecture and stuff like that. and all their screenshots never feature the actual level design - it's always some stupid action shot.

but anyway, i can't argue hl2 vs doom3 because i'm yet to play hl2. doom3 had great potential, the engine is a winner (i'm guessing better than hl2's engine), but ruined by the corridor style levels. in terms of detailing, doom3 had WAY more detail in it's design than Riddick did. and the lighting was better. i'm assuming in terms of level design that hl2 > d3, won't know for sure till i play it. 

Go and play HL2. 

 

HL2 Ep2 was pretty awesome, amd the best of the three parts IMO. Ep1 has some awesome bits, as does HL2. We dont go to Ravenholm.
Neither topped Half Life 1, just for epicness and the setting (the grand-canyon backdrop in HL1 really added to the feeling of scale, and immersion).
Whe is that Black Mesa mod coming out for HL2?
But no - I think that Doom3 was good for graphics, but the gameplay does suck compared to Half Life 2. 

saving it for the christmas break myself. 

Doom3's gameplay didn't suck, exactly. it only sucked because there was no variation in it.
it's not like the gameplay couldn't handle something like the grand canyon map from HL1, but that no one on the d3 team made one. :S 

Harcore shootin'! Like the original prequels in that respect. One of my favourite games.
But the Half Life series had a more involved story aimed at a more mature audience, more puzzle solving and exploration, much more varied gameplay on the whole. Better AI/combat too.

Two different things altogether really. Although they do have many parrallels. A bit like whiskey and beer :D 

And shandy, with a cool cube of advanced light ice floating in the shandy. 

Doom 3? Surely, you are joking? 

i wasn't sure if that was a joke or not. if it's not, then we didn't play the same doom3 :P 

yeah there wasn't enough variation in gameplay, but the biggest issue for me was the running speed. made the game way too fkn slow. any d3 mods i now play with it increased a bit. much more fun. although i've played them all now anyway. shamblers castle is a must play for d3!

actually i'm not saving up hl2 for xmas... i'll probably play it in a couple years, haha. once i've had a run of a few bad games and need something good, it'll be time for hl2. how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? 

Doom 3 was so frustrating for me.
So much untapped potential.
I hated those squid armed dudes, and there were like 2 cacodemons in the whole game.

also, the expansion pack was shit. 

And had no squid arms in the first.

The cacodemons were a joke though. Literally funny.

100% programmer game design; drunk on technology that nobody really gives a flying fuck about.

So much potential in that leaked beta . . . 

But the Half Life series had a more involved story aimed at a more mature audience

That's probably why there's scientist father figures and large breasted women with robot pets at the center of it. Serious drama, guys! 

If HL2 had more boobs I'd probably give in to Steam. After all my room moisture would go up several degrees so a little more steam would not hurt. 

Wait, exactly WHO in Halflife had big boobs? Because I certainly missed that character. 

I deleted a post because I thought it was the whisky talking.

I realise it's the whisky still talking now and I was just being a pussy:

Alyx' arse was nicer than her tits. 

You're talking about the traitor bitch in a white poloneck I felt like smacking with the crowbar even before I knew she was a traitor. 

That's probably why there's scientist father figures and large breasted women with robot pets at the center of it. Serious drama, guys!

Holy shit my dad is a scientist too, how unrealistic!

Also, good job on also picking on one of the least sexualised female characters in mainstream video games. That stupid Alyx and her big tits! So big they went all the way back round to being small.

I guess you never played Doom 3. This is the plot of Doom 3. Drink every time there's a cliche. Wait, actually, punch yourself in the balls.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x28pjq_doom-3-intro_videogames