Originally posted by: Gurck
I had more fun playing, and was more impressed by the graphics in, Far Cry. Was also cool to be so pleasantly surprised by the title, vs. waiting, being lied to, waiting some more, fielding more BS, waiting, etc. for HL2. I don't care for playing against people (actually don't care for multiplayer in FPSs in general, as a lot of young'uns tend to play), so that part of the HL2 appeal doesn't pertain to me.
I think that HL2 was a better game all-round than farcry and D3. There's an
interesting article interviewing Gabe Newell that will inform you of the reasons behind the delays. They really were trying to push the game out on the said dates but as with any software development there were pushbacks. They weren't just sitting around "lying" to the world for no particular reason...
It was a massive job and there were many delays for various reasons including them being hacked and their code being stolen, etc. Because it was such a high profile game the spotlight never came off them and every little delay was reported throughout the net.
To the uninformed it may seem that the farcry game is technically more impressive than that of HL2, probably because of the large landscape maps and pretty trees, etc. This isn't the case, however. Take a look at the models within farcry and you'll see that they aren't even close to being as detailed as those in HL2. To demonstrate this, check out the model editor bundled with HL": you'll see just in how many ways the faces of models can move. It's quite incredible. The models and the textures within FC are of a lower standard to HL2.
The physics engine is also much better in HL2. Check out when you drop a cutting disk on an angled floor: the way it rolls and falls perfectly when it slows down enough such that it can't remain upright. There are some ragdoll effects and a pretty good physics engine in FC but it's limited and not flaunted nearly so well.
Lighting effects are also better in HL2. Go underwater and look skywards in both games and you'll see an example of why. Also check out shadows in the presence of moving lights.
Further, a game is little without a decent storyline. I found the story a little weak in FC; killer monkeys as enemies was pretty damned lame IMO too. HL2 flows a lot better and the variation is great. The use of the physics engine to overcome obstacles was supreme.
The audio features in HL2 were also amazing. The chatter of the enemy soldiers was great, although I do like the threats of the enemies in FC "I'm gonna shoot you in the face!", etc. I liked the female voice within the city... The sounds of the weapons (and whilst I'm at it, the design of them) was perfect.
Finally, the AI of the enemies and your buddies within HL2 is awesome. The enemies in FC can be fooled far too easily, probably because of the style of hiding out and waiting for them to lose interest in the noise you just made, etc.
Farcry is a fantastic game but I really don?t think it is as good both technically or in terms of gameplay as Half Life 2. Put it this way, towards the end of farcry I was feeling very frustrated that it hadn?t come to an end and seemed to be dragging along. When I finished Half life 2 I came out feeling awestruck over the whole game and wanted to see more from that fantastic engine (although I did feel the very end stage was a bit cheesy and too much like the original: jumping on moving blocks, etc).
Cliffs: Both good, Half Life 2 better.
I think I spent the majority of the time in the Delta Labs. Everything else seemed to move by pretty quickly. D3 was decent but I don't care for gameplay set in such dark environments. I think that one reason Far Cry appealed to me so much was the bright/colorful scenery. D3 was on the opposite end of the spectrum from that. 
Facebook
Twitter