Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Half-Life 2 Episode Two Stats Now Online

Posted by Zonk on Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:39 PM
from the i-died-there-and-there-and-twice-there dept.
PC Games (Games)
To go along with its recent hardware survey, Valve has released stats from Half-Life 2: Episode Two . The page notes the most common achievements, as well as the deadliest places in the game. Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog spells out a few of the results for us: "The median completion time hits at exactly five hours, with some noteworthy variance between four and seven hours. Average play session time logged was 27 minutes. The average number of deaths spikes significantly at two specific maps during the final two levels with an average of 11 deaths per section, as well; and looking at the topographical maps at some very specific locations on the maps as well. 73.1 percent of users playing were doing so with Direct X 9.0 SM3, and 72.6 percent played the game on medium."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Steam Survey Takes PC Gaming's Pulse 172 comments
Via Rock Paper Shotgun and Primotech, the latest in Valve's ongoing PC hardware survey via the Steam service. Some very interesting stuff in there, though probably nothing too surprising. From RPS's analysis: "Vista has shown a small increase in representation, but clearly nowhere near where Microsoft would have desperately hoped. Previously 7.99% of gamers were using the latest operating system. Now it's 16.91%, with a vast 81.13% sticking with XP. Rather confirming Valve's position on DX10, and what a massive waste of time it is developing for Vista only."
[+] Team Fortress 2 Stats Confirm Every Suspicion 110 comments
Valve has released another round of stats, this one concerning all that Team Fortress 2 playing we've been doing. They have things broken out along a couple of different metrics, including lifespan, kills, assists, captures, and even just damage dealt. As Rock, Paper, Shotgun's commentary notes, the stats confirm every suspicion you've had about your fellow players. "Yes, there are more rushy-bastard Scouts than any other class. Yes, campy-bastard Snipers earn the most points. Yes, hitpointy-bastard Heavies get the most kills. Yes, hidey-bastard Engineers live longest. And so on. What's slightly odder is the breakdown of which side wins most frequently on each map. BLU has the edge in every killing field except Dustbowl and Gravelpit. Why? How? I thought we were all the same! Damn you for not being neater, demographics." We previously discussed Valve's stats release on Half-Life 2: Episode 2 .
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Half-Life 2 Episode Two Stats Now Online 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I didn't read the stats yet but I can guess the deadliest place is when you have to defend the missle silo from the stikers (those huge walkers with a little body up top and two massive guns.
    • Actually the Striders are the 3 legged ones, Hunters are the 2 legged ones.
        • I didn't die there too much, but I did fail it several (5+) times (lucky I had a save, but it was still cutting it close). I couldn't figure out what was destroying my Magnusson devices. Of course it was those bloody Hunters. I had ditched the car at the beginning, and it was only when I listened to the commentary I found out you could run the Hunters over with it.

  • Vista adoption higher among gamers? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moderatorrater (1095745) on Monday November 19 2007, @12:46PM (#21409657)
    I'm assuming that the 73.1% using directx 9 means that 26.9% were using directx 10. If that's the case, doesn't this mean that vista adoption is higher among gamers, those who are usually more technically adept? IMHO, that's the most interesting tidbit right there.

    An alternate interpretation is that a large number of the computer playing HL2:2 were bought from a large retailer rather than built by the owner. I'm seeing a lot of potential with those statistics if combined with more information, like the rate of old OS reuse, etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by spyrochaete (707033)
      Another recent Steam survey showed that less than 15% of gamers use Vista. Source, the game engine used to build Half Life 2 and its episodes, scales down to DirectX 8 for lesser video cards. That's where the other 30% resides. Source does not support DirectX 10 effects.

      • Source does not support DirectX 10 effects.


        The commentary mentions that HL2 EP2 does use some of the features that are supposed to be limited to DirectX10 through some "back door" calls in DX9. I don't know enough about the architecture to know exactly what's going on, but it did sound like they use some of the DX10 features on the graphics cards, without requiring the DX10 API it (and thus Vista).
    • There are some Vista gamers out there, but not that many. Looking at some of the data, about 14% of the players were still using some variant of DX8.

      http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html [steampowered.com]

      Windows Version
      Windows XP 234,100 (84.45 %)
      Windows Vista 38,760 (13.98 % )
      Windows 2003 64 bit (2,544 0.92 %)
      Windows 2000 1,793 (0.65 %)
      Other 24 (0.01 %)
      • haha, I'm one of those 1793 people.

        That is until I hit a brick wall with 2000 on something called ATI Driver 8.43 and another something called Enemy Territory Quake Wars. You basically need the latest ATI drivers to play the game without getting immediate crash dialog.

        My solution was to install Fedora 8 on my spare Linux partition and use the Linux client. With some tinkering on the config file, I get pretty good performance out of the game. I had a brief experience installing XP on another partition which
      • Now I'm curious. What exactly are the other 24 people using?

    • I'm assuming that the 73.1% using directx 9 means that 26.9% were using directx 10.

      You forgot to count the people that still use DirectX 8 (I just checked the Steam Survey and was VERY surprised to see that they still list DirectX 7)

      From http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html [steampowered.com]:

      Cards which default to DirectX 8 Path on Source (31994 of 285082 Total Users (11.22% of Total) )

      Cards which default to DirectX 7 Path on Source (10073 of 285082 Total Users (3.53% of Total) )

      14.75% of steam users surveyed use e

    • Hell no.

      From their recent hardware survey:

      Windows Vista 14.06 %
      And

      DirectX10 Systems (Vista with DirectX10 GPU) - 7.36% of users
      • DirectX 10 doesn't make up any number in that graph, because Episode 2 doesn't use/cannot use DirectX 10. The Other category is probably DX7.
      • From your own link..

        DirectX10 Systems (Vista with DirectX10 GPU) - 7.14% of users
        • From the same link:

          Windows Vista 40,235 13.97 % ##############
          You only counted systems with a DirectX 10 GPU. Not all GPUs support DX10. Feel free to apologise.
          • My mistake, I got your post and the GGPs post [slashdot.org] mixed up..

            I'm assuming that the 73.1% using directx 9 means that 26.9% were using directx 10.

            Nope it's 7.14% not 26.9% GGP!

            You only counted systems with a DirectX 10 GPU.

            It's interesting the amount of people without a DX10 capable card that are running Vista. I wonder if these are new steam users that bought new machines and valve's orange box?

            • Potentially. To be honest, not a lot of cards (even new ones) actually support DirectX 10 APIs. Quite a few people are probably content with their 7600GTX (or equivalent ATi card) and those aren't DX10 based GPUs. You made the mistake of assuming that Vista automatically meant DX10 (which is understandable, but a bit hasty) while the GGGP made the mistake of assuming that (!DX9) == (DX10).
          • Hmm, back when I had an easily OCable CPU, I noted that a 50% increase in CPU speed was worth about a 20% increase in 3DMARK performance. Not terrible, but not worth the effort for me on future machines with CPUs that were less OCable.

            System ran at a 50% overclock for 4 years with no stability issues.

      • Valve doesn't bother supporting DirectX 10 because they can do everything it can using DirectX 9, although I understand that they have to use some card-specific extensions to do so. As for number of gamers playing Vista, I can say that no hard-core gamer will touch Vista because it lowers the framerate a couple of percentage points. (From say 60 to 58 - not a terrible amount, but enough.)

        I certainly don't know the exact definition of a hard-core gamer but I play quite a few games and have Vista. If you're talking about a hardcore-gamer card that can support DX10 you're talking about going from 120 fps to 116 fps so losing a couple percentage points isn't an issue.

        I rather like Vista actually. My computer is more stable than under XP and I rarely get the UAC stuff anymore now that I've had it for awhile.

  • primary sources (Score:3, Informative)

    by KatTran (122906) on Monday November 19 2007, @12:54PM (#21409767)
    When a submitter writes a sentence like "Valve releases game stats" then one would think that would point to the site where Valve actually released the game stats. A more accurate sentence would be "Arstechnica 'analyzes' Valve's released game stats".

    Or you could just link to the actual stats:
    http://steamgames.com/status/ep2/ep2_stats.php [steamgames.com]

  • ...they're tracking your gaming? And we're left to hope that they don't track much else? Does anyone else find something suspiciously wrong with this? Is there anyway to turn it off?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Borgschulze (842056)
      It's a "Survey" you simply don't participate when it asks you to.
    • Valve has done a lot of things that sound funny. But I have yet to see them do anything that was actually bad. I was aggravated by them at first with steam being DRM and all. But now I would rather get a game on steam then on a disk. Their idea of DRM is actually MANAGING digital rights instead of restricting them.
    • I'm having a hard time thinking of anything I do in a game as being "sensitive" information that I will be ruined if people see. Well, I don't think they logged all those times I tried to shoot Magneson in his big stupid face, so yeah, I'm safe. What in-game activity would you be afraid of Valve knowing about? Naughty sprays in CS?
      • It's the principle of the matter. I don't recall ever being warned that my activity will be monitored while I play a single player, offline game.

  • Players not finishing the game (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ACS Solver (1068112) on Monday November 19 2007, @01:42PM (#21410465)
    Here's an interesting bit from the achievement stats. Apparently many players didn't actually finish the game. There are numerous achievements that you will get if you get to a certain point in the game. Let's see:

    Acid Reflex: 81%. While you *may*, I believe, get through those levels without killing an acid antlion, it's extremely difficult. With 19% of players not getting this achievement, I'd bet that's at least 17% that never got far enough, and that's close to the beginning of the game.

    Twofer: 63%, and you'll get this achievement when you progress far enough. Ditto for "Meet the Hunters", 61% - here it looks like a third of players didn't make it this far.

    Gunishment and Quiet Mountain Getaway, 59% and 58%. Looks like those who make it past the first third or so of the game mostly continue to go forward. You can complete the game without getting Gunishment but it's tricky and is a glitch.

    Finally: Defense of the Armament, at 48%. You get the achievement for winning the game's last (and truly spectacular) battle. So it'd seem like half the players who started the game didn't finish it, interesting.
    • or are like me, and just haven't had time to get that far yet. I'm only at the acid part right now. I have limited gaming time, and TF2 is taking most of it up :)
      • Ditto. Like many people I bought the Orange Box, so I started Episode 2, but then got distracted by Portal and TF2, and then the free Sam and Max episode that was available on Steam... I'll get around to finishing Episode 2 sometime in the next few months :).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chyeld (713439)
      I haven't yet finished the game (last night I quit after sampling the final battle), however I do know from playing around with Portal that you STOP receiving Achievements if you turn cheat mode on.

      In Portal I got to a certain section where I had to use consecutive portals to get somewhere and just couldn't get my gun to aim well enough to get the next portal laid down before I would fall. Although I completed the game by switching on noclip for that short section and then turning the cheats back off, I sto
    • I haven't finished it yet and I can't see how anyone could enjoy it in 5 hours. I tend to spread my play of these sorts of games over a few months. I still haven't finished Ep 1 but decided to get Ep 2 anyway :) On Chapter 2 or 3 now and I must have put in at least 5 hours. Got quite a few achievements though!

  • Why I didn't finish (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cbc1920 (730236) on Monday November 19 2007, @02:22PM (#21411101)
    It's obvious to me why not many have finished this game- the orange box! The first game I played when I got it was Portal, then I played an hour or so of Episode 2. I'm more likely to revisit Portal for the challenge levels then slog through the second two thirds of Episode 2, though I'll probably get around to it in the next few months.

    What really sealed the deal against finishing the game was TF2. Every time I think about finishing Episode 2, I think of how much more fun it would be to play a few rounds of TF2 instead. Even though there are only a few maps, the team-based play never gets old. I would really like to see a stat of hours of TF2 played vs. Episode 2, for those players that have both installed.
    • I was almost in that boat. I immediately played Portal and beat it within three hours of getting home with my purchase. Then I played around in all the bonus maps and commentary. I still haven't unlocked everything yet but I'll get around to it. Some of them are hard...

      Then I went to Episode 2. I really wanted to play TF2 but I knew if I did, I would likely never get around to Episode 2. So I beat EP2 and got all the achievements except for two (because I played when the servers were down and they weren'
      • Without voice chat I feel like it's a lot harder to be helpful, especially with spies and locations of things

        Meh, in the old days of TF on the Quake engine, we just set up lots of keyboard macros with various canned phrases ("incoming", etc), which take care of most of the common situations (I assume this is possible in TF2... I haven't gotten into it deeply enough to check). Other than that, just type quickly. :) TBH, I never play with voice chat, and for larger games, I can't imagine it being worthwhile
      • Why not try a desktop mic, and use in ear headphones?

  • I love the death map of the first level [steampowered.com] (red spot at the bottom right): all those people jumping off the cliff like lemmings

    And this one [steampowered.com] (green spot at the bottom left, where Dog fights the Strider): "Oooh, robot fight! Let's watch... uhoh! *squish*"

    And last [steampowered.com] (greenish blue at the top, where the rocket takes off): it seems that several people wanted to become astronauts, they even went through walls just to get on that rocket ("Wait for meeeee...!")

    • Episode 1 and 2 are so short because they are exactly that...episodes. Valve said (can't recall a link to the interview, I'm sure someone will chime in with it) they considered episodes 1 2 and 3 to be the equivelent of half-life 3...just released in three parts.

      Assume it takes between 12-15 hours for Half Life 2...now look at the episodes. So far we have 3-4 hours for Episode 1, 4-7 hours for episode 2...assuming the short end of both of those, episode 1 and 2 combined are already gaining on the length o
      • >>Out of curiosity, why didn't HL2 do anything for you? Did you not play the first game/not play to the end?

        HL2 was just a giant Havok physics puzzle.

        I'm actually curious what they worked on in the game for the four years before they licensed the Havok engine.
        • ::shrug:: To me, 12-15 hours for a shooter is just right...especially when you have no form of progression (i.e. your character doesn't get stronger and you cannot modify your weapons (excluding the short stint with the overpowered gravity gun towards the end))

          Anything longer than 15 hours while playing a static character is too long, I think.
          • IMHO, you're spot on. It's very easy to drag a game out (and HL2 definitely has some of those moments... the vehicle sequences, for example, are much too long, if you ask me). Proper pacing is an artform, and I would rather a shorter, more evenly paced game, than a piece that's clearly been stretched to meet gamer's playtime expectations.
        • why do they need humanoid sized enemys anyway when they can destroy everything with a big monster?

          Excellent point! Why do we need foot soldiers and tanks when we have nukes and bombers?

          Yes, I'm being sarcastic but if you put it into the frame of your question it makes sense.

        • To take 3 times the price for it?

          I'm sure that had something to do with it, but the primary reason they gave was so that people didn't have to wait as long to continue the story line...might be bullshit, but it still makes sense. Besides, episodes 1 and 2 have some great experiences in them, as well as good plot development.

          As far as your last reasons...they would need humanoid sized soldiers so that they can direct individual humans on a person-by-person basis. A strider would hardly be good at giving

          • To take 3 times the price for it?

            I'm sure that had something to do with it, but the primary reason...

            I'm pretty sure profit is the primary reason. It almost always is. Any additional benefits would be secondary.

            Valve is a for-profit company. If they did anything else, they would be failing in their mission.
            • I would disagree with that. It is quite obvious when you play a game in the half-life universe that a LOT of time and effort went into it...take a step back and just look at the level designs used throughout the entire series...they are spectacular.

              Yes, their goal is to make money...but it's not their only goal. It is important to them to put out a quality product, and they have yet to dissapoint (Steam...well, I'll leave that to personal experience. People have as differing a view on Steam as people hav
        • I played Half-Life 1 and 2 pretty much back-to-back. Half-Life 1 had the best storytelling I've ever seen in a game, but I found Half-Life 2 to be a bit of a disappointment after the first.

          I liked the schmuck-in-a-suit aspect of the first one. He's just a nerd with a cool suit and a crowbar, trying to survive. In the second your character takes on all this heroic importance, just like any other game, and the crowbar takes a backseat to more exotic devices like a gravity gun (an awesome weapon from a gamin

    • You know the episodes are cheaper than the full game, right?
      • Yeah but not by much. That seems to be why they released the Orange box with everything in it and not just Ep2 by it self.
    • Heh, I used to use a 6800 with a 3800+. Replaced it with a 7950 and it was a huge, huge step up in performance. I also replaced my CPU with a dual core 4800+, which helped a fair amount, too, especially with background activity going on.

      Get an NVIDIA 7950 ($160 on Newegg) or a 8600GTS ($149 for a 256MB / $179 for a 512MB). Even though the 7950 is actually faster on a lot of games, I'd go with the 8600GTS -- it's a very fast card for the price, and runs DX10. It also has a higher nominal 3DMARK score than th

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.