It is extremely refreshing to see a game get some serious academic attention, particularly comparisons with literary works. The fact that you identified such a correlation between Yeates' lines and Half Life 2 is quite impressive. There is probably a story in that discovery itself.
Jules Grant's letter to the editor in response to this work was unnecessarily derisive of your work. He did not understand the possibility for any number of readings in something as blank page as a video game plot.
Further, there appears to be a misunderstanding in this thread of what you meant by a "preacher". A messiah, an icon, a saviour rather than a priest; that was the context you were speaking of, with Freeman acknowledged as exactly that. Even the Vortigaunts bow to him, because he's already saved the world once, and he (albeit unknowingly) freed their entire race.
There is a reason why we're not allowed to kill innocents in Half Life 2 - because you're meant to be a hero. As others pointed out, the game is not Fallout. It has an intent. It has a meaning. It has a purpose. Hell, it has a plot, complete with complications, series of events, the climax and inevitable conclusion. There is little freedom for "the free man" until he completes the contract, which functions (with or without Valve's intent) to illustrate the irony that in being a hero and defying authority, you have to pay the price and lead the people into the center of Hell itself.
I think I should point this out for some who are objecting to the article, as well:
Literary or developer intent does not define the meaning in the plot. If you wrote a story about a totalitarian dictator who eventually commits suicide whilst living in Nazi Germany, but you didn't know about Hitler or anything about real world politics, people would still be justified in comparing that dictator to the real tyrant. If there is no intent in something, then people may read it as they please, and they will, and that will change the meaning. The artist's absolute power over meaning ends the moment the work is published or modified. That's simultaneously a wonderful and terrible thing, but objective meanings aren't that important when it comes to fiction. It's fun and a learning experience to read deeply into things using all the knowledge at your hands. If your assertions confirmed by the work's creator, then that's nice, but the fun is in the pursuit; the point arrived does not have to be an absolute.
So I say, thanks again to you Mr Rhodes. Your insight has deepened our understanding, and for me personally, the next time I play the game, everything will be richer for reading this piece.
EDIT: Hmm, this article was ancient, yet I got to it from the main page. My apologies for the thread resurrection.
