I've gotten much much further through the game.
I have the same opinion: the game is very boring.
I am giving this game a good-faith effort to understand and appreciate it. If I'm missing information then Valve did a shitty job with their presentation. You can say I'm not playing the game right all day long - what I'm encountering is just a plain lack of information. I am stopping to listen to all of Breen's propaganda, I do focus when Alyx or Barney say something, I even picked up the Hedy "Hedley" Lamaar joke from Blazing Saddles.
And I'm not asking for anyone to dump a wiki into my lap - I'm asking questions about the game straight up. The story has holes because the writers didn't fill them. You ever put your hand into a cookie jar and was surprised to see you're out of cookies? Half Life 2 is like that; we're all reaching, looking for something that isn't there. But because of all the hype surrounding the game - there must be something and we just "missed it." We weren't "paying attention."
*** *** *** *** *** ***
I get it, there's a story in place and Gordon Freeman doesn't have all the information, I get it.
It doesn't work. It really doesn't work when there are people there, who are your friends, who help you, and you help them, and they still don't fucking tell you. Why all the suspense? Wouldn't it be pertinent to need to know what happened that a government can get away with naming a city after a number? Doesn't that seem like a detail that you'd push people into answering? Not even giving these basic details is plain sloppy.
The problem is that there are gameplay elements that directly sabotage storytelling:
[ul][li]A protagonist that only does one-way communication.[/li]
[li]Gameplay that proceeds in real-time, at all times.[/li]
[li]The desire of the writers to not give the player any detail, no matter how minute.[/li][/ul]
Think about each of these in turn. If you were telling a story, about a great warrior who'd returned to the world from a long disappearance and save the day, how much would it hamstring what you could do if that great warrior could only receive instructions and comply?
Gordon can't acknowledge, disagree, ask questions, or even give the Combine the finger. He is incapable of communicating on the most fundamental level - if you had to work with Freeman at your job it'd be the most frustrating experience of your life. Freeman couldn't tell you what the customer's problem is, who's on the phone, and he couldn't answer your question about what this meeting is all about. And this was a gameplay decision that the writers had to accommodate.
The second bit, the gameplay proceeding in real-time. Again, think about this from a writer's perspective: everything that happens, the sequence of events, must be occurring rapid-fire. There's never a lull in the action, never any downtime. If this were an RPG, then there'd never be an opportunity to check your inventory or look at your map. Just when Alyx explains the Gravity Gun to you, damnit the Combine attacks and you have to flee. You spent the previous two hours of gameplay alone, and get ready to spend two more hours of gameplay, alone. The writer's can't write a conversation where Gordon gets his questions answered because of the frantic pacing - because the game doesn't allow Gordon to slow down and have a glass of water!
Every time a conversation starts, I know an ambush is right around the corner, because the player watching lips move is boring. Fans cheer Half Life 2 for the story and how "smart" it is, but a study of the pacing reveals how shallow it all is. The characters all have motor-mouth and always have something going. And this is because the game designers created a freight-train that can't be stopped. So the writers have to always have something happening.
There's the bit about losing a week in the teleportation out of the Combine prison; the game needed that break so the story could progress. Because as it is, the story progresses in real-time with Gordon's actions. Revolutions don't happen overnight, the game knows this, so it needed to contrive some bullshit explanation for why shit is suddenly now getting down. If the game didn't pull shenanigans like that, then literally all of the Combine, hundreds if not thousands of soldiers, would be killed by a middle-aged geek inside of a weekend. I figure it takes between 20-36 hours for full completion? Alright.
So I'm seeing the frantic pace and awkward timing of in-game events, and it doesn't work. I played the first Half Life, so I know it's a retreading of familiar ground. I stand behind my initial judgement that the conventions that worked in that game just don't work here. A scientist fighting to survive can't be transplanted into space-marine fighting a civil war. You've got the suit of armor, inexplicable military training, and you can mow down enemies by the dozens: Gordon Freeman is a space-marine. Any difference between him, the Doom guy, and the Master Chief in a gameplay sense is cosmetic.
Lastly, the writers gave the player an incomplete story, and then by virtue of the specific gameplay features of Half Life 2, what story exists had to be divided between hours and hours of filler. I can easily go 90 minutes of mindless shooting and puzzle-solving with nothing momentous happening in the story. Mindless shooting and puzzle solving. I've struggled more with the platforming than I have with the puzzles. This gameplay is mindless.
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
I'm not judging this game based on anything outside of it. I'm taking what the game gives me and applying consistency and logic to it's rules. If the game broaches a topic, then I'd like to see the game explore that idea and then conclude it. The Gravity Gun, for example, has tons of uses in the gameplay. You couldn't complete the game without it.
But it's just a toy, and the uses for it are contrived to accommodate it. A few years back, I had the chance to interview some EA developers, specifically the guys who made Medal of Honor: Airborne. That game featured non-linear progression. When you spawned, you were parachuting into the zone and could land anywhere, and you could complete the objectives in whatever order you wanted.
It was a technology breakthrough that allowed them to make a game where the player could basically spawn wherever they wanted on the map. It meant new level-design and new enemy AI that could respond to attacks from multiple directions. And so they made a game that took advantage of these two new things. They started with the tech, and then made up a story that fit.
I imagine a similar event happened at Valve in the creation of Half Life 2. The dev's came up with the tech to have bits like the Gravity Gun and the Portal Gun and then they ran with it. They built the game around this gameplay, and then put the story in after-the-fact. This game didn't have to be Half Life 2; this could have been any shooter with unique, gimmiky weapons. The world is post-apocalyptic, the weapons are exotic and occassionally improvised, and there are anachronistic technologies in play. This game could have been next in the Fallout franchise. There's nothing intrinsically Half Life about it, except that it features Gordon Freeman and the GMan, and those are easily modifiable features.
Especially, given how much filler there is in Half Life 2 - just running around in a linear path, shooting bad guys and moving forward... the story passes so slowly, and always only after clearing no less than 20 rooms of nondescript bad guys... ugh. This game isn't terrible. Maybe the DLCs will be better.
Just like how it's unpopular to criticize Bioware, I'm seeing here that it's unpopular to criticize this game too. Yes, I purchased Half Life 2 based on how good I heard it was. What a crime! Having played it, I've basically concluded that the game is pretty, the weapons are interesting, but it is very very boring. I have no emotional investment in it, I'm basically going through the motions.
Why don't I have an emotional investment? Maybe it's because the protagonist is a mute, the setting isn't explained, and 10 hours in, I've murdered over a hundred people and I'm not even certain if Gordon knows what he's doing. What a surprise that playing a complete stooge to the NPCs would be so boring!
And I'm receiving my own criticisms, that I'm not paying attention or the hype is blinding me. Or maybe it's a mediocre game that happens to have one or two outstanding features that overshadow it's flaws. Just because 7 years has passed doesn't mean the quality of the game has diminished. Citizen Kane is a 70 year old movie - has the improvement in film technology cast a dark shadow over that film? Have you seen that movie? Don't let the hype scare you - it is legitimately a great film. Time and hype will not dull a great piece of entertainment.
It's like what I said in my Red Riding Hood review: reviews, hype, criticisms, all that gets thrown out the window once you sit down and play. If the game is impressive, then it'll impress you. If the game is boring, then it'll bore you. That's the bottom line. How much is Half Life's acclaim resting in it's then-revolutionary graphics? If that's the case, then maybe now's the perfect time to really scrutinize the game, once the players have had the light taken off their eyes.
And the improvements in graphics, ai, and game physics aren't what's holding back Half Life 2. I outlined the problems with the game. Because of it's gameplay, the story and pacing are handicapped.
I have the same opinion: the game is very boring.
I am giving this game a good-faith effort to understand and appreciate it. If I'm missing information then Valve did a shitty job with their presentation. You can say I'm not playing the game right all day long - what I'm encountering is just a plain lack of information. I am stopping to listen to all of Breen's propaganda, I do focus when Alyx or Barney say something, I even picked up the Hedy "Hedley" Lamaar joke from Blazing Saddles.
And I'm not asking for anyone to dump a wiki into my lap - I'm asking questions about the game straight up. The story has holes because the writers didn't fill them. You ever put your hand into a cookie jar and was surprised to see you're out of cookies? Half Life 2 is like that; we're all reaching, looking for something that isn't there. But because of all the hype surrounding the game - there must be something and we just "missed it." We weren't "paying attention."
*** *** *** *** *** ***
I get it, there's a story in place and Gordon Freeman doesn't have all the information, I get it.
It doesn't work. It really doesn't work when there are people there, who are your friends, who help you, and you help them, and they still don't fucking tell you. Why all the suspense? Wouldn't it be pertinent to need to know what happened that a government can get away with naming a city after a number? Doesn't that seem like a detail that you'd push people into answering? Not even giving these basic details is plain sloppy.
The problem is that there are gameplay elements that directly sabotage storytelling:
[ul][li]A protagonist that only does one-way communication.[/li]
[li]Gameplay that proceeds in real-time, at all times.[/li]
[li]The desire of the writers to not give the player any detail, no matter how minute.[/li][/ul]
Think about each of these in turn. If you were telling a story, about a great warrior who'd returned to the world from a long disappearance and save the day, how much would it hamstring what you could do if that great warrior could only receive instructions and comply?
Gordon can't acknowledge, disagree, ask questions, or even give the Combine the finger. He is incapable of communicating on the most fundamental level - if you had to work with Freeman at your job it'd be the most frustrating experience of your life. Freeman couldn't tell you what the customer's problem is, who's on the phone, and he couldn't answer your question about what this meeting is all about. And this was a gameplay decision that the writers had to accommodate.
The second bit, the gameplay proceeding in real-time. Again, think about this from a writer's perspective: everything that happens, the sequence of events, must be occurring rapid-fire. There's never a lull in the action, never any downtime. If this were an RPG, then there'd never be an opportunity to check your inventory or look at your map. Just when Alyx explains the Gravity Gun to you, damnit the Combine attacks and you have to flee. You spent the previous two hours of gameplay alone, and get ready to spend two more hours of gameplay, alone. The writer's can't write a conversation where Gordon gets his questions answered because of the frantic pacing - because the game doesn't allow Gordon to slow down and have a glass of water!
Every time a conversation starts, I know an ambush is right around the corner, because the player watching lips move is boring. Fans cheer Half Life 2 for the story and how "smart" it is, but a study of the pacing reveals how shallow it all is. The characters all have motor-mouth and always have something going. And this is because the game designers created a freight-train that can't be stopped. So the writers have to always have something happening.
There's the bit about losing a week in the teleportation out of the Combine prison; the game needed that break so the story could progress. Because as it is, the story progresses in real-time with Gordon's actions. Revolutions don't happen overnight, the game knows this, so it needed to contrive some bullshit explanation for why shit is suddenly now getting down. If the game didn't pull shenanigans like that, then literally all of the Combine, hundreds if not thousands of soldiers, would be killed by a middle-aged geek inside of a weekend. I figure it takes between 20-36 hours for full completion? Alright.
So I'm seeing the frantic pace and awkward timing of in-game events, and it doesn't work. I played the first Half Life, so I know it's a retreading of familiar ground. I stand behind my initial judgement that the conventions that worked in that game just don't work here. A scientist fighting to survive can't be transplanted into space-marine fighting a civil war. You've got the suit of armor, inexplicable military training, and you can mow down enemies by the dozens: Gordon Freeman is a space-marine. Any difference between him, the Doom guy, and the Master Chief in a gameplay sense is cosmetic.
Lastly, the writers gave the player an incomplete story, and then by virtue of the specific gameplay features of Half Life 2, what story exists had to be divided between hours and hours of filler. I can easily go 90 minutes of mindless shooting and puzzle-solving with nothing momentous happening in the story. Mindless shooting and puzzle solving. I've struggled more with the platforming than I have with the puzzles. This gameplay is mindless.
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
I'm not judging this game based on anything outside of it. I'm taking what the game gives me and applying consistency and logic to it's rules. If the game broaches a topic, then I'd like to see the game explore that idea and then conclude it. The Gravity Gun, for example, has tons of uses in the gameplay. You couldn't complete the game without it.
But it's just a toy, and the uses for it are contrived to accommodate it. A few years back, I had the chance to interview some EA developers, specifically the guys who made Medal of Honor: Airborne. That game featured non-linear progression. When you spawned, you were parachuting into the zone and could land anywhere, and you could complete the objectives in whatever order you wanted.
It was a technology breakthrough that allowed them to make a game where the player could basically spawn wherever they wanted on the map. It meant new level-design and new enemy AI that could respond to attacks from multiple directions. And so they made a game that took advantage of these two new things. They started with the tech, and then made up a story that fit.
I imagine a similar event happened at Valve in the creation of Half Life 2. The dev's came up with the tech to have bits like the Gravity Gun and the Portal Gun and then they ran with it. They built the game around this gameplay, and then put the story in after-the-fact. This game didn't have to be Half Life 2; this could have been any shooter with unique, gimmiky weapons. The world is post-apocalyptic, the weapons are exotic and occassionally improvised, and there are anachronistic technologies in play. This game could have been next in the Fallout franchise. There's nothing intrinsically Half Life about it, except that it features Gordon Freeman and the GMan, and those are easily modifiable features.
Especially, given how much filler there is in Half Life 2 - just running around in a linear path, shooting bad guys and moving forward... the story passes so slowly, and always only after clearing no less than 20 rooms of nondescript bad guys... ugh. This game isn't terrible. Maybe the DLCs will be better.
I disagree completely, and this is a lame retarded cop-out when someone takes their fan-boy blinders off.ZeZZZZevy said:playing a game with the expectation that it's going to be a masterpiece (no matter what game you're playing) will leave you disappointed every single time. Play a game because you want to play it, not because you feel you should. Don't forget, games are supposed to be fun, taking the fun out of the game will make it feel boring.
Just like how it's unpopular to criticize Bioware, I'm seeing here that it's unpopular to criticize this game too. Yes, I purchased Half Life 2 based on how good I heard it was. What a crime! Having played it, I've basically concluded that the game is pretty, the weapons are interesting, but it is very very boring. I have no emotional investment in it, I'm basically going through the motions.
Why don't I have an emotional investment? Maybe it's because the protagonist is a mute, the setting isn't explained, and 10 hours in, I've murdered over a hundred people and I'm not even certain if Gordon knows what he's doing. What a surprise that playing a complete stooge to the NPCs would be so boring!
And I'm receiving my own criticisms, that I'm not paying attention or the hype is blinding me. Or maybe it's a mediocre game that happens to have one or two outstanding features that overshadow it's flaws. Just because 7 years has passed doesn't mean the quality of the game has diminished. Citizen Kane is a 70 year old movie - has the improvement in film technology cast a dark shadow over that film? Have you seen that movie? Don't let the hype scare you - it is legitimately a great film. Time and hype will not dull a great piece of entertainment.
It's like what I said in my Red Riding Hood review: reviews, hype, criticisms, all that gets thrown out the window once you sit down and play. If the game is impressive, then it'll impress you. If the game is boring, then it'll bore you. That's the bottom line. How much is Half Life's acclaim resting in it's then-revolutionary graphics? If that's the case, then maybe now's the perfect time to really scrutinize the game, once the players have had the light taken off their eyes.
And the improvements in graphics, ai, and game physics aren't what's holding back Half Life 2. I outlined the problems with the game. Because of it's gameplay, the story and pacing are handicapped.