That Was Half-Life 2?

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Also that wall of text is not proving any thing so it's not convincing in any way, it's just your opinion. 90% of the people who create arguments make the same problem.

Rofl. "Write a detailed description of why you dislike Half-Life 2!"

*shows you my detailed description*

"Yeah... well... That proves nothing!"

It's called an opinion, sweetheart. I detailed mine and you don't like it. Good for you. Do you want a medal?

Here we go again. You can point out flaws and things in the game that work, keep it a fact and your arguments will be convincing. The problem with your review or whatever, is that you just say "The landscape is forgettable and uninteresting. The scenery is equally as bland, with the load divided levels serving more as things to do than places to explore or simply 'be in.' The gun-play is clunky and awkward, but not in a realistic way, but in a 'this feel shit' way."

These don't actually explain anything except how you feel about it. This is just you ranting, not pointing out exactly why it is 'forgettable' or 'clunky and awkward'.

I'm trying to be as friendly as I possibly can now, so at least try to understand that calling me a sheep when you can't even convince me why is annoying. Would you like it if I called you a sheep just for liking a FPS? No, it would piss you off.

Funnily enough, I didn't think much of the characters either but the over all design and the different challenges of HL2 was my favourite part of the whole experience, so your going to have a very tough time explaining why that was forgettable and bland.

You don't seem to understand how this works. Here, let me explain: video games are subjective. Period. No argument, no ifs ands or buts. They are subjective and it's impossible to say something about them objectively. Shit controls? Opinion. Bad graphics? Opinion. Bland story? Opinion. Everything that makes a video game a video game--just like all art--is subjective. I've stated my opinion over and over again. That's it. I don't care if you feel mu opinion is invalid or whatever else. That's it. Simple. Your opinion is yours and mine is my own. You can try to "prove" mine wrong until the cows come home and nothing will change.

Brilliant! So you've admitted wasting your time and mine, as well as the pointless insults since every fucking piece of art must be equal, right? What the hell is the point of writing reviews or even discussing things if it's all so damn subjective?

No, sorry, that's what you BELIEVE! I don't believe it, in fact I've seen people sum up flaws and explained why something is great. This is why I'm telling you to actually try, but since you believe there is no chance writing something accurate, you never will.

If you believe there is no way to be convincing, then treat everyone how you would like to be treated then.

Lol. Wow. You really don't understand what a review is, do you. A review, sweetie, is not an objective ruling. No, no, no. It is that individual's opinion of the product. Saying something, like say, "The graphics are great and the game runs well," is an opinion. They are stating that, in their eyes, the game looks technically good and runs well. That isn't a fact, because how well something runs can be seen very differently by different people--I know many people who think any more than 25fps is a waste and some who think anything less than 60 is unplayable. So too is it subjective to say something looks good; I happen to think Crysis is beautiful, with lush, vibrant colours everywhere, high resolution textures and effects in buckets, and realistic physics all lending to the overall feel and look of an island very much alive around you. Someone else might think Crysis looks like garbage because every texture isn't 10,000 x 10,000. That's fine. In their eyes, the game looks bad. In mine, it looks wonderful. The same works for every other aspect of the art--narrative, gameplay, mechanics, characters, etc., etc.

I like post-metal and art rock. I think pop and electronic music sucks ass. In my opinion the sounds, instruments and vocals of the latter two are of poor quality. My mum, on the other hand, absolutely loves dance and country music. She thinks that sort of thing is just great. Neither of us are wrong or right, despite having utterly opposing reviews and views on the subject. This is the reason a company giving the latest game a 1 out of 4 is not wrong when everyone else gives it a 4 out of 4. They just didn't like it and their reasons are perfectly valid because--you guessed it--we are all different and we all find different thinks enjoyable.

Do you like the controls for Kid Icarus? I don't.

Like the way World of Warcraft looks? I don't.

Like the music in Minecraft? I do.

Think Pokemon has too many Pokemon? I do.

Think Fallout: New Vegas crashes a lot? I don't.

Reviews are not facts and nor are they rules. Reviews are one individual's experience with something. You cannot be any more or less right in regards to your opinion of a product. Just because in your eyes something is obviously good, doesn't mean it is good. It means you have your own tastes and your own standards--no more or less right or wrong, too high or too low than anyone else's.

 

[Nazulu]

Lol. Wow. You really don't understand what a review is, do you. A review, sweetie, is not an objective ruling. No, no, no. It is that individual's opinion of the product. Saying something, like say, "The graphics are great and the game runs well," is an opinion. They are stating that, in their eyes, the game looks technically good and runs well. That isn't a fact, because how well something runs can be seen very differently by different people--I know many people who think any more than 25fps is a waste and some who think anything less than 60 is unplayable. So too is it subjective to say something looks good; I happen to think Crysis is beautiful, with lush, vibrant colours everywhere, high resolution textures and effects in buckets, and realistic physics all lending to the overall feel and look of an island very much alive around you. Someone else might think Crysis looks like garbage because every texture isn't 10,000 x 10,000. That's fine. In their eyes, the game looks bad. In mine, it looks wonderful. The same works for every other aspect of the art--narrative, gameplay, mechanics, characters, etc., etc.

I like post-metal and art rock. I think pop and electronic music sucks ass. In my opinion the sounds, instruments and vocals of the latter two are of poor quality. My mum, on the other hand, absolutely loves dance and country music. She thinks that sort of thing is just great. Neither of us are wrong or right, despite having utterly opposing reviews and views on the subject. This is the reason a company giving the latest game a 1 out of 4 is not wrong when everyone else gives it a 4 out of 4. They just didn't like it and their reasons are perfectly valid because--you guessed it--we are all different and we all find different thinks enjoyable.

Do you like the controls for Kid Icarus? I don't.

Like the way World of Warcraft looks? I don't.

Like the music in Minecraft? I do.

Think Pokemon has too many Pokemon? I do.

Think Fallout: New Vegas crashes a lot? I don't.

Reviews are not facts and nor are they rules. Reviews are one individual's experience with something. You cannot be any more or less right in regards to your opinion of a product. Just because in your eyes something is obviously good, doesn't mean it is good. It means you have your own tastes and your own standards--no more or less right or wrong, too high or too low than anyone else's.

*Sigh*

Now your going straight of telling my about something I made clear I don't give a shit about. Didn't I just say you could be accurate? What the fuck was the point of all that? Whether you believe it or not, you can 'prove' a point, but now your just trying to prove (and failing miserably again for the same reason as before) that you can't prove a point. Making this once again, a big waste of time.

Since this went no where, I'm ending it here. Have a lovely day sweet cheeks.

 

[I.Muir]

I know I'm way behind on this one, but I just finished Half-Life 2. It was a really good game; I can see why it's respected and held as a standard, especially regarding the first-person storytelling. Sure, the vehicle sections were awful, but just about everything else was fantastic.

But for all the praise this game gets, why haven't I heard a single word about the ending? That was one of the most incomprehensible, abrupt, unsatisfying endings I've ever seen. It's a mix between a cliffhanger and WTF ending the likes of which I've rarely seen.

I know it has the episodes, and I'm installing Episode 1 as I type this. I'm just trying to understand; for all the praise this game gets, I would have expected the ending be mentioned. It was a big deal for Halo 2, it was a big deal for Assassin's Creed, and I won't even get into the response to Mass Effect 3's poor excuse for an ending, but why has Half-Life 2 gotten by as one of the most highly-praised games of all time without having a single word mentioned about that frustrating stopping point?

Cause everyone else just moves on to episode one and the game doesn't stop. It's also a little similar to half life's end with g-man talking to you again.

 

[Murmillos]

Why is Deus Ex: HR the SAME ending as ME3, but it got GOTY nominations all over and universal love.

Because DEx:HR endings loosely fit into the overall arching theme/nature of the game. Yes it was a stupid last minute choose door #1 #2 #3 and #4. Also, the person who gave you the choice to choose options 1-4 was also the same person you meet at the end of act two. You know what she was, and what she did.

So lets see, the endings were in game lore consistent and the person giving you the choices was logical and well foreshadowed.

But really, ME3 rips off more the original DEx then it did DEx:HR.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I'd rather do that with someone who has an actual defense besides "opinion".

Oh sweet lord. You want to debate the quality of a video game with someone that uses arguments besides opinion? Do you not understand what an opinion is?

Graphics: opinion.

Story: opinion.

Gameplay: opinion.

Art: opinion.

Sound: opinion.

Stability (reliability of the software): opinion.

It is impossible to use anything other than opinion to argue the like or dislike of any aspect of a video game (or any other art). The entire thing is purely, 100%, utterly, entirely opinion.

Lol. Wow. You really don't understand what a review is, do you. A review, sweetie, is not an objective ruling. No, no, no. It is that individual's opinion of the product. Saying something, like say, "The graphics are great and the game runs well," is an opinion. They are stating that, in their eyes, the game looks technically good and runs well. That isn't a fact, because how well something runs can be seen very differently by different people--I know many people who think any more than 25fps is a waste and some who think anything less than 60 is unplayable. So too is it subjective to say something looks good; I happen to think Crysis is beautiful, with lush, vibrant colours everywhere, high resolution textures and effects in buckets, and realistic physics all lending to the overall feel and look of an island very much alive around you. Someone else might think Crysis looks like garbage because every texture isn't 10,000 x 10,000. That's fine. In their eyes, the game looks bad. In mine, it looks wonderful. The same works for every other aspect of the art--narrative, gameplay, mechanics, characters, etc., etc.

I like post-metal and art rock. I think pop and electronic music sucks ass. In my opinion the sounds, instruments and vocals of the latter two are of poor quality. My mum, on the other hand, absolutely loves dance and country music. She thinks that sort of thing is just great. Neither of us are wrong or right, despite having utterly opposing reviews and views on the subject. This is the reason a company giving the latest game a 1 out of 4 is not wrong when everyone else gives it a 4 out of 4. They just didn't like it and their reasons are perfectly valid because--you guessed it--we are all different and we all find different thinks enjoyable.

Do you like the controls for Kid Icarus? I don't.

Like the way World of Warcraft looks? I don't.

Like the music in Minecraft? I do.

Think Pokemon has too many Pokemon? I do.

Think Fallout: New Vegas crashes a lot? I don't.

Reviews are not facts and nor are they rules. Reviews are one individual's experience with something. You cannot be any more or less right in regards to your opinion of a product. Just because in your eyes something is obviously good, doesn't mean it is good. It means you have your own tastes and your own standards--no more or less right or wrong, too high or too low than anyone else's.

*Sigh*

Now your going straight of telling my about something I made clear I don't give a shit about. Didn't I just say you could be accurate? What the fuck was the point of all that? Whether you believe it or not, you can 'prove' a point, but now your just trying to prove (and failing miserably again for the same reason as before) that you can't prove a point. Making this once again, a big waste of time.

Since this went no where, I'm ending it here. Have a lovely day sweet cheeks.

Look, both of you, what don't you get? I really, really, really don't care that you disagree with my opinion, but your argument amounts to "I don't like how you explained your opinion and it is therefore besides the point." Do you not see the absurdity of that? You disagree with my opinion and therefore have decided any reasoning someone might give that is contrary to your own, is not valid.

I have never, not once, said it is impossible to make clear a point. I did, however, say it is impossible to prove an opinion, because it isn't a fact and you can't demonstrate certainty when the subject is subjective. I.e.: you cannot prove yellow is better than blue.

Last time:

Half-Life 2 is fine. I don't think it's anything great, but it functions. Story was sporadic and uninteresting. Characters felt contrived and stale, mostly there to serve a purpose such as opening a door, telling the player where to go, giving them a new vehicle, etc. World was strangely distant and contrived, devoid of any real sense of place or humanity; it was clear from the start the tall buildings, for example, served only to confine you and no one actually lived there. Gunplay felt neither weighty and realistic, nor fluid and sharp--such as you would find in a traditional FPS. Ultimately I was left with an arsenal of barkless peeshooters that, while effective, felt like plastic and lacked a much needed "omph" factor. The majority of my time with the game was spent being talked at, wondering to the next hastily installed waypoint for reasons I was utterly disconnected with, and solving puzzles that required more walking to and fro than any amount of smarts. Besides driving almost aimlessly in the vehicle equivalent of a cardboard shopping trolley across a beach with insect enemies spawning around you and posturing with a complete lack of threat as you zip past them, the haunted house-esc platforming section was the worst part of the game. A stream of zombie-like hostiles, the ill-fated scientists that Half-Life seems to have an infinite sully of, try their best to scare and unsettle you, apparently oblivious to the fact that they are all hilarious clones of one another--actually causing me to laugh several times when a group of twins or triplets meandered towards me and moaned in unison, like some ghastly barbershop group. With an infinite supply of industrial trash and other pointy objects, there is never any sense of fear or angst; any game that offers an unlimited and easy way to instantly murder its enemies is no longer a horror (see Silent Hill).

I could go on and on, but I've made my point.

I don't really like the game. You do. I have my reasons. You have yours. In my eyes, the game is entirely underwhelming (for reasons I've typed out several times). In your eyes, the game is fantastic (for reasons you've not yet explained to me). I'm not right. You're not right. I'm not wrong. You're not wrong.

That's it. There's nothing more to it. Period.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

snip

Wow, that's a long text for saying "I don't know how to discuss shit".

I don't know how to discuss "shit"? I listed everything I dislike about the game and told you why I didn't like it. You, to counter, have offered nothing at all. I'm not sure what you would consider contributing to a discussion, but I am more than certain that stating your perspective and your reasons for feeling this way are a great deal more constructive to conversation than "you did it wrong."

I don't know what you want, but it isn't a debate.

 

[endtherapture]

Half Life 2 definitely stands up, because it is an 8 year old game, and people are comparing it to modern games.

It's like comparing Quake 1 to Half Life 2. Or KoTOR to some random RPG from 1994.

 

[Netrigan]

Thank God I'm not the only one who's noticing. More often than not the only people you hear talking about Half-Life 2 anymore are the same people who CONSTANTLY ***** about how much praise it gets. And, as I often point out, they then will (ironically) ***** about people always talking about Half-Life 2.

I think we can chalk this one up to the console/PC divide and simply time passing.

A meh console port showed up over a year after its debut and wasn't exactly optimized for console players. Same thing kind of happened in reverse for Halo, where the two year old PC port meant that numerous games had robbed Halo of any sort of freshness for PC gamers. Whatever might have been revolutionary and novel on release wasn't by the time it crossed the divide, leaving many people wondering why *this* received tons of acclaim.

And that's before you factor in the different gaming traditions of console and PC gamers. The FPS changed quite a bit when it made the transition to console and HL2 is very much a PC beast.

And then there's the fact that we're now talking about a game that's almost eight years old. Not only is the novelty of HL2 long gone, but shooters have changed quite a bit since then. If Goldeneye got released as a XBL game, I'm sure we'd have a good number of people checking it out to see what all the fuss is about and laughing hysterically at the notion that this is the greatest FPS ever (pretty much my reaction to the Perfect Dark demo). That Half-Life 2 is available on current gen systems means that it's easy for people to check out what all the fuss is about and just not dig it.

And then there's the simple fact that anything popular has an inevitable backlash from people who genuinely don't like the game. Call Of Duty & Halo are frequently criticized, but there's plenty of new releases to keep the fanbase going. It's been five years since Valve gave Half-Life fans something to brag about. When they finally get around to release Episode Three or HL3 or whatever it is they release, we'll see renewed interest in the franchise... but right now, the franchise isn't really pulling in many new fans or giving established fans something to start threads about.

 

[Vigormortis]

Thank God I'm not the only one who's noticing. More often than not the only people you hear talking about Half-Life 2 anymore are the same people who CONSTANTLY ***** about how much praise it gets. And, as I often point out, they then will (ironically) ***** about people always talking about Half-Life 2.

I think we can chalk this one up to the console/PC divide and simply time passing.

A meh console port showed up over a year after its debut and wasn't exactly optimized for console players. Same thing kind of happened in reverse for Halo, where the two year old PC port meant that numerous games had robbed Halo of any sort of freshness for PC gamers. Whatever might have been revolutionary and novel on release wasn't by the time it crossed the divide, leaving many people wondering why *this* received tons of acclaim.

And that's before you factor in the different gaming traditions of console and PC gamers. The FPS changed quite a bit when it made the transition to console and HL2 is very much a PC beast.

And then there's the fact that we're now talking about a game that's almost eight years old. Not only is the novelty of HL2 long gone, but shooters have changed quite a bit since then. If Goldeneye got released as a XBL game, I'm sure we'd have a good number of people checking it out to see what all the fuss is about and laughing hysterically at the notion that this is the greatest FPS ever (pretty much my reaction to the Perfect Dark demo). That Half-Life 2 is available on current gen systems means that it's easy for people to check out what all the fuss is about and just not dig it.

And then there's the simple fact that anything popular has an inevitable backlash from people who genuinely don't like the game. Call Of Duty & Halo are frequently criticized, but there's plenty of new releases to keep the fanbase going. It's been five years since Valve gave Half-Life fans something to brag about. When they finally get around to release Episode Three or HL3 or whatever it is they release, we'll see renewed interest in the franchise... but right now, the franchise isn't really pulling in many new fans or giving established fans something to start threads about.

You see, that was partly my point. Up until the recent influx of pointless Skyrim threads; which were then followed by an over-abundance of Mass Effect 3 "controversy" threads; it was common place, for years, to see no less than two threads a week on the topic of "Half-Life sucks" or "Valve is overrated".

Within these threads, besides the usual insulting vitriol some would toss directly at the fans, one of the biggest complaints the "haters" had was that they were "sick of hearing everyone constantly talk about Half-Life 2". The thing is, as I've said numerous times before, the only ones constantly bringing the topic up were, ironically, the "haters".

Ergo, the only reason they kept hearing people talk about Half-Life 2 is because they kept bringing it up to ***** about it. A self-perpetuating grievance, if you will.

Now, I don't know if they're just that clueless or if they're playing dumb so they can keep insulting people for their opinions, but after at least four years of seeing these threads; and seeing them more frequently as time goes on; I'm getting quite sick of it. And, I'm sure I'm not the only one. You'd think after all these years these people would find something better to do.

Sadly, as I've also said before, the worst part of it is these types of threads crop up so often that anyone who actually has a genuine counter-opinion on the topic is often drowned out by the fervent, mindless "hate" spewed forth by the people trying to harass the fans. It's truly pathetic.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Why is Deus Ex: HR the SAME ending as ME3, but it got GOTY nominations all over and universal love.

Because DEx:HR endings loosely fit into the overall arching theme/nature of the game. Yes it was a stupid last minute choose door #1 #2 #3 and #4. Also, the person who gave you the choice to choose options 1-4 was also the same person you meet at the end of act two. You know what she was, and what she did.

So lets see, the endings were in game lore consistent and the person giving you the choices was logical and well foreshadowed.

But really, ME3 rips off more the original DEx then it did DEx:HR.

That.... was the most educated response I've ever received with the words "ME3 ending" in it. It's like you get that most video game endings suck!

 

[Vigormortis]

It's funny. The FPS' that take away the most from the player are the ones that get the most praise for it. Notice how in both Bioshock and Half-Life, the player is just a puppet for higher powers. I'm not saying the world building that conveys the story is bad, I'm saying that having a voiceless mook is not good storytelling and you're always going to have less freedom in gameplay because of the constraints imposed against the PC for the sake of the story.


Also, look how fucking stupid the "non-cutscene" looks from the perspective of the NPC's. Immersion? Some asshole with a PhD swinging a crowbar.


On a side note, I saved that computer monitor that Lamar broke.

Those "non-cutscenes", or scripted sequences if you will, only look "fucking stupid" if the person playing is...well..."fucking stupid".

I can tell you right now I don't play that stupidly. I don't jump around on everything, flick my flash-light on and off, and I certainly don't constantly whack stuff with the crowbar. I'm not a 12 year old child. I have more patience than that. (also, I actually like listening to the exposition and watching the characters move and emote)

So, uh...saying scripted sequences are dumb because the person who's playing might act like a jack-ass isn't really a mark against the sequence as much as it is a mark against the maturity of the player. Just sayin'.

Anyway, that aside, I'd like to speak on the aspect of having a "voiceless mook" as the protagonist.

You are correct in that, in a traditional story-telling fashion, that makes for a terrible setup and/or execution for the narrative.

However, video-gaming offers styles of story telling most other forms of entertainment can't offer. Therefore, things that would never work in, say literature or film, can and oft times do work in video-gaming.

In the case of the "voiceless" protagonist, the thoughts and motives of the character (save those mandated by the writers at certain points in the narrative) are solely expressed by the player. If the character is given an uncontrolled voice or the player is frequently pulled away from the character's perspective then you create a situation wherein the player is no longer 'being' the character and is instead 'watching' the character.

Neither story-telling device is 'wrong' or 'bad'. And, someone can't legitimately say that a story is "bad" because it chooses one or the other. In a first-person game using a "voiceless" protagonist, the story is (if done well, which is not often the case) written in such a way as to make the player feel like they are that character. That they are progressing the events instead of just watching them progress.

Some people don't like that style of story-telling. That's fine. But it doesn't mean it's a bad form of story-telling.

 

[Asita]

I agree. That ending was probably was worse than Mass Effect 3's one.

I don't get this - how exactly is it worse? How exactly is it bad for that matter? I actually thought it was a great ending, made perfect sense and set the scene for the next games.

I'm saying that without considering that the story was continued with Episode 1.
It doesn't have a conclusion, you're simply left without knowing what happened to Gordon and Alyx through G-man's Deus Ex Machina. The ending is simply "frozen"...

...Context kinda helps in that regard, you know. The G-Man is an enigma in the games, but the game makes a point of showing that he is not limited in the way we humans are.

Throughout HL1 and HL2 he is frequently seen popping up in unusual places, observing you and thence disappearing. In one case you even see him on the screen of an unplugged television amongst a pile of rubble. Additionally, it's implied in both games that he's at least partially responsible for the events that transpire (His first appearance has him speaking to a scientist before HL1's resonance cascade, and in HL2, looking through a set of binoculars shows him speaking to Cubbage shortly before you arrive at New Little Odessa, presumably informing him of Freeman's progress).

This reaches its natural conclusion in the final moments of HL1, wherein he repeatedly teleports himself and the player to various locations as he speaks, thanking the player for delivering 'the borderworld' (Xen) into the control of his employers, whom have offered Freeman a job, with the alternative being "a battle [he] has no chance of winning". Upon accepting, it shows your status as "awaiting assignment". Cue Half-Life 2[footnote]which takes place 20 years later (which is vaguely acknowledged by Eli Vance when - upon seeing him in person he comments that Freeman hadn't 'changed one iota'[/footnote], with Freeman's sudden appearance on a train he could not have possibly boarded rather neatly demonstrating G-Man's powers over space-time (reinforced by the fact that if you talk to the others on the train it's noted that they never saw you before the train's almost at its destination).

Half-Life 2 calls back to that ending, with the G-Man intervening to rescue you and thence putting you back into stasis to await future employment[footnote]Though Episode 1 reveals that the Vortigaunts intervened to change that outcome[/footnote], thereby bookending HL2's story arc. For bonus points, he even references the Hobson's choice of the first game by noting that he won't even give the illusion of choice this time around. On the whole, in terms of competence, that's actually a fairly solid ending which falls within the bounds of internal consistency for the story, ending at a suitable benchmark for the protagonist (Akin to the destruction of the Death Star in Star Wars) and which maintains its core conflict to the conclusion.

 

[Murmillos]

That.... was the most educated response I've ever received with the words "ME3 ending" in it. It's like you get that most video game endings suck!

In a way, yes, but I wouldn't quite use the word suck, but I do realize and almost expect if most games endings are not "brilliant" as most games are designed from start - middle - end.
Thats why the middle and even ending levels typically look better then the starting levels (or in some cases, a really flashy intro "know the controls" level followed by 'this looks meh levels'). Since some games are forced to be finished up and punted out the door before they are truly ready, endings are typically the last major thing the team gets to work on before finally certification / going gold.

I don't have a problem with bland/boring/disappointing/"I saw that coming since first act."/"Oh come on.. they are just making shit up now!" endings as long as the endings keep somewhat most of the tone/theme/nature of the game itself. Even if the ending is a last minute poorly thought out plot twist, as long as it doesn't invalidate everything you've learned/expected in the hours (games) beforehand, then the ending is just that.. "bad".

The only bad thing you can say about DEx:HR's ending (and typical of most multi ending games) is that the choice is the absolute last thing you do. Yes ME3 does the same, but as I stated before, the choices for DEx:HR endings make absolute sense; also for the choices for the endings start presenting themselves as you advance thru the final level. Over all, I found DEx:HR ending to fall in the satisfactory ending. It wasn't great, but it wasn't insulting either.

Most people find that ME3 goes far beyond being just a "bad or "sucky" ending, but more as "broken and logically insulting".

 

[J Tyran]

just...ummm..mabye you dont want to play episode 3...jsut saying

This, if the end of HL2 rattled your cage the end of Episode 2 will make you claw out your own eyeballs.

 

[zeit]

I like that Half-Life leaves a lot of things ambiguous. If there's one thing first person shooters lack, it's subtlety. If you played HL1, things make a bit more sense. Basically the G-Man is an agent of fate. He's just like Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men; he's inhuman, omnipresent, and seemingly unstoppable. And he plays an important role in setting the game's events in motion, which ordinarily is the player's job.