Thaius said:
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?
I haven't played Assassin's Creed, but here are a few points of comparison:
Halo 2's narrative was pretty scattered to begin with, and introduced too much too quickly. The ending was awkward because it lacked cohesive form with the previous game. That, and Halo's writing hasn't ever been more than 'novel' (in the not-a-book-definition). It's very standard Militaristic Sci-Fi with a few clever twists.
Half-Life 2: Yeah, the ending is sort of a butt-nutter, but it does maintain internal consistency. G-Man is a much, much better-developed character than most in Halo, and Valve tends to assume you played the previous game. The role of G-Man and what he gets out of messing with Gordan Freeman are ambiguous. The ambiguity creates a more introspective mood for the player (especially when combined with the mute protagonist). It's true that the end fight isn't that difficult - and I wouldn't mind a faster-paced finale, but G-Man is the well-established Deus Ex Machina of the series. They use him explicitly for better storytelling. The HL2 ending isn't often discussed because it is succeeded by the Episodes 1/2, and because it's neither end of the spectrum. It is neither particularly good (a dash of action, some hubris, a sexy chick, and an 'old friend' - that's it), nor is it particularly bad (it doesn't leave gaping plotholes or contradict themes presented earlier in the game). What it does do is bring the story to a close without leaving a lot of lose-ends. Very neat, very tidy, and that's all it needed to do since Valve was planning in Episodic content after.
In comparison to Mass Effect 3's ending, which used its Deus Ex Machina device to blunt-force-trauma the player into an awkward situation antithetical to the player's expectations, and also happens to leave enormous plotholes casually strewn about in lieu of a truncated, "artsy" ending. Whereas in Half-Life 2, G-Man's motives and abilities are vague (at best), leaving the protagonist unable to either predict or logically interpret his actions, the Catalyst's motives and capabilities are explicitly stated. Unfortunately for the Catalyst, its motives are (within the same game, mind you) proven to not be based on any easily-recognizable logic.
The endings to each simply serve a different purpose:
Halo 2 - To prepare you for Halo 3 in the manliest way possible; by showing you how big Spartan's balls are.
ME3 - To attempt to wrap up a multi-billion year storyline in the most 'Sci-Fi' way they could manage (i.e. - imitating other great works of science fiction). Retrospectively, this one had the highest chance of failure since it's damn near impossible to both appease fan questions about the origins of the Reapers AND have them remain a viable threat over billions of years of history.
HL2 - To make Gordon Freeman a neat and tidy package that could be delivered into Episode One without a lot of questions.
If you don't like cliff-hangers, though, you're going to hate Episode 2's ending.
