I realize the Orange Box and games contained within have already been evaluated countless times, but after hearing so much of the collection, I chose to borrow it from good friend Captain Jack Sparrow, and share my own thoughts.

:: Half-Life 2 ::

Gist: A man on a train wakes you as into some sort of oppressed dystopia, before being ordered across the world and back to combat the aforementioned oppression. Details beyond this are not explained. FPS action through corridor environments.

Graphics: Great. Not only is there a high level of detail in both the environment and character models, but everything with the exception of certain alien weapons has a distinctive look of unprecedented human realism. This is in opposition to sublime graphics likely present on another planet, or more fictional world.

Sound: The background music was effective, and accentuated the mood when present. When not, the game defined silence, instead of lacking sound. This was exquisite, perhaps moreso, than inspiring instrumentals at times, especially in contrast to those vainglorious moments. The voice-acting was precise, nearly every character sounded fluid. The sound effects were decent, but what impressed me was the extravagant acoustics. Sounds can be differentiated and located based on where you are in relation to them and what is in between, to a level I have not seen elsewhere.

Story: I found Half-Life 2 incredibly lacking in story. Initially, I not only disregarded it, but was intrigued by the opening sneaking and chases. Soon after, I assumed my lack of previous plots and connections was based on not having played the first game. Unfortunate, but not a flaw. However, discrepancies arose when I realized I didn't even understand the most immediate and linear of goals. I did not need the intricacies, or the back story, but the sincere conversations and constant directions should have contained significantly more context and relevance. Finally, the fact that Gordon can/does not talk was infuriating, simply because of the aforementioned feeling of realism even in fantasy. Real people talk. It broke logic.

Gameplay: This was another letdown of the game. Initially, it seems intense and gripping, tied into the story of equal intrigue (again, initially). Before long this turns to constant gunfights through a tunnel, to get to a lever, and other stale point-to-point objectives. It would be more forgivable if the points got you somewhere in the story, but they generally just point you in the next direction. Some levels are truly awesome, but mired by many more of insipid repetition. Fortunately, the combat itself is solid. Each weapon has unique uses, enough that I found myself using them all fairly frequently. The perspective made jumping rather difficult for some of the puzzles, but it was not a major concern after minor practice. There are two vehicle sections, both of which are pleasant reprieves from conventional play, and not too long as to be tiring. There are a couple puzzles, they give use and insight to an ambiguous tool known as the Gravity Gun, but aren't too difficult as individual entities. The Gravity Gun allows you to lift/launch certain objects, often for improvised weapons or the aforementioned simplistic puzzles. It displays the game's impressive physics, but is not revolutionary. Replay value could come from attempting different difficulties, or simply revisiting favorite levels.

Overall: 7/10 | A vibrant world of excessive combat and little purpose.

:: Half-Life 2: Episode 1 ::

Gist: Begin right where Half-Life 2 left off.

Graphics: Everything is slightly improved from the original. It's noticeable, but not astounding. Fortunately, no issues arise. Unfortunately, there is a lack of variant locale.

Sound: Quality identical to the original; supreme.

Story: The story is the most significant and most impressive improvement of the expansion. Gordon hasn't obtained any more empathy, but Alyx (primary character from Half-Life 2) is with you the entire time. Her and the other cast carry the story in an engrossing spectacle. They give meaning and objective to each gunfight, which does not fade after realizing the stale ambivalence that awaits, because it doesn't. In terms of plot, more ground is covered than all of the original.

Gameplay: The gameplay remains unchanged, though aforementioned story improvements give new vitality to the formula. All the weapons are the same, though reclaimed in a different order. This is the primarily flaw of the expansion. Although more vivid, Episode 1 adds nothing beyond beyond the plot. It adds a few more instances of the origin, but expansions traditionally enhance that origin as well. It is significantly shorter than Half-Life 2, but contains thrilling segments for replay value.

Overall: 9/10 | Narrative life given to the solid mechanics which needed it.

:: Half-Life 2: Episode 2 ::

Gist: Begin right where Half-Life 2: Episode 1 left off.

Graphics: Everything is slightly improved again from Episode 1. It is much more definitive this time. Unfortunately, the inclusion of the gloss-sheen effect on the friendly aliens and some other objects disrupted the raw realism I had come to enjoy. There were certain texture and model issues, but I have reason to believe this was not necessarily the game's fault.

Sound: The acoustics seem to have been enhanced for even better virtual oscillations. Otherwise, there might have been some new background music added, but it was otherwise the same.

Story: While declining from Episode 1 by returning with extended gunfights and insipid progression, it retains effective interest and context, enough to be ahead of the original by a significant degree. The ending, however, contains an absurdity which must be justified later. That, however, would detriment the quality of the series, not Episode 2.

Gameplay: The gunfights, while losing some of their contextual momentum, are amplified through the induction of defensive battles. Multiple missions involve defending a point and/or not dying, while being attacked by a variety of enemies from multiple angles. The variety of ways to approach them combined with their impressive magnitude places these battles above what bland offenses were made before. Otherwise, the weapons and mechanics remain the same, though there are some minor, useful alterations to the interface. It is longer than Episode 1, still fairly short, and again with difficulties and specific levels for replay.

Overall: 9/10 | A step back in storytelling made up for by augmented battle sequences.

:: Portal ::

Foreword: Portal is a puzzle game. It's format as a First Person Shooter is supplementary at best, a gameplay flaw at worst.

Gist: You wake up inside a definitive and deliberate sci-fi style room, and are instructed by a computed voice through various enclosures, utilizing Portals to solve their puzzles. There is an orange and blue portal, they are entrances which serve as exits to each other. Consider them each as ends to a tunnel, to enter one is to enter this tunnel, though it is technically instantly exiting the other side because the tunnel has infinitesimal length. It is not, contrary to a common misconception, creating a hole or opening in the surface it is applied to. Confusion between the former and later functions may be present at first, but should subside partway through the game, if present at all.

Graphics: Simple, solid, inane. They do their job well enough but there's nothing special about them. I found the acid-water to look hideous and unrealistic, however. It rather ruined the ambiance.

Sound: This is swift. I cannot recall sound through the majority of the game. If it was there, it was stale and forgettable. The voice acting, though only a few things speak, is well done. The sound affects seem completely recycled from Half-Life 2. There were a few decent tunes, and like Half-Life 2, the silence was done better than most.

Story: There isn't a story at all until half-way through the game. The computer merely gives you directions while adding random bits of information. Afterwards, it's unrealistically linear given the gravitas of the facility, and simply plods to the conclusion. I chuckled at some of the monologues, but otherwise found the plot worthless and incomplete.

Gameplay: Positively, Portal has an excellent system. The possibilities of portal placement allow incredible complexities and maneuvers. You retain physics through the portals also, allowing interesting jumps. Furthermore, I experienced no issues while utilizing or traversing the portals. The system is undeniably solid and innovative. Unfortunately, its implementation is lackluster. The First Person view presents occasional jumping and perspective problems while offering no advantages, but that is the minor concern. The biggest flaw in Portal is that the puzzles are far too easy. The game essentially guides you through 80% of the game (not consecutively), and most puzzles degenerate to instruction by the computer, then multiple repetitions. The later puzzles, while larger, and seemingly more open, still maintain one definitive way to solve them. It's simply insipid. No mechanic can save a puzzle game from bad puzzles. There are optional advanced puzzles, but they are harder to pull off than they are to decipher, and the game lacks precision. Aside from the aforementioned distractions, there is no replay value. Once you know how to solve a puzzle, there's a no reason to do it again, unless fervent about obtaining the also-optional Limited Portals/Time/Steps challenges. That struck me as padding by trial and error, though I admittedly didn't attempt it. Finally, Portal is short. A few hours the first time, less any replay. Personally, I don't mind short games, if they are complete. Portal, while refined, seemed more interested in touring a demonstration than actual mental or logical intricacies. If length is a flaw in Heavenly Sword, it is a flaw in Portal. Besides, it seems unfitting to describe insubstantiality favorably.

Overall: 6/10 | Unique mechanics with uninspiring implementation and a mediocre accompaniment.

Saving Grace: Theoretically, Portal is better the worse you are at it. Ignorance is Bliss.

:: Team Fortress 2 ::

Foreword: To assuage certain inconveniences, and because I liked the game, Team Fortress 2 is the only game of the Orange Box I purchased myself. They may consider their 10$ off weekend a tactful decision.

Gist: Two Teams fight to hold ground, take territories, capture the flag, and other objective tactical warfare. It is all Online. It is all PvP (Player versus Player; combating other live humans across the world).

Graphics: The graphics have an interesting comical style, yet manage to pull it off while looking very high quality. Like Portal, it is quite simplistic, but pleasant.

Sound: The voices and sound effects are a bit eccentric, but they fit the cartoon-like style of the game better than flawless realism probably would. Essentially, it is all natural and fitting to the game.

Story: Being completely online PvP, the game has no real story. The judgment of this fact is a topic of minor controversy. Is it unfair to blame a game with no intention of single-player or plot for lacking one? Most games are expected to have multiplayer now. In my view, if the game is entertaining enough just by gameplay not to require a story (unlike the three previous games), then it is acceptable. Additionally, while certainly no object of continuity, the game does have personality via a melodramatic woman who yells mission updates. The story is also partially excused by the social aspect of the game.

Gameplay: For Team Fortress 2, gameplay is certainly the most important category. Joining the game is instantaneously joining the action. Choose a team, choose a class, and go. While the controls are located in options, the game lacks a tutorial or other means of learning the feel of the game, though personal experience teaches it quickly enough. Once learned, it is easy to indulge. Although the details of the missions differ, they generalize into holding or pushing forward a line. The twists are in when there is more than one line at the same time, if there is a less direct objective. That is the essential formula for any individual game, and given the teamwork and strategy required to pull it off, it feels consistently variant. The classes are well-balanced, with the exception of Spy, who suffers needless and incredibly inconvenient detriments. Even still, they are completely playable. The gameplay is accessible and variant, but does stick to one formula, and has some balance issues, which bring it down overall.

Overall: 8/10 | Simple, effective, but somewhat repetitive formula of online PvP.

Your not very good at this, it's neither entertaining nor particualaly insightful.

Good review. It was well written, and you made your points without coming off as a tool. While I disagree with a lot of what you said, most of it is all personal opinion and I can't fault you for it. That being said, there were two things I saw that need commenting:

First, on Gordon not talking during Half-life, it was meant to show that in a sense, YOU are Gordon Freemen. It's like the Blair Witch/Cloverfield camara work, you may not like it, but you can't fault the game/movie for doing what it was meant to do.

Second, on Portal being too short, I don't know about you, but most people I talk to don't like puzzle games to be 30+ hour epic adventures. I mean, how long do you play Tetris for? Portal IS a puzzle game, and comparing it to heavenly sword, to use an old term, is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different games, two different review types.

Now, how long until the Half-Life fanboys come and rape you for disliking their game? Any bets?

For Gordon, if he's a character, he should be talking. If he's me, then why don't I have any options? I understand what you mean, but it still irked me from a logical standpoint. It was executed well at certain times, though, just not when the situation seemed to demand a response. I'll try to note things like the intent in other reviews though, so thank you.

For Portal, I disagree with you. The way I differentiate Portal from Tetris is that all of Portal's content is in a single, couple hour playthrough. Tetris can accumulate far more through replays, which are superfluous in Portal.

I'm trying the free TF2 weekend starting tomorrow - can't wait - the trailers of the heavy and engineer had me pissing myself laughing.

you no, the games portal and halflife actually incorporate a lot of complex theoretical physics in them, such as stuff like the super-string theory, m-brane theory, and many others

I thought it was a good review that covered a lot of ground. I would personally disagree on several points but that is purely based on my own perspective of the Orange Box. Good work.

This shows that it's wrong to review a game so methodically as to split it into graphics/story/sound/gameplay and treat every element as important in every game. Does Portal really need better sound? I can understand that you don't like Portal but just remember that it's a first person puzzle game, and shouldn't really be reviewed in such simple categories; I'm happy they included a 'story' at all in such a game.

Great review, I enjoyed reading it. The way you write really makes it easy to understand what you're trying to say.

I'd like to say one thing that I disagreed with though.

I noticed you have a subtle but noticeable dislike towards the first person view. For example, you felt that the jumping puzzle could not be done needed precision because of the first person view. I think this just comes down to personal opinion. I for one feel would feel totally prepared to take on a jumping puzzle in first person view, but would feel unsure of how I would do be it in third person.

But yeah, nice review and I'm happy you enjoyed it.

Great to hear (for once) a objective review although agree with post number 3 that probably during the course of today you'll have fan boys all over this like a pack of rabid dogs. Started with post number 2; but I admire your confidence in posting something that can polarise opinion.

The original HL-2 story was pretty pathetic in all honesty as you said - they put too much in between the story i.e. the awful boat section just to show of the physics engine. HL was about the story although they seemed to have realised their mistake and corrected things in EP1.

In addition the biggest thing what bugged me was as many people have said - the set pieces. How do you know when waiting for an elevator everythings going to attack you etc. You shouldn't go into a situation knowing that if you press a button your in a fight. Enemies should attack you unexpectedly.

Foaming at mouth must pull off your arms and bludgeon you to death with the wet end!

But seriously it was a fairly well written review though i tend to shy away from the structured format you've chosen but if you were not speaking such crap you would make some good points....damn i went rabid again there, however I do disagree with alot of what you have said especially about the physics engine not being revolutionary (dude the game came out 4 years ago, name another title from then that can touch it and about portal) but it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I like the structure, and your content is well-presented, clear and concise.

I don't agree with you though, but this is a matter of opinion, and I can't fault you for it. Just one question: Have you played the Advanced Puzzles?

Hmmm...

Your Portal review seems a bit off. Like somebody else said, breaking a game up into its different parts is not a very good way to review a game, as games--like movies--are holistic sums of their parts, and critiquing one part seperately from the others is foolish.In terms of sheer unique gameplay, Portal is amazing. The story doesn't "kick in" about half-way either--technically, the story never changes. You know, presumably, about as much as the main character knows, which is jack. You're stuck in a strange facility, forced to run through experiment after experiment. The story is basically you trying to escape, or at least comprehend the situation, but primarilly escape.

You make a similar point about HF2's story. I think it's a problem we have where, in game stories especially, we expect everything to be clear-cut and obvious. HF2 is the sort of game that should have you thinking, wondering what happened, who is doing this and why. Most of these questions are even answered, but its subtle. It encourages you to explore your game world, and if you talk to most of the people in the intro-sequence, you get a very good idea of what's going on. Breen's speeches are also pretty good for that.

The thing with HF2 and Portal is that the story is something you're trying to figure out. You are playing the story, you're not just interacting within a novel. The story unfolds in the gameplay, and so everything you as the gamer are doing is moving through the story while it ripples around you. It's akin to Bioshock--technically, the game's pretty light on story, unless you listen to the audio journals.

The difference between Portal and HF2 is that they are games that are actively keeping you wondering, and keeping you moving. It's a journey of discovery, and by the end of it, you DON'T know everything, you are NOT completely on top of the situation--just like in real life, you know what you have to, and you guess at the bigger picture, but the bigger picture is almost not the point--it's the setting. You can look at the game itself, look at the beaches, look at how there are not a lot of natural resources, look at the empty sands and the violent monsters at every turn, and you can get a picture that the world is becoming more and more uninhabitable, more and more dangerous and inhospitable.

It's not TRYING to tell you the story. It's SHOWING you the story.

And that's what makes it brilliant.

I realize the rule condemning fragmented quotes, but believe the context of this post would be confusing if I did not reference what I was responding to, given the combination of tangents and massivity.

Burld:
This shows that it's wrong to review a game so methodically as to split it into graphics/story/sound/gameplay and treat every element as important in every game.

RentCavalier:
critiquing one part seperately from the others is foolish.

I apologize for any misconceptions that the overall score was in any way an average, or more generally, that I judged each section as equally important. Does Portal having mediocre sound make it a bad puzzle game? No. Would omitting the sound be an incomplete review? Yes. The section labels are for structure and organization, so readers do not face an indiscriminate wall of text.

RedSigma:
...I noticed you have a subtle but noticeable dislike towards the first person view...

My only discrepancy (In Half-Life 2 and Portal) was a difficulty in differentiating between my position in relation to the edge of my footing. It seemed unlike the few other First Person Shooters I had played. It made determining jumps and distance troublesome. I agree that it is not necessarily a universal or major issue, however.

Additionally, since Portal has more common and intricate jumping situations, as well as a need for only rudimentary marksmanship, a third-person or shoulder view seemed like it might augment the accuracy. One would know their exact location, and how far they were capable of traveling from it. That does not make First Person a flaw, but I still found the maneuvering imprecise.

Drong:
...what you have said especially about the physics engine not being revolutionary...

I said the Gravity Gun was not revolutionary. It is an interesting enough addition to be worth mentioning, but did not revolutionize the gameplay.

stompy:
...one question: Have you played the Advanced Puzzles?

I played a couple of them. I did not play any of the Puzzle Challenges.

RentCavalier:
In terms of sheer unique gameplay, Portal is amazing. The story doesn't "kick in" about half-way either--technically, the story never changes.

I noted Portal's unique and solid mechanics, the problem is their shallow implementation and the lack of redeeming features. The story does change. After the final room there is a total alteration of knowledge, structure, and goal, which shape the story.

RentCavalier:
...I think it's a problem we have where, in game stories especially, we expect everything to be clear-cut and obvious...

I do not expect this. Regardless, Half-Life 2 is incredibly clear cut and obvious. Aliens have invaded, or an army has taken over, or some other means of humanity's suppression into a barren dystopia (the details of which have no immediate relevance). This message pulses through every setting of the game, but requires infinitesimal time to realize. This is why one of the game's problems is the inane expanses and prolonged combat. The cast does project an intriguing plot, but immediately ejects you to travel disproportionate lengths.

The reason Episode 1 is such an improvement is because with the almost constant presence of Alyx, the plot is suitably addressed (without being blatantly revealed). Gordon never does anything but fight from A to B; Alyx does. With her, intrinsic detail is not required to consider and care for the plot, because ulterior facets can finally be contextually considered.

Ravenholm was obnoxiously long. A disaster is evident. Alyx mentions it, the game allows you to experience it. However, the experience consummates before the first house. Forcing the player to traverse six of them is beyond obvious, to the point of being bland. The initial mission of Episode 1 gave explicit logistics, yet minor details. I knew the significance of the objective, yet encountered enigmatic activity. Thus, I could ponder the questions and curiosities, not merely combat swarms of undead and subterranean insects.

The original was not brilliant, it was insubstantial. And apropo of nothing, I thought BioShock had a superior story than any of the Half-Life 2 installments.

As for almost everyone, I appreciate the feedback. Also, it seems the zealotry of alleged fanboys has been overestimated, a pleasant surprise.

Ohh, look out. Half-Life 2 a 7/10? Remember what happened to me? I gave it an 8/10 and was ripped apart for it.

Or maybe people won't rip this guy apart cos everyone hates me. They do. I can prove it.

Hanji:

RentCavalier:
In terms of sheer unique gameplay, Portal is amazing. The story doesn't "kick in" about half-way either--technically, the story never changes.

I noted Portal's unique and solid mechanics, the problem is their shallow implementation and the lack of redeeming features. The story does change. After the final room there is a total alteration of knowledge, structure, and goal, which shape the story.

I think you kind of missed the point. The game was building up to that story twist from the start, and one of the main themes of the game is the breaking free of what the computer tells you to do and taking a different route.

Hanji:
It displays the game's impressive physics, but is not revolutionary.

I stopped reading right there. The Gravity Gun showed that physics could take a significant part in the gameplay of any video game. The fact that you completely missed this basic idea kind of ruins the rest of your review.

I could also go on with the other flaws in your review, such as claiming that having Gordon not talk was a bad thing or how your claim that puzzles that have only one solution are bad puzzles or how you have an extremely narrow and naive perspective on what constitutes a good story, but it's really not worth my time pointing them out.

I'll give you points for presenting your arguments in a logical and coherent manner, but that ultimately can't save your arguments from being poor. What I'll do is go out on a limb and just simply say that you misunderstood many points for what they really were.

Sylocat:
The game was building up to that story twist from the start, and one of the main themes of the game is the breaking free of what the computer tells you...

I disagree, the game did not seem to be progressing, which is why the alteration felt so direct. That, however, I would think a matter of opinion. Breaking free is an invalid theme of the game. You never take your own route, or decide for yourself. It is perpetually compulsory and linear, without suitable narrative support.

Joeshie:
The Gravity Gun showed that physics could take a significant part in the gameplay of any video game. The fact that you completely missed this basic idea kind of ruins the rest of your review.

Your second sentence is fallacious. As for the Gravity Gun, it was not an essential, or even significant part of the game. Amusing, innovative, but not exceedingly integral or useful. As you are unwilling to support your baseless claims, I needn't further elaborate mine (though if any arbitrary reader is curious, it's not a problem).

I find it interesting that you find that neither the portal gun or the gravity gun are effective new game mechanics, but disagree with you.

The main reason that I enjoyed both were:
1. The use of each allows for new options vis-a-vis other mechanics (no longer are we subject to low powered infinite ammo pistols, or melee attacks in game)
2. To use either in attack or defense means exploring indirect offensive maneuvers (ex: let the physics engine defeat the enemy; let their grenade blow up somewhere else)

From various observations novelty is one of the main themes of gaming and these two devices embody that in a traditionally "point and click to kill" format.

I have watched others play the Portal puzzles before and found that many times that they would find other solutions to problems that I hadn't thought of or vice-versa.

As for the story, I rather enjoyed the game and succeeded in understanding the storyline in one play-through.
The truth is that anybody who has played an adventure, or puzzle game with an investigative story line will look around at their environment for specific details. Such as when you first wake up in Portal and find that GLaDos is rather broken, and you are in a facility that uses human test subjects or contains prisoners (based on the fact you are in cryo-stasis and are locked in a room). Since there is a radio, a camera and a cup one may assume that humans probably designed the place since these are all relatively identifiable pieces of technology. The toilet is arguable, but I would negate it since an alien intelligence may have something like that in mind so that the test subject doesn't get sick before running tests.
Additionally, I would also like to point out the areas behind the pneumatic walls since they hint at the madness that GLaDos put previous test subjects through as well as the slides later in the game that state that Black Mesa is considered a competitor to Aperture. While these might seem trivial they in fact do paint a picture of what is happening in the game world.
I estimate the game takes place sometime after the Combine have invaded since the facility is deserted, yet GLaDos does -supposedly- have her morality unit installed, hence no bodies.
It's left up to the player to piece together what is going on, which is effective for the objectives of the game: to serve as a playing field for a new mechanic before having to worry about putting it into the main storyline or multiplayer.

Hanji:
Your second sentence is fallacious. As for the Gravity Gun, it was not an essential, or even significant part of the game. Amusing, innovative, but not exceedingly integral or useful. As you are unwilling to support your baseless claims, I needn't further elaborate mine (though if any arbitrary reader is curious, it's not a problem).

Last time I checked, the last part of the game is played with nothing but the gravity gun. Not to mention, you HAVE to use the gravity gun to get by certain parts of the game. If that isn't a significant weapon, I would love to hear from you what is.

By all means, continue on with your foolish claims and incorrect arguments, it's rather amusing.

Well written review, it's a bit too clinical and I completely disagree with most of it, but it's nice to see someone criticising Half-Life with more than comparisons to Halo or other first person shooters. 6/10 for portal though... Slightly harsh for one of the most original and entertaining games of last year, isn't it? Surely the innovations it makes combined with the top quality black humour and stunning finale mean it deserves more than that?

I also think it's unfair to criticise Portal's puzzles for only having one solution, since that is typically the only way for these sort of puzzle games to work. The puzzles are never unfair and rational thinking will see you through all of them. Yes, Glados helps you through the majority of them, but completing the puzzles is often as much about skill as it is thinking so they are still satisfying to complete.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start criticising you, but you make your points and back them up with reasons (whether I agree with them or not) which is why I've not turned into the rabid Half-Life fanboy that I usually do for stuff like this. :D

AntiAntagonist:
I find it interesting that you find that neither the portal gun or the gravity gun are effective new game mechanics

They are effective mechanics. I repeat, their implementation was the facet of mediocrity.

AntiAntagonist:
I have watched others play the Portal puzzles before and found that many times that they would find other solutions to problems that I hadn't thought of or vice-versa.

Unless these solutions were vastly different, it is irrelevant. If they were, it doesn't obfuscate the simple intended paths of the game. Once you know those, other tactics are superfluous.

AntiAntagonist:
As for the story...

I noticed this also, though I did not come to all those conclusions, because I wasn't sure if Portal existed in the same canon as Half-Life or if Black Mesa was a fan-service joke. However, these subtleties do not keep the plot from being shallow, illusory, or incomplete.

AntiAntagonist:
the objectives of the game: to serve as a playing field for a new mechanic before having to worry about putting it into the main storyline or multiplayer.

That sounds like a technical demo, or a beta. Portal was released as a full game with monetary value. It is judged accordingly.

Joeshie:
Last time I checked, the last part of the game is played with nothing but the gravity gun.

The_root_of_all_evil:

I'd also say the Gravity Gun is very useful for the sand level, righting the car, getting rid of the electro mines, grabbing ammo. The Physics Engine allows the car, crane etc. to work properly.

The Gravity Gun at the end of the game could have been easily replaced by an Energy-Sphere launcher. That is its primary use.

Pertaining to segments which require the Gravity Gun, this necessity is not transcendent, it is expected. The developers created a tool, naturally they would shape the game for its use. The failing is that such instances are infrequent, insipid, and could be slightly altered to not even require the gun. Some don't. A significant tool would go far beyond the obligatory uses, the Gravity Gun only does so by means described in previous posts. Hence, worth a mention, not essential.

My logic is simplistic. If Half-Life 2 did not have the Gravity Gun, it would be different, to compensate, but not worse overall.

The_root_of_all_evil:
The basic story is a struggle for identity, which is why so little of it is imparted to you; and why he doesn't talk, he's a figurehead rather than a person. Everyone else talks...that's the point.

It'd be like saying "I didn't like Psychonauts because of all the oblique references to meat."

I completely disagree with your interpretation of the plot, and find the outline you describe to still be mediocre storytelling. I also doubt I can persuade you, so it is an irreconcilable and inconclusive difference of opinion, I believe.
Also, having never played Psychonauts, I don't understand that comparison.

Edit: Stafe Mcgee, you posted during my own writing.

Strafe Mcgee:
Surely the innovations it makes combined with the top quality black humour and stunning finale mean it deserves more than that?

That begs the question. Is it innovation, or unfulfilled potential? Is the humor top quality, or worth no more than an occasional chuckle? Was the finale stunning, or standard? The quality of the game cannot be asserted by factors which rely on its quality. I believe the later on all three of my questions. Are bad puzzles, accompanied only by quirky monologues and shallow linearity worth more than a 6/10. I think not. Remember, a primary problem was the sheer difficulty (or lack thereof) of the puzzles. This is why I included the end note. I apologize for the preluding fallacy lecture, and am glad you fancied the game despite its mediocrity. Thank you for the level-headed input.

(Contrary to apparent belief, I did enjoy the entire Orange Box)

Hanji:
The Gravity Gun at the end of the game could have been easily replaced by an Energy-Sphere launcher. That is its primary use.

Completely and utterly irrelevant. Still doesn't change the fact that the Gravity Gun is needed.

Hanji:

Your second sentence is fallacious. As for the Gravity Gun, it was not an essential, or even significant part of the game. Amusing, innovative, but not exceedingly integral or useful. As you are unwilling to support your baseless claims, I needn't further elaborate mine (though if any arbitrary reader is curious, it's not a problem).

I wonder how well you would fare to getting through the antlion levels, where you have to construct a pathway across deadly deadly sand.

Which was my *favorite* part of the game because of the way it evoked tremors.

But I have to say, that you managed to review HL2 as a substandard without sounding like a complete dingbat. It's quite an accomplishment. I disagree with almost every single one of your points, but that's not really the point of a review. A review isn't about pandering to what other people think: It's about telling your opinion in a clear and concise manner...

Which you do. So I give your review a 9/10.

Hanji:

Pertaining to segments which require the Gravity Gun, this necessity is not transcendent, it is expected. The developers created a tool, naturally they would shape the game for its use. The failing is that such instances are infrequent, insipid, and could be slightly altered to not even require the gun. Some don't. A significant tool would go far beyond the obligatory uses, the Gravity Gun only does so by means described in previous posts. Hence, worth a mention, not essential.

But can you suggest how they can improve upon this and make the gravity gun a 'significant tool' in the game? I certainly noticed many uses for the Gun besides those which are obligatory (examples of these have been mentioned previously). I think the reason why the gravity gun and physics engine is to some extent revolutionary is that before it, first person shooters involved very little manipulation of the game environment. The levels were static playing fields with perhaps a few set instances where it was necessary to move a box in order to reach a certain point or something similar. Half-Life 2 allowed the player to move any object in the environment- an environment that was much more populated with objects that had physical properties and could be manipulated- for his or her own use. Before HL2 it was not possible, for example, to create cover by pulling an object towards the player and holding it in front of him.
If Half-Life 2 did not have the gravity gun, this would not be possible; and while it would be, in my opinion, a high-quality experience without it, with its addition the game is greatly improved.

Hanji:

The_root_of_all_evil:

It'd be like saying "I didn't like Psychonauts because of all the oblique references to meat."

Also, having never played Psychonauts, I don't understand that comparison.

I do. It's funny. Ah, that was a lot of meat, wasn't it? Good times.

Anyway, like many others, while I disagree with your review, I must commend you on how you present it. It's a lot better than that one review on GameFAQs that has the author rambling on about how the 'Orange Box was not orange, it was green' several times. To tell you the truth, this one and that one have been the only largely-negative reviews I've seen.
However, I'm glad you enjoyed it anyway.

Joeshie:
Completely and utterly irrelevant. Still doesn't change the fact that the Gravity Gun is needed.

My point is that the Gravity Gun is only needed for the completion of the game. That does not guarantee its significance to the quality of the game.

Namewithheld:
I wonder how well you would fare to getting through the antlion levels, where you have to