236: Gordon Freeman, Private Eye

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

It seems Xvito hardly knows what he is talking about.

This article is spot on. It puts Half-Life 2 into words, and captures how the player feels. Makes me want to play the whole series again.... I think I will start up HL now.

G-Mang:
Half-Life is not Copyright EA. It's owned solely by Valve. EA just had the console publishing rights to the Orange Box.

I dunno why people keep mixing that up.

Because not everyone keeps up to date with worthless information like that...

DBlack:
Because not everyone keeps up to date with worthless information like that...

Inorite?? It's not like this site is about the game industry and Valve is one of the most acclaimed game studios of all time. I mean, if you're going to the trouble to put attribution on your images, why bother to do it correctly? It's not like the first result of googling "half-life 2" would bring up a page clearly showing its ownership belonging to Valve.

Xvito:

Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath is a great shooter. It has a lot of funny interactions between the player and the characters he meets. It has an interesting take on ammo, a semi-open world to explore, cool boss-fights, cool enemies, and almost no exposition at all. It has cut-scenes but they aren't filled with needless dialog, like it's brethren in the Half-Life-series (while not technically cut-scenes; they still serve the same purpose).

Hm, sounds pretty interesting, maybe I'll see how much it is on Steam.

Of course if it isn't everything you promise it is expect to get a long message from me about what a philistine you are =)

Xvito:

Ragsnstitches:

Xvito:

Ragsnstitches:
What i said

What he said

what i said

If you must know what I consider a great shooter, then I shall tell you.

Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath is a great shooter. It has a lot of funny interactions between the player and the characters he meets. It has an interesting take on ammo, a semi-open world to explore, cool boss-fights, cool enemies, and almost no exposition at all. It has cut-scenes but they aren't filled with needless dialog, like it's brethren in the Half-Life-series (while not technically cut-scenes; they still serve the same purpose).

Also, the cut-scenes in the Half-Life-series do not introduce any characters; they just sort of assume that you already know them (quite an eerie feeling, to be honest).

PS. I never even finished the original game (Half-Life), because it was nearly unplayable. So, my experience of the the Half-Life-series comes almost entirely from the second game and it's expansions.

Thanks, a good response. Never played strangers wrath as i never had an xbox, so i can't make an opinion on it. I believe it was good and i always loved the ol' oddworld games. What i don't understand is when half life came out initially it was THE BEST option for fps's at the time. Did you play it in the years after it's launch? I've always thought hype kills games and there was to be no exception. Otherwise FPS's would have been a dead genre for you.

Your exposition stance on Half-Life 2 still doesn't make any sense... of any game i know of it is one of the handfull that doesn't throw shit loads of story related info your way... the world, what happened and why are all answered by the game by show not tell. In other words they don't sit you down to a long ass dialouge sequence to tell you why "we don't go to ravenholm" or they don't place a convenient device or notice describing how events transpired in nova prosspekt... you figure it out for yourself by observation of the enviroment.

I have no quarrel with your tastes just your argument, i'm thinking there has been a misunderstanding to be honest.

Ragsnstitches:
I love the half-life games and Portal. They are competent FPS's and puzzlers respectively. The methods of story telling are also fantastic as this article shows. I think Half-Life 1 and 2 are the 2 most frequently played games in my gaming repetoir. So many run throughs all of which have been satisfying. Episode 1, 2 and Portal i've played several times but due to the much shorter experience i play them less frequently (counter logical i know but that's how it seems for me), even though they are better developed then HL1 or 2.

Xvito:
Claims it has tons of exposition, using italics and bold font to make his uncontributory argument seem more valid.

If you've played any number of games with a story you will be bombarded with information bombs in the form of PDA's. Notes, long dialogue sequences with no interaction, cutscenes and videos etc.... and you claim the 5 minutes they take out of the game as exposition. Most of the time they don't give away story, instead teach you some new gameplay feature or (as you unwittingly proved) introduce new characters

-"Or have you people totally forgotten about blah blah blah to some "random NPC" that you've never met before."

I'd love to know what other first person shooter (or game in general) you can bring to this discussion to change my opinion or even just verify your own, as you seem to be just opposing whats generally accepted for the sole purpose of attention seeking.

DBlack:
What the hell??? The entire half life series has been slightly entertaining at best, and portal had shit for story line! I loved the game portal because it was fun NOT because it was full of depth. Its like saying Mario Bros. had a revolutionary storyline and amazing character development. No...it...fucking...didnt.

Three question marks! Are you really that confused? Your welcome to an opinion but at least back up your argument with support, like another game for example, that does it better. Also no one mentioned character developement... at... fucking... all. In fact i would agree with you if you had absolutely any bases for your opinion. The discussion has nothing to do with the originality or revolutionary aspects of the story line as it has simply been said -in the article- "Earth's been taken over by aliens. Go shoot them." What is being discussed is the suggestive nature of the world opposed to information being thrown at you in waves.

One thing I would admit is that the Character developement isn't the best. Personally i don't find myself moved by the plights of the characters. For example at the end of half-life 2 i was surprised but not saddened. In that regard they missed the mark for me. Although i do enjoy alyx's (and dogs) company in the episodes and i actually felt bad for the companion cube.

Not confusion so much as emphasis, and thats a good point I didnt back my side up with an example, so ill do that next time.

Im just trying to say that HL2 didnt have as much depth as the writer says it did....
well shit... half way through writing this response I rethought my stand. HL as a series didnt have a very staight forward storyline, but it did have alot of "extra shit" that didnt really help for story, but it shows that more has happend in a given area more then just what you see or did. I dont think that makes a game better, but it does make it more interesting.
Theres a reason games like halo do much better then HF, its because of gameplay and an interesting and easy to understand story.

Ragsnstitches:

Xvito:

Ragsnstitches:

Xvito:

Ragsnstitches:
What i said

What he said

what i said

If you must know what I consider a great shooter, then I shall tell you.

Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath is a great shooter. It has a lot of funny interactions between the player and the characters he meets. It has an interesting take on ammo, a semi-open world to explore, cool boss-fights, cool enemies, and almost no exposition at all. It has cut-scenes but they aren't filled with needless dialog, like it's brethren in the Half-Life-series (while not technically cut-scenes; they still serve the same purpose).

Also, the cut-scenes in the Half-Life-series do not introduce any characters; they just sort of assume that you already know them (quite an eerie feeling, to be honest).

PS. I never even finished the original game (Half-Life), because it was nearly unplayable. So, my experience of the the Half-Life-series comes almost entirely from the second game and it's expansions.

Thanks, a good response. Never played strangers wrath as i never had an xbox, so i can't make an opinion on it. I believe it was good and i always loved the ol' oddworld games. What i don't understand is when half life came out initially it was THE BEST option for fps's at the time. Did you play it in the years after it's launch? I've always thought hype kills games and there was to be no exception. Otherwise FPS's would have been a dead genre for you.

Your exposition stance on Half-Life 2 still doesn't make any sense... of any game i know of it is one of the handfull that doesn't throw shit loads of story related info your way... the world, what happened and why are all answered by the game by show not tell. In other words they don't sit you down to a long ass dialouge sequence to tell you why "we don't go to ravenholm" or they don't place a convenient device or notice describing how events transpired in nova prosspekt... you figure it out for yourself by observation of the enviroment.

I have no quarrel with your tastes just your argument, i'm thinking there has been a misunderstanding to be honest.

Well, the thing is; it doesn't have much exposition, per say. It's just that it feels much more than it is, because it's so inconsistently dispersed throughout the game... It's kind of like the difficulty curve in Trine, i.e like running headfirst into a wall.

So, while the game doesn't have, like the tired me said (sorry about that), "tons of fucking exposition". I still think it's handled in the wrong way. Thus, making it worse than it could have been.

Also, it's kind of hard to enjoy the story in a game when you are struggling against a retarded physics-engine, idiotic puzzles, monotonous boss-fights (they're all the same... What's up with that?) and glitches. That might have been contributory to my general disliking of Half-Life 2.

PS. I did enjoy the sections where all you did was run, jump and shoot dudes. Those were really well made.

DBlack:

Not confusion so much as emphasis, and thats a good point I didnt back my side up with an example, so ill do that next time.

Im just trying to say that HL2 didnt have as much depth as the writer says it did....
well shit... half way through writing this response I rethought my stand. HL as a series didnt have a very staight forward storyline, but it did have alot of "extra shit" that didnt really help for story, but it shows that more has happend in a given area more then just what you see or did. I dont think that makes a game better, but it does make it more interesting.
Theres a reason games like halo do much better then HF, its because of gameplay and an interesting and easy to understand story.

That's an opinion i can't argue with, to each their own after all.

However there's a factual error their. Half-life 2 out performed Halo in terms of retail sales, ratings, and awards (sales do not include steam sales or bundle sales). This doesn't include it's episodic sequels or halos sequels and i can't find a reliable source to verify the sequels of either games. However i can imagine the original fan base of both games buying into the sequels as well as new people joining in. Don't forget Halo series is (apart from combat evolved) xbox exclusive while valve's games have been released on every current gen platform except the wii. Why is that i wonder?

Oh and half-life out performed half-life 2 in the same regaurds just in case i got confused with your statement.

Xvito:
Well, the thing is; it doesn't have much exposition, per say. It's just that it feels much more than it is, because it's so inconsistently dispersed throughout the game... It's kind of like the difficulty curve in Trine, i.e like running headfirst into a wall.

So, while the game doesn't have, like the tired me said (sorry about that), "tons of fucking exposition". I still think it's handled in the wrong way. Thus, making it worse than it could have been.

Also, it's kind of hard to enjoy the story in a game when you are struggling against a retarded physics-engine, idiotic puzzles, monotonous boss-fights (they're all the same... What's up with that?) and glitches. That might have been contributory to my general disliking of Half-Life 2.

PS. I did enjoy the sections where all you did was run, jump and shoot dudes. Those were really well made.

Heh... the see-saw puzzle nature of the game was a bit gratuitous.

We've finally boiled down to simple differences in tastes. In my opinion the inconsistency of the, shall we say, "dialouge sequences" aren't as incosistant as they seem. They were created to serve a purpose wihin the game while still attempting to keep it relative to the story. You'll notice these event occur just before a big shootout, or a "boss battle" (i prefer to see them as rare encounters, they aren't meant to be unique just bigger and badder then ther others) or before a new gameplay feature is introduced. They serve as a breather, small tutorial or a heads-up for other events whitout removing the illusion of the game world.

The opposite in this spectrum would be Metal Gear Solid... the game will tell you what to do and refer to the controller your using while doing so. It would break immersion if it wasn't a running feature of the game. Did you like this series by any chance?

Retarded Physics?... really? The game uses the Havoc 2 engine which was the most advanced physics engine at the time. As is generally excepted the source games are showing their age so in modern gen games it's a bit lacking. But still... it blows me away every time i play it.

boholikeu:

Xvito:

Talked about Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath

Hm, sounds pretty interesting, maybe I'll see how much it is on Steam.

Of course if it isn't everything you promise it is expect to get a long message from me about what a philistine you are =)

Good luck... i believe it's xbox (last gen) exclusive though, the only reason i never played it :(

Ragsnstitches:

Xvito:
Snippety

The opposite in this spectrum would be Metal Gear Solid... the game will tell you what to do and refer to the controller your using while doing so. It would break immersion if it wasn't a running feature of the game. Did you like this series by any chance?

Retarded Physics?... really? The game uses the Havoc 2 engine which was the most advanced physics engine at the time. As is generally excepted the source games are showing their age so in modern gen games it's a bit lacking. But still... it blows me away every time i play it.

Have you studied physics or are you currently studying physics? If you have/are, then you should realize that a lot of the puzzles in Half-Life 2 make absolutely no sense. For me, who is currently studying physics (among other things), it's sometimes hard to figure out certain puzzles. Because, what the game wants you to do seems so stupid at times...

Also, I have only played the fourth game in the Metal Gear Solid-series. It was a pretty interesting movie... And at times even an interesting game.

Xvito:
Have you studied physics or are you currently studying physics? If you have/are, then you should realize that a lot of the puzzles in Half-Life 2 make absolutely no sense. For me, who is currently studying physics (among other things), it's sometimes hard to figure out certain puzzles. Because, what the game wants you to do seems so stupid at times...

Also, I have only played the fourth game in the Metal Gear Solid-series. It was a pretty interesting movie... And at times even an interesting game.

My judgement of the games physics isn't due to studying anything. It's relative to what was available at the time, which was seriously lacking. Don't tell me you never experienced the feather physics of the original havoc engine... shit would float to the ground rather then fall.

So... i'm guessing you only played these games recently as you seem to be comparing them to contemporary games. You have to give credit where it's due, half-life 2 was released in 2003-4 (not sure) and it was head shoulders above other games in the physics department. And as for the puzzles... you found them difficult? It's just the game wasn't made by physicists (at least not many) and technology was still limited. So at best it has a secondary level grasp on physics. Geeze give credit where it's due. I'm sorry but "heavy object on one side of a see-saw will lift lighter object on the other" is a pretty easy concept to grasp even if the objects aren't relatively accurate in terms of weight and all the puzzles were like this. I didn't feel the need to get out my compass or ruler or calculator to solve them. It's good to know i was able to figure something out which a SCIENTIST couldn't.

... sorry.

PS. If you want to throw your knowledge around like a weapon then i might as well too (This really wasn't neccessary you know). I'm doing a degree course on film and animation which goes in depth on how to formulate a good story. So in that regards my knowledge of such outweighs your's, right? So that makes this whole mess of an argument pointless as i was right about the very first post, right?

...Or do you have another ace up your sleave. You did mention you were doing "other things".

Story telling is an incredibly difficult art; in an interactive medium that job becomes a thousand times harder. Many designers believe you should "funnel" the player to plot-specific moments (i.e. the Metal Gear series; many many FPS that try to emulate Half-life). But because you are creating a living breathing world; you should allow people to discover it for themselves, this is something valve does wonderfully.

Take the Left 4 Dead games. At each saferoom, you see the scribbles of the survivors before you. You see their anger, confusion, and fear of the apocalypse. You walk around to a supposed safe zone in a mall only to find a pile of corpses that touch the ceiling. You move to a motel room and find ammo laying next to the carcass of someone. It's not an infected, but you can tell she took her own life before being torn by the horde or face being turned into one of them. This style has also been used by games like Fallout 3 (checking out the ransacked and obliterated wasteland), the Grand Theft Auto games (with the many easter eggs to be found), and the first F.E.A.R (Alma's appearances and copying the computer drives).

This is the style of storytelling that should be adopted by designers. Let the player slowly unravel their world. Don't just give us a heap of cutscenes that are either written poorly or drag on forever.

Mild Spoiler warning for a game not by Valve.

I have nothing to say about that article aside from "I agree" so I'm going to say something else.

As good as Valve's games are, I really don't think any of them has ever really made the most of the interactive storytelling medium. The fact that the player is in control of the main character is what separates VG storytelling from all other mediums and it's the one thing that so very few games have really taken advantage of (or, at least in a way that worked).
The example I'm going to hold up on an unrealistically idealized pedestal is Deus Ex. It had all the things the Half-Life series has highlighted in this article (except for mind-blowing graphics), but on top of that, it also had a system that adapted to the choices you made. It wasn't that embarrassing moral choice system of Bioshock (and probably some game before it, but I don't know which it was). It was a subtle thing. The story went roughly the same way no matter how you played, but all the characters reacted to you differently, which really gives you the feel that you're in a real world.
Also, the copious amounts of detail make the game worth replaying and has some really eye opening moments. I'll never forget the second time I played the game and I went through the ship with all the Chinese guys on it. The first time I played it, I was thinking "this is a bunch of Chinese guys poisoning innocent civilians, fuck them!" and I systematically hunted down and slaughtered all of them. The second time I played through, I actually took the time to hack every computer and read all of notes and e-mails. By doing this, I learned that most of the crew of the ship had no idea what the cargo was and the captain was only going along with it because the big bad Mr. Simons was holding a gun to his daughter's head. It made me feel really guilty for murdering everyone the first time and served as a real wake-up call about the dangers of jumping to conclusions.
Now, where in Half-Life do you get that effect? No where. Not to say that Half-Life's bad. It's definitely one of my favorite game series and the writing is superb, I'm just saying that it could definitely take better advantage of the strengths of video games as a storytelling medium than it does.

Xvito:
Well, the thing is; it doesn't have much exposition, per say. It's just that it feels much more than it is, because it's so inconsistently dispersed throughout the game... It's kind of like the difficulty curve in Trine, i.e like running headfirst into a wall.

So, while the game doesn't have, like the tired me said (sorry about that), "tons of fucking exposition". I still think it's handled in the wrong way. Thus, making it worse than it could have been.

Also, it's kind of hard to enjoy the story in a game when you are struggling against a retarded physics-engine, idiotic puzzles, monotonous boss-fights (they're all the same... What's up with that?) and glitches. That might have been contributory to my general disliking of Half-Life 2.

PS. I did enjoy the sections where all you did was run, jump and shoot dudes. Those were really well made.

Your position makes a lot more sense now, but I'm kind of curious about which physics puzzles annoyed you. I realize that havok physics are a bit exaggerated, but your complaining here sounds a bit like this soldier who complained that FPS weapons aren't realistic: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.168194#4528939

Ragsnstitches:

Good luck... i believe it's xbox (last gen) exclusive though, the only reason i never played it :(

I heard it's on steam now.

Ragsnstitches:

Xvito:
Have you studied physics or are you currently studying physics? If you have/are, then you should realize that a lot of the puzzles in Half-Life 2 make absolutely no sense. For me, who is currently studying physics (among other things), it's sometimes hard to figure out certain puzzles. Because, what the game wants you to do seems so stupid at times...

Also, I have only played the fourth game in the Metal Gear Solid-series. It was a pretty interesting movie... And at times even an interesting game.

My judgement of the games physics isn't due to studying anything. It's relative to what was available at the time, which was seriously lacking. Don't tell me you never experienced the feather physics of the original havoc engine... shit would float to the ground rather then fall.

So... i'm guessing you only played these games recently as you seem to be comparing them to contemporary games. You have to give credit where it's due, half-life 2 was released in 2003-4 (not sure) and it was head shoulders above other games in the physics department. And as for the puzzles... you found them difficult? It's just the game wasn't made by physicists (at least not many) and technology was still limited. So at best it has a secondary level grasp on physics. Geeze give credit where it's due. I'm sorry but "heavy object on one side of a see-saw will lift lighter object on the other" is a pretty easy concept to grasp even if the objects aren't relatively accurate in terms of weight and all the puzzles were like this. I didn't feel the need to get out my compass or ruler or calculator to solve them. It's good to know i was able to figure something out which a SCIENTIST couldn't.

... sorry.

PS. If you want to throw your knowledge around like a weapon then i might as well too (This really wasn't neccessary you know). I'm doing a degree course on film and animation which goes in depth on how to formulate a good story. So in that regards my knowledge of such outweighs your's, right? So that makes this whole mess of an argument pointless as i was right about the very first post, right?

...Or do you have another ace up your sleave. You did mention you were doing "other things".

The problem lies not in the power of the physics-engine. It lies within the fact that it is used so very liberally in the puzzles which sometimes makes them hard to understand. For some of the puzzles I had to find exploits just to get through them... Because apparently Gordon weighs about as much as a fucking brick!?

Xvito:

Ragsnstitches:

Xvito:
Have you studied physics or are you currently studying physics? If you have/are, then you should realize that a lot of the puzzles in Half-Life 2 make absolutely no sense. For me, who is currently studying physics (among other things), it's sometimes hard to figure out certain puzzles. Because, what the game wants you to do seems so stupid at times...

Also, I have only played the fourth game in the Metal Gear Solid-series. It was a pretty interesting movie... And at times even an interesting game.

My judgement of the games physics isn't due to studying anything. It's relative to what was available at the time, which was seriously lacking. Don't tell me you never experienced the feather physics of the original havoc engine... shit would float to the ground rather then fall.

So... i'm guessing you only played these games recently as you seem to be comparing them to contemporary games. You have to give credit where it's due, half-life 2 was released in 2003-4 (not sure) and it was head shoulders above other games in the physics department. And as for the puzzles... you found them difficult? It's just the game wasn't made by physicists (at least not many) and technology was still limited. So at best it has a secondary level grasp on physics. Geeze give credit where it's due. I'm sorry but "heavy object on one side of a see-saw will lift lighter object on the other" is a pretty easy concept to grasp even if the objects aren't relatively accurate in terms of weight and all the puzzles were like this. I didn't feel the need to get out my compass or ruler or calculator to solve them. It's good to know i was able to figure something out which a SCIENTIST couldn't.

... sorry.

PS. If you want to throw your knowledge around like a weapon then i might as well too (This really wasn't neccessary you know). I'm doing a degree course on film and animation which goes in depth on how to formulate a good story. So in that regards my knowledge of such outweighs your's, right? So that makes this whole mess of an argument pointless as i was right about the very first post, right?

...Or do you have another ace up your sleave. You did mention you were doing "other things".

The problem lies not in the power of the physics-engine. It lies within the fact that it is used so very liberally in the puzzles which sometimes makes them hard to understand. For some of the puzzles I had to find exploits just to get through them... Because apparently Gordon weighs about as much as a fucking brick!?

Two bricks, actually. ;)

I dunno, I still see your complaints as being as nit-picky as when people complain about the weapons' realism.

boholikeu:

Xvito:

Ragsnstitches:

Xvito:
Have you studied physics or are you currently studying physics? If you have/are, then you should realize that a lot of the puzzles in Half-Life 2 make absolutely no sense. For me, who is currently studying physics (among other things), it's sometimes hard to figure out certain puzzles. Because, what the game wants you to do seems so stupid at times...

Also, I have only played the fourth game in the Metal Gear Solid-series. It was a pretty interesting movie... And at times even an interesting game.

My judgement of the games physics isn't due to studying anything. It's relative to what was available at the time, which was seriously lacking. Don't tell me you never experienced the feather physics of the original havoc engine... shit would float to the ground rather then fall.

So... i'm guessing you only played these games recently as you seem to be comparing them to contemporary games. You have to give credit where it's due, half-life 2 was released in 2003-4 (not sure) and it was head shoulders above other games in the physics department. And as for the puzzles... you found them difficult? It's just the game wasn't made by physicists (at least not many) and technology was still limited. So at best it has a secondary level grasp on physics. Geeze give credit where it's due. I'm sorry but "heavy object on one side of a see-saw will lift lighter object on the other" is a pretty easy concept to grasp even if the objects aren't relatively accurate in terms of weight and all the puzzles were like this. I didn't feel the need to get out my compass or ruler or calculator to solve them. It's good to know i was able to figure something out which a SCIENTIST couldn't.

... sorry.

PS. If you want to throw your knowledge around like a weapon then i might as well too (This really wasn't neccessary you know). I'm doing a degree course on film and animation which goes in depth on how to formulate a good story. So in that regards my knowledge of such outweighs your's, right? So that makes this whole mess of an argument pointless as i was right about the very first post, right?

...Or do you have another ace up your sleave. You did mention you were doing "other things".

The problem lies not in the power of the physics-engine. It lies within the fact that it is used so very liberally in the puzzles which sometimes makes them hard to understand. For some of the puzzles I had to find exploits just to get through them... Because apparently Gordon weighs about as much as a fucking brick!?

Two bricks, actually. ;)

I dunno, I still see your complaints as being as nit-picky as when people complain about the weapons' realism.

Well, the thing is; if I'm going to find a counter-weight for myself, then I'm not going to be looking for bricks, instead I'm going to be looking for some large boulder. It's first when I realize, that, much like the spoon, there is no large boulder, that I try with two bricks instead.

And if I can push a weight around to be able to drive my car up a ramp, then why can't I just throw the car up the ramp instead... And then jump fifteen feet into the air and do a somersault...?

I don't demand that the physics should be realistic; merely that they should be consistent.

Xvito:
Well, the thing is; if I'm going to find a counter-weight for myself, then I'm not going to be looking for bricks, instead I'm going to be looking for some large boulder. It's first when I realize, that, much like the spoon, there is no large boulder, that I try with two bricks instead.

And if I can push a weight around to be able to drive my car up a ramp, then why can't I just throw the car up the ramp instead... And then jump fifteen feet into the air and do a somersault...?

I don't demand that the physics should be realistic; merely that they should be consistent.

Again, I understand where you're coming from, but one doesn't need to be studying physics to be aware of the problems you mentioned. I guess that's why the comments sound so nit-picky to me. Most people realize the same things you did, but most people can let it go because, well, HL2 is also a game about aliens and robots.

that picture of gorden freeman looks very much alike Dan Turčll a danish writer :P

http://frokenlilienskjold.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dan_turell_89870b.jpg

Episode 3 MUST have Gordon with a 40's style going on. Otherwise I will be extremely disappointed.

reminds me a bit of my hobby about figuring out how and who died in video games. it`s especially a bad habit in fallout when i find some blood smears or a skeleton.

Bob_F_It:
I didn't get the hint, and nobody directed my attention to it.
But at least there was somebody in episodes 1&2. Alex nicely points at a few things and starts the ball rolling for you to piece the rest together. And there aren't any distractions like endless headcrabs when you're meant to learn something new about the world you're in.

I'll need a reason to look at it first, otherwise I'll walk right by.

These two quotes are probably one of the big reasons I like Valves story so much. With the coastline example, it was always there for you to see, but you chose not to look to deeply at it because you were enjoying and focused on the gameplay. If your someone like me who looks around in every corner to see what there is, there is ALWAYS something more to find, and always more to add to the story which is encredibly rewarding. I wouldnt say that these things are at any time hidden, more hidden in plain sight. They are out there but if you dont choose to look to closely you dont notice, and I appricieate that more than having big arrows pointing to content.

Wow.... I thoroughly enjoyed the Half Life Series before but after reading this im going to wipe the dust off the orange box and replay it, looking for every detail that i might of previously overlooked.

Raithnor:
While we're casting Gordon Freeman as a private eye maybe we can have him investigate where Half-Life 2: Episode 3 went.

God, this was written January 2010. It's now two years later and the six year anniversary of the announcement of Episode 3.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 69852)