(Note: Feel free to flame me, as I haven't been able to play the game yet. However, the ideas are based on theory of natural progression, so my thoughts were the same even before it came out)
I think a lot of the ire against HL2 is based on expecting the same gameplay as HL1. However, natural progression means that the gameplay must change to represent a change in tactics. Is it not reasonable to expect that the military would have learned from its mistakes (using small patrols) and started sending in large armies had Black Mesa not been destroyed. Many people use Doom 3 as an example how gameplay should not change. However, people fail to realize that Doom 3 is not a direct sequel of Doom 2. You play a different person, in a different location, in a different time. In all three games, you play during the "beginning of an invasion from hell". In Half-life, you are continuing the story, so it is important to realize that things have changed in your absence (and people have learned about stuff that you haven't had a chance to).
1) A lot of people have complained about a lack of story in HL2. However, one of the biggest attractions of HL1 was that you started out with no idea what was going on. As you progressed, you had to find out about what was happening, and always had new questions. You felt like you were part of something bigger, instead of being the all-knowing uber-hero of other games.
In HL2, just as in HL1, you are again thrown into a situation with little knowledge of what's going on. Its up to you to figure out what is happening and make your own conclusions. As in real life, if you don't actively look for answers, you won't get them. Also, some things are not explained, just as in half-life 1. Like: why did the resonance cascade occur? why do I have to go to Zen? what happened to black Mesa afterward? did anyone else survive? who is the g-man? why is the military killing all the scientists? (the last was never clearly answered)
It's fully possible that some things will never be explained. I would not be surprise me at all. For example, imagine if (in some future game) the G-Man is killed. You might never find out who he really was. Would this be bad? Not really, though people would be pissed off, of course. However, just pretend you *are* Gordon Freeman. The G-Man is dead, and there's no "Valve" to complain to. You just have to move on, and hope things go well, realizing you may never understand what happened.
2) A lot of people complain about the difference in gameplay between the two. As I see it, it is logical that the sequel should be different and be much more of an active shooter. In HL1, you were living through the beginnings of operations (both alien invasions and military ops). These groups were just then advancing into new territory, and therefore in small groups. Even the aliens were probably just as confused as you were, having suddenly appeared on Earth. Gordon was also in a damaged environment, with major structural damage creating many puzzle opportunities. You're only goal for the first half of the game was to simply reach the surface, and therefore you just went where it wasn't blocked off in hopes of getting there.
In the second HL, 20 years have passed since the exploratory invasions, and forces (combine, alien, etc.) have learned what is going on. In HL2, the enemy knows what is going on with its forces, has had 20 years to dig in, and can coordinate mass attacks. Additionally, the random portals have closed, and aliens have stopped randomly appearing. In 20 year, it is easy to think that the combine have mopped up the few remaining alien grunts, bullsquids, etc. Headcrabs exist only because they are of a use to the combine. It could even be that aliens only appeared at Black Mesa, and only headcrabs were saved from the explosion (maybe for military bioweapons research). To me, it makes complete sense that in 20 years, one side of the war (in this case aliens who have stopped gaining reinforcements) has been completely wiped out. The aliens from op force had their leader destroyed, and probably gave up their invasion plan.
I apologize for the long post, but let me know what you think.
I think a lot of the ire against HL2 is based on expecting the same gameplay as HL1. However, natural progression means that the gameplay must change to represent a change in tactics. Is it not reasonable to expect that the military would have learned from its mistakes (using small patrols) and started sending in large armies had Black Mesa not been destroyed. Many people use Doom 3 as an example how gameplay should not change. However, people fail to realize that Doom 3 is not a direct sequel of Doom 2. You play a different person, in a different location, in a different time. In all three games, you play during the "beginning of an invasion from hell". In Half-life, you are continuing the story, so it is important to realize that things have changed in your absence (and people have learned about stuff that you haven't had a chance to).
1) A lot of people have complained about a lack of story in HL2. However, one of the biggest attractions of HL1 was that you started out with no idea what was going on. As you progressed, you had to find out about what was happening, and always had new questions. You felt like you were part of something bigger, instead of being the all-knowing uber-hero of other games.
In HL2, just as in HL1, you are again thrown into a situation with little knowledge of what's going on. Its up to you to figure out what is happening and make your own conclusions. As in real life, if you don't actively look for answers, you won't get them. Also, some things are not explained, just as in half-life 1. Like: why did the resonance cascade occur? why do I have to go to Zen? what happened to black Mesa afterward? did anyone else survive? who is the g-man? why is the military killing all the scientists? (the last was never clearly answered)
It's fully possible that some things will never be explained. I would not be surprise me at all. For example, imagine if (in some future game) the G-Man is killed. You might never find out who he really was. Would this be bad? Not really, though people would be pissed off, of course. However, just pretend you *are* Gordon Freeman. The G-Man is dead, and there's no "Valve" to complain to. You just have to move on, and hope things go well, realizing you may never understand what happened.
2) A lot of people complain about the difference in gameplay between the two. As I see it, it is logical that the sequel should be different and be much more of an active shooter. In HL1, you were living through the beginnings of operations (both alien invasions and military ops). These groups were just then advancing into new territory, and therefore in small groups. Even the aliens were probably just as confused as you were, having suddenly appeared on Earth. Gordon was also in a damaged environment, with major structural damage creating many puzzle opportunities. You're only goal for the first half of the game was to simply reach the surface, and therefore you just went where it wasn't blocked off in hopes of getting there.
In the second HL, 20 years have passed since the exploratory invasions, and forces (combine, alien, etc.) have learned what is going on. In HL2, the enemy knows what is going on with its forces, has had 20 years to dig in, and can coordinate mass attacks. Additionally, the random portals have closed, and aliens have stopped randomly appearing. In 20 year, it is easy to think that the combine have mopped up the few remaining alien grunts, bullsquids, etc. Headcrabs exist only because they are of a use to the combine. It could even be that aliens only appeared at Black Mesa, and only headcrabs were saved from the explosion (maybe for military bioweapons research). To me, it makes complete sense that in 20 years, one side of the war (in this case aliens who have stopped gaining reinforcements) has been completely wiped out. The aliens from op force had their leader destroyed, and probably gave up their invasion plan.
I apologize for the long post, but let me know what you think.
