My thoughts (spoilers)

pomegranate

Newbie
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
1
I have been wanting to post my feelings for days now, and haven't made any comment on either here or on PHL (where I've also posted this response) before now. This is what I have to say. It's quite a lot, but I think I've expressed myself in a way that might help people understand why others some people feel the way they do about HL2.

Starting note: Half Life is still, by some considerable margin, my favourite game. Nothing since has created the same feeling of atmosphere, tension, fear and drama. No other FPS had such a marvelously clever (and cleverly told) storyline. To me, only Allied Assault, Call Of Duty and AvP 2have come close to matching the atmosphere of HL, and none matched it for the distance it advanced the genre.
Half-Life 2 should have been the follow-up to Half-Life in every aspect. From what I'd read of interviews after HL, I felt that Valve were a different kind of developer, one who knew exactly how to make a perfect game. Gabe and the other guy knew that, ultimately, the best-selling games are generally the ones that are most fun (Sims aside). Marc Laidlaw knew how to write a story that would yank you into the world you were interacting with, and manipulate your emotions they were pizza dough. like a The artists knew how to design a world and its inhabitants that did the most with the technology available, and made fantastic events and creatures seem completely believeable and not hokey in the slightest. In my eyes, Valve WERE IT when it came to making FPSs. No-one could touch them. They had a unique magic touch. They had made one game, that stood alone from all other computer games.
So when I saw, in the shop, a magazine with "PC Zone" written in a telling shade of orange, and underneath a certain Ancient Greek symbol in the same colour, you could understand if my heart raced a little. The second coming WOULD happen. There was no need to worry if it would be any good. This was VALVE. It was a law of the universe that everything they made would be gold - perfect, impeccible, without flaw. I cared only a little when I heard of the delay. After all, I was only 20 at the time, so (baring fatal accident) I would very likely play the game at some point in the next 50-60 years. I would die having played the perfect sequel to the perfect FPS.

But, within about 10 minutes of playing, I felt something was amiss. Where was the atmosphere? Where was the sense of place, of fear, of danger? Where were the surprises? Where was the suspense? Nothing shocked me or made my jaw drop. I thought, ah it's okay, I'm just tired from work, it'll pick up soon. And so I left my first session just before I got to the hoverboat.
And yet, it didn't really ever pick up. I never felt into the game. I never felt I was fighting to survive. I didn't really know what I was fighting for - no-one ever actually said what the aim of the resistance was. I didn't know WHAT I was fighting for. In HL, you were first fighting to stay alive, and then to stop the destruction of the Earth. In HL2, that's kind of already happened. You don't know what you're meant to be able to achieve, or how you're going to do it, besides killing Breen and destroying the Citadel (which you can guess from watching the trailers).
To quantify my feelings, I think I found the game maybe one quarter as much fun as I expected it to be. I find it hard to express why, so below are a few arbitray reasons.

-No Hyrda, Prowler or Combine Assassin (all in trailers/concept art)
-Limited music made action sequences far less compelling.
-Strider's not impaling people on their legs (in trailers)
-Shit AI, on Combine and NPCs
-No majorly significant plot points (besides Eli being kidnapped, and Mossman's betrayal) that couldn't be GUESSED BY WATCHING THE TRAILERS!
-The Story in General. People defend it as subtle and clever, but I think that's just another way of saying non-existant. I get really really pissed off at people saying, in response to such complaints, "Ah you're too dumb to understand the story, Valve tells it in a clever way, you need cutscenes to understand what's going, you retards." NO. NO. **** Off. Half-Life worked in the same way, and that storyline was absolutely awesome. Do you people (HL2 story defenders) think that no-one else played HL1? I did. I knew what was going on, noticed out all the nuances and what they meant (e.g. dead scientists on Xen). Yes, the same method was used in HL2. But the story it delivered was very boring, without much drama and so not compelling. This is the point people like myself are making.
I wanted to know:
-Why were the Vortigaunts working with the resistance?
-What happened between HL1 and the 7-hour war?
-What happened on Xen after HL2?
-How did the Xen aliens get to the rest of Earth?
-Who does the G-Man work for? What is with his teleportation/omnipresence?
-Did Breen actually die at the end?
-What happened to C17 when the Citadel blew?
-Who are the Combine? What do they want with Earth?
In a interview with Gamespy last year, Doug Lombard said, regarding the story, "Sort of learning more, getting deeper into the universe, and learning more about what happened at Black Mesa and about the events.... we debrief Gordon on what's happened since then and why he is needed now." Pretty much false.
It's no use saying "Oh, all this will be wrapped up in HL3." I don't care. I want at least SOME answers now, or rather on Sunday when I finished the game. Besides which, I really doubt HL3 will answer all the questions from HL1 and 2. I'm sure whatever the scenario, it's still gonna be a FPS and so there will be limited opportunity and suitable ways of exploring the backstory and past events to people's satisfaction.

- Lombardi also said "At first it seems like you're still fighting against a military-police faction, as well as the aliens, but throughout the game we allow the player to make allegiances with certain subsets of both sides." Er, is this referring to when you meet and fight with different cells of the resistance? Hardly as dramatic as it sounds.

-Stupid plot mechanisms (a mischevious headcrab stuffs up the teleport = Breen knows you are in C17, so you have to flee. Not quite the same as "a mysterious sample of crystal from another dimension is exposed (at the direction of the Administrator) to exotic radiation, causing Xen and Earth to temporarily merge and transport hundreds of bizarre aliens into Black Mesa."

-I think the combine pursuit should've been more intense. Woulda liked to have seen more choppers and some tanks/APC chasing through the countryside.
-Frequent aimlessness
-Lack of motivation (what am I supposed to be doing) = lack of drama = hard to feel immersed = boredom, quit game
-Shortness. This game was meant to be twice as long as HL1. Bullshit, it's shorter. Very, very aggravated by this.
- Alyx. She didn't seem believable as a character. The familiarity with Gordon seemed forced, her voice acting seemed at times very unexpressive (e.g. when they find Eli at Nova Prospekt).

-Limited explorability of locales (that is, being stuck to a generally narrow path, without interesting features outside of the intended path)
-Missing "Zombies at dawn" section from trailers
-Striders far wimpier than I expected
-More time spent in C17 at the start would have been cool
-Limited effectiveness of using Grav Gun to carry a shield
-Missed opportunities for implementation of physics to combat enemy (a la Traptown) - almost as bad as the use of GeoMod in Red Faction.
-Some dumb chapter titles. Might sound petty but it was a little touch I really appreciated about the original game, e.g. "Surface Tension", "Interloper", "Questionable Ethics" - "We Don't Go There..." - ooh, tenseness! "Follow Freeman" -- please. That's just lazy.
-None of the welding-shit-together-to-make-tools that was suggested back last year
-No OICW-style gun
-Someone noted this elsewhere and I agree: the NPCs seem a bit emotionless, characterless. Also, Barney and also Eli seem far too jovial most of the time given the circumstances. Only Kleiner really resonated for me.
I didn't *get* the Scanners - what difference did it make if they snapped you? None.
-Father Gregori. Just a boring, "kooky" nutter. What's his story? Why is he there? Never mind, let's blast some zombies.
-The slow teleport - utterly, utterly pointless! Everything that happened (the uprising, Eli being taken to Citadel) in that week could have reasonably happened in the time Gordon was away from the city anyway. It's needlesness jarred badly, a severe case of unnecessary deux ex machina IMO.
-Getting into the Citadel wasn't the interesting challenge it could have been. "Let's see, how about a massive assault on the gates, using the huge caches of RPGs we've got, and dog." "Actually, no, that would be too much fun, how about Gordon just slips in through the basement instead."

For the sake of balance, good stuff:
All of last two chapters up to the end
The Combine super-rifle
The enhanced Gravity Gun
Scripted sequences weren't irritating - seemed natural progress of events considering the circumstances. But scripted behaviour in place of true AI was annoying (e.g. enemies only using environment to attack by being scripted)
Blowing up the chimney during the Hoverboat section. Pretty odd but cool.
DOG. Could've been irritating, but used well in scripted sequences. Might've been nice to see more of it.
The section in the trainyard just after the mine was cool, nicely paced combat.
Combine-versus-Xen fights looked cool
The whole of Nova Prospekt was a blast
The fight in and on top of the "Museum or whatever" was good
The Mossman twist, and countertwist, were surprising, quite mature
Some of Breen's speechs were clever, made me think.
Combine Soldiers sending up flares during attacks. A cool little touch I only understood what it was the second time I saw it.
Fighting alongside Barney (again) was fun.
Fighting the big Ant Lions was a enjoyable genuine challenge.
The uprising was nicely done
The ascent to the top of the Citadel, with the view of the city, was stunning.
The first on-rail section of the Citadel was a great homage to the start of HL1
The bridge on the buggy section, good sense of place (as in, holy shit I'm a mile from the ground)
The flight from the Combine at the start was cool, very nice extended set piece.

I know these are all small points, and I might seem petty. But to me it's all the tiny things that made HL1 so superb. Unfortunately, a lot of the small things in HL2 were annoying and reduced my enjoyment considerably.
That is what it comes down to: It wasn't much fun for me. Sigh.
Time for a new hobby.
Thanks for reading.
 
One word, nostalgia, get over it. Father Grigori was the Minister or whatever of a Church in Ravenholm and he is staying there to save his people, or as he put it "Tend to his flock" or somthing like that.
 
Not really, consider what it is I'm being *nostalgiac* for. If I'm being nostalgiac, then that suggests that the days of individual videos games making huge evolutionary leaps, and suck you into their reality, are behind us.
Do you think that's the case?

Yeah, fair response about Gregori. I guess what I wanted was to spend more time finding out about the character, rather than him just being a shooting buddy for ten minutes. Helps with the drama.
 
pomegranate said:
Not really, consider what it is I'm being *nostalgiac* for. If I'm being nostalgiac, then that suggests that the days of individual videos games making huge evolutionary leaps, and suck you into their reality, are behind us.
Do you think that's the case?
Half-Life>Goldeneye
Half-Life 2>Doom 3/Halo 2
Whatever yuo want to compare it to Half-Life 2 is as far ahead of its competition as Half-Life was ahead of it's competition 6 years ago.
I agree about Grigori, I wanted to spend more time with all the NPCs, learn more about them. I would have enjoyed some time doing tests in Eli's lab, getting to know Alyx, Eli and Judith more.
 
I respectfully disagree. Half-Life 2 is far more comparable to its contemporaries than Half-Life was. It's weaker than it's contemporaries in a number of aspects.
 
pomegranate said:
I respectfully disagree. Half-Life 2 is far more comparable to its contemporaries than Half-Life was. It's weaker than it's contemporaries in a number of aspects.
Comparing this game to Doom 3 or Farcry is like comparing Half-life to Goldeneye(they came out at about the same time right?). I thought the facial animations on the NPCs were amazing, and the best scripted sequences in any game by far. It is getting harder to make games more revolutionary, ecspessialy when comparing it to half-life which could almost be considered a second generation FPS. The first being the plain run-and-gun with the enemies with 0 AI and no story at all.
 
Foxtrot said:
It is getting harder to make games more revolutionary, ecspessialy when comparing it to half-life which could almost be considered a second generation FPS.

I think you might well be right in this. Hmm. Perhaps that's the problem, then. That said, most of the stuff that let it down for me could have been avoided/improved, I think just with a little more work and application of the principles they used in developing HL1.
 
Seriously, 3 quarters of your story questions are answered in the game, and if you want i will answer them for you.

Also most of your complaints are petty, cutting things is the general way with games, its called development process, they dont cut things to laugh and be mean to the player you know, they do it because it must have sucked or not worked

Also lamaar didnt mess up the teleport, it was something else, lamaar just ended up in there...this just shows you dont udnerstand the story at all
 
Lombardi's job is marketing...

Why do people not realise this kind of thing when they read what he says?
 
If it wasn't for the leaked build some of the stuff you are complaining about being cut would never have reached the public eye (except maybe throguh the two books) and so you would have enjoyed the game better.
 
Samon, please go ahead, what are the answers to what I've asked, and at what point do you learn them? I am perfectly open-minded to the idea that there might be something or lots of things I've missed. And I'm not talking about stuff you can guess or infer from what IS presented.
And yeah, ok what was it that messed up the teleport, and how is it so crucial that you say that I don't understand the story? Actually, seeing as you're certain I completely missed the point of the story, I'd appreciate it if you'd give me your interpretation. I'll be honest and admit if there's anything I didn't pick up on, that isn't something you've guessed in for yourself.

I've admitted some of my issues are petty, I don't think they all are. Either way, they all add up to a different impression to the thoroughness I'd expected.

Mess I'm pretty sure everything I've mentioned is stuff that was officially released and mentioned on PHL (which only ever allowed officially released info). Perhaps the welding stuff is the only thing I heard of which would have come from the leak. I guess it's true that pre-release info should be taken with a pinch of salt, but the thing is that such things were shown when the game appeared to be at a fairly advanced stage that it was quite surprising that they weren't in the final version.
 
Ur post was too long for me to read it!!!!!!

Get over it!!!!!! I have a booklet that came with collectors edition and it explains well why they removed some stuff that were in the video.

It makes total sense, they tried to make the game more fun than irrating. U walk out, oops u got impaled by strider for 200th times. Go to tunnel some weird blob (hydra) impales u aaarrrrrgh got to reload. reload reload reload. Those little thing would of made so fustrated that would throw the game out of the window and call all kind of names on valve for making so unfun.

So instead u get valve's generosity for trying to make as much as fun as possible for u through the whole game.
 
That's an....interesting take on it.
All unique observations are valid!
That means I don't agree :) Personally I would have found the challenge of dealing with such dangers entertaining....similar to dealing with the tentacle in the first game, perhaps.
 
pomegranate said:
I wanted to know:
-Why were the Vortigaunts working with the resistance?
Cause they where once slaves of the combine but now help the humans in there quest to defeat the combine

-What happened between HL1 and the 7-hour war?
Apparently after Gordan open the portal, the combine came thru it so they could steal Earths resources.

-What happened on Xen after HL2?
Gordon freeded this planet from slavery

-How did the Xen aliens get to the rest of Earth?
Xen aliens came thru the portal but remember the aliens on this palnet are friendly

-Who does the G-Man work for?
I think he is recruiting others to help him conquer the combine. I think his race are slaves of the combine as well but on another planet.

-What is with his teleportation/omnipresence?
I belive he is not human but an alien from another world which he is the only one of his race that can teleport thru different dimindions.

-Did Breen actually die at the end?
I dont think so.. I belive that alien monster he was talking to at the of end the game, is now using his body as a host as Breen was talking about.

These are just my thoughts
 
I agree with pomegranate quite a bit. I didn't dislike it as much as he did, but ya there were many flaws. I think the massive "this-is-going-to-be-the-best-game-ever-created" hype caused expectations to get too high.

Cons:

- The story wasn't as compelling. There were many times when I'd be playing and go "wait, what am I supposed to be doing again? Oh right..". In half-life it was great because there was this constant theme; get out of black mesa, then, go to Xen and mess up this gigantic baby. I felt like I was on this constant mission. It was fun exploring this "secret" government complex infested with aliens as I tried to get out of it. Hl2 it was like, "here in city 17... why?. Oh wait now Eli's been captured, gotta get him... why is that so important again? He's the key to their revolution? Why?". And so on and so forth. The story was there, it just didn't involve me in the game as much.

- Some parts were just plain a pain in the ass, and unrealistic in a game that strived to be so realistic. Why the shit did the damn gunships and striders attack only you 95% of the time? Don't they care about the other guys hurling rockets at them?

- The airboat wasn't massively enjoyable to navigate while trying to spin around and shoot things. I'm probably alone on this one, but that's what I took away from it.

Pros:

- It was great at the beginning coming into this opressed city. Neat ideas.

- The fact that the citadel is consuming the city is an awesome idea.

- I didn't think AI was bad. The guys actually got out of the way when you started to shoot them. And they did hurl grenades to flush you out.

- Artistically this game was really good. The environments were quite impressive and fun to simply walk through and look around.

Compared to it's peers this game is incredibly good. But judging simply by comparison doesn't accomplish much. I'd rather eat sardines than dog shit, cause dog shit in comparison to sardines is much worse. But alone sardines aren't the best thing ever.
 
my god, its a sorry state of affairs when the greatest fps ever is considered as a sardine, and the competition is dog shit, this is also presuming that there once was the gaming equivalent of sliced bread, and so where have we gone wrong? maybe familiarity does breed contempt. i personally loved the game, am on the last levels at the minute and it just gets better and better, theres lots of variety. i never owned the original half life, as my comp wasnt good enough, but the new one i got was good enough to run hl2 well, so i cant compare it to the original, perhaps this is a good thing....
 
It really is a nostalgia thing. I'll give you my perspective. I first played Half-Life after HL2 was announced, in preparation. Half-Life, to me at least, was a very fun game, slightly boring at times, but entertaining all the same. I was most impressed with the fact that such an ugly and dated game could still enrapture me in the days of Unreal Tournament 2004 and Far Cry.

So, when I compare HL2 to HL, I see the former as vastly superior in every aspect, as my nostalgia is nonexistant. I agree that HL2 has faults, but I do not think that the ones you mentioned detract from overall enjoyability. Believe me, I got entangled in disappointment at first - I was disappointed that you couldn't blow up doors, that you couldn't manipulate dead bodies, that not all wood could break, etc. But then I learned to let it go and just enjoy the game - and enjoy it I did.
 
I agree. It was missing a whole bunc of stuff.

Too many goodies were cut off. Found it somewhat boring, and way easier than HL1.

The Xen Baby ending of HL1 was next to impossible :naughty: , I cheated to finish it. Blowing HL2's telep device was downright easy :flame: (in normal diff settting).
 
Everyone is talking about shit left out of the game from previews and such so i thought i would bring this up. On the retail version if u open the flap there is a street scene with combine in center and citizens in a line and some on the ground. Where the f*ck is this in the game? The game is good but not perfect in anyway, but u would think that valve would at least leave the scene on the frickin box in the game. Whats the deal with that? (My opinion- game was good but i was disapointed- thought it would be better- not as good as hl1)
 
i have to agree with alot of what the original poster says. They should have went with the idea that was scrapped....kleiner showing a movie to u and explaining what happened to earth etc.

for me it lacked tension & purpose alot of the time it was all go here..go there..hmm wheres my motivation why the **** am i doing this? all through the game ur asking questions and it doesnt answer them.
 
I completely agree with Pomegranate
But I think an age difference is showing up.
people under 16 love to do arcade style things and can quite easily live with a superficial story and superficial fights. Most youngsters (happily not all) will probably hate a game like "Torment" from black Isle studio's.

From the posts I would "guess" Pomegranate to be a "senior" (>20) and Samon to be 14 or less
 
Yep, good guess. Age difference is something that has occurred to me as an important factor in people's opinions of the game too. I'm 22. I first played Half-Life when I was 17 (not when it first came out, obviously, but it was still in its prime). First play, I was like "wow, cool graphics/real-world style places and landscapes, talking characters, non-arcadey game style (all compared to Quake II/Unreal/Duke 3D). Then as I played it over as I got older, I started to pick up on the more fundamental differences between HL and its contemporaries (and most of its successors) - the depth and detail of story, the efforts made to create atmosphere and involve the player. To me, it was more of an "survival adventure with guns" than a first person shooter, when compared to the games around at the time. In many ways I felt it was closer to System Shock 2 and Deux Ex than it was to other FPSs at the time.

Having played it close to the time it first came out is, I think, crucial to understanding what made it so good, and being able to make a deeper comparision of HL2, and the ways the sequel fell short.
Not expressing myself very well but I'm sure you get the idea.
 
Actually, there are impalings.

I saw one of my team members (accidentally placed under it's leg by me :p) get stabbed and killed by the leg.
 
Well pomegranate I do not agree with what you think about HL2 but I will give you credit for laying out your ideas nice and clear.

HL2 for me had loads of atmosphere and pulled me right into the game, yes HL1 did do that for me but not as much but do think HL1 is one of the best.
Going to show my age here a bit but my first computer was a Com Vic 20 when I think back to the graphics then to now, it really makes me pleased we have moved on. Perhaps that is one reason why I think the graphics in HL2 are so good, and remember we are dealing with a FPS here not a film so myself I do not look for a very involved story.
Although I must say much has yet to be answered but I think Valve has left it that way for a reason.

I know you made several points in your post but that is my take on three of your points.
 
On graphics technically I believe it is "some" better than Far Cry. But the indoor graphics except The Tram (very nice scenery, in the last level) are mediocre and I have seen it all before kind of thing. Far Cry was organic and much more "real" on design level.

But a game nowadays should be more than superior graphics and sound.
Superior Hail to the programmers, a little less hail to the design and project "engineers" a B for finishing quality (why could you not shoot out lamps?) and a C- for the publisher and its marketing dep. to over exaggerate the kind of game to expect.

In the end HL-2 is over 90 % an arcade game compared to Far Cry or Morrowind
 
Kangy, thanks for that, I will try and be more observant when I get to the Striders next time. Oh and btw agree with you about Kennedy, we can but dream eh?

Thanks for your respectful and positive response freeman2. I will re-evaluate how I feel about the atmosphere the game generates when I have a chance to play through on a big monitor with surround sound, I have been playing on my laptop so far. I think you are right about Valve's reasoning for leaving the story on a cliffhanger, but it's still quite frustrating for me.

Just a note, seeing as people are making the effort to read through my original post, I just want to point out that by no means do I hate or dislike the game, it just wasn't as entertaining as I'd expected. My feelings are as simple as that - I don't bear any grudge against Valve or any similar BS people have expressed who have similar feelings to me.
 
What exactly do you mean by "arcade-y"? I found Half-Life 2 to "feel" largely the same as Half-Life 1, so I really don't see what you mean. Also, the age difference thing bothers me - I don't think it has anything to do with age, just with what you're looking for in a story. It seems to me that HL2 has more to do with atmosphere and less to do with an actual, linear, "this happens, then this happens, then this happens" type of story.
 
Narcolepsy, by arcade-y I mean more oriented to the no-thinking constant blasting style of game without particularly deep gameplay, i.e. the sort of game you could enjoy just as well in an arcade as at home. I guess the excellent Serious Sams are the best modern example. Half-Life moved away from this style of gameplay considerably. I think what kyrill may have been suggesting is that younger players would be happy for HL and HL2 to have such a style of gameplay.
Perhaps you are right about it being intended that the game focus on atmosphere rather than actual story content. But don't you think that plot is an important part of establishing atmosphere? I think this was the case in HL1 - the plot was for the most part about survival and escape, and this helped with the atmosphere of claustrophobia and being hunted. For me, I found the wishy-washy plot of HL2 (arriving, for reasons unknown, in an unknown place, then being forced to flee, for reasons not entirely clear, then returning, for reasons unknown to somewhere that was supposed to be very dangerous) detracted from the drama, which I think is an essential part of the atmosphere.
I do understand that Valve may have been trying to instill the same kind of confusion in the player that Gordon would have felt. The problem is, when I feel I don't know what's going on and feel confused, I find out information, sit down and think, not drive across an unfamiliar country getting into battles. This is why the plot detracts from immersion/atmosphere for me.
 
I did feel "left out" of the game on many occasions, one of my main problems with it (and I too am and older player @ 30). While I was delighted with many of it's well done sections, I felt it took the player a little for granted, assumed too much and gave little incentive to your actions other than "get to there and meet Person X" or "infiltrate building, kill everyone and throw switch to open gate") which were basically the arcade side of things. I would have liked a Deeper introduction to the game to really get you in the mood rather than being rushed in out and out of City 17 with no chance to explore (and in reality there was little to explore except locked doors and square rooms). That was my biggest disapointment in the game, it could have savoured the atmosphere and built on it instead of forcing you the way it wanted you you go all too quickly (before establishing a real valid reason, especially if the player had not been at all involved with the original HL) into scripted parts with limited *FREE FLOWING* action. It gave the entire first few chapters a very stop-start feel where the immersion just kept getting broken. The later sections (boat/buggy) were more flowing/fluid as games (mostly arcade shooter style) but seemed dis-jointed from the starting chapters and almost not in the FPS style we had come to expect. I gave up on HL2 as a cohesive tale that should flow and make sense from start to finish and instead, began to find enjoyment from the "sections" in their own right... almost like a set of mini games (some of which went on too long). I feel the intention behind it all was epic, but the delivery was clouded and the lack of, not story, but story elements creating EMPATHY in the player, which in turn helped "Unmask" the downsides of the game that an otherwise better delivery may have kept hidden until later (doom3 abd far cry ,both tailed off at the end but from the start they both felt extremely "solid" and purposeful) HL2, imo, started off weaker (from a player interaction point of view) but actually got MORE exciting as the game went on rather than less exciting like the other 2 games I mentioned. Unfortunatley for me, that just hilighted the "flow" problem more.
 
pomegranate said:
Narcolepsy, by arcade-y I mean more oriented to the no-thinking constant blasting style of game without particularly deep gameplay, i.e. the sort of game you could enjoy just as well in an arcade as at home. I guess the excellent Serious Sams are the best modern example. Half-Life moved away from this style of gameplay considerably. I think what kyrill may have been suggesting is that younger players would be happy for HL and HL2 to have such a style of gameplay.
Perhaps you are right about it being intended that the game focus on atmosphere rather than actual story content. But don't you think that plot is an important part of establishing atmosphere? I think this was the case in HL1 - the plot was for the most part about survival and escape, and this helped with the atmosphere of claustrophobia and being hunted. For me, I found the wishy-washy plot of HL2 (arriving, for reasons unknown, in an unknown place, then being forced to flee, for reasons not entirely clear, then returning, for reasons unknown to somewhere that was supposed to be very dangerous) detracted from the drama, which I think is an essential part of the atmosphere.
I do understand that Valve may have been trying to instill the same kind of confusion in the player that Gordon would have felt. The problem is, when I feel I don't know what's going on and feel confused, I find out information, sit down and think, not drive across an unfamiliar country getting into battles. This is why the plot detracts from immersion/atmosphere for me.
I see what you mean about arcade-y, now, but I still maintain that HL1 has largely the same "feel" as its sequel. I guess that just depends on what we got out of each game, and obviously we got something different out of them.

I also think that a lot of it has to do with how you play the game. For me, HL2 was not very arcadey, because I purposely strategery-ized it when I was playing. I would use the physics strategically to my advantage, blocking doors and setting up traps. I didn't just run-and-gun, although it would be perfectly possible to do so.

And on the subject of the story, I don't think by any means that HL2's was perfect, but then again, neither was HL1. I personally never found the story driving me in Half-Life 1 - I just played for the gameplay. I think that both games suffer from an amazing story-driven intro and then a subsequent descent, only to pick up at the end.

I'm going to have to regurgitate all of this when I'm in a more orgainzed, left-brained mood, but I'll just end by saying that the cool thing about both games' stories was that they forced you to use your imagination - fill in the details based on an outline given to you. I just think that the outline for HL1 resonated for more people.
 
Amen...very cool post Narc, I can see we feel quite differently about HL2 but I agree with everything you just said.
 
Back
Top