If you've been reading Arbiter's Judgement for a while now, you know that I'm very critical of
Half-Life 2 and you know my reasons, so I'm not going to recap them for you. Well, I've been giving
Valve Software's masterpiece some more thought on my long subway trips to and fro work, and guess what? I've got some more! As I've said before,
Half-Life 2 is not a bad game, there are many fun moments, but compared to the amazing innovation and revolutionary gameplay success of its predecessor, the sequel is such a let-down.
The facial anima
tions and voice acting in the game are spectacular, there's no question about that, and this makes it all the more unfortunate that Valve kept a silent Gordon Freeman as the player character. Alyx, Barney, even Dr. Breen all have engaging, emotional chats with Gordon, yet due to the game's signature mute style, Gordon doesn't respond at all. While this worked well in the original
Half-Life, the depth of the conversations weren't nearly as, well, deep. In
Half-Life, Gordon wasn't attached to anyone in particular, he was mainly encountering random scientists and security guards for brief periods, however this all played well for the purposes of that game; it was believable.
Half-Life 2, however, carries on the same style but with reoccurring supporting characters who are acting like one would in a true dramatic narrative. Trying to get an emotional attachment between characters when the lead doesn't even respond or carry his weight in the conversation is, in my opinion, a major blow to
Half-Life 2. How can I care about Alyx's fate, for example, if the only thing I have to go on are a bunch of one-sided conversations? No matter how strong her voice acting is and how realistic her model's facial expressions are, I can't empathize with her when there's no real character interaction.
Motivation. In
Half-Life, Gordon's motivation for almost the entire game was simple survival, and
everything he did and everyone he encountered were geared towards that end and that end alone. It fit, it was realistic to the game world, and everything had purpose. So what was Gordon's purpose in
Half-Life 2? At the beginning of the game, it's the same as in
Half-Life, to simply survive and everything caters itself well to this. However once Gordon escapes from Ravenholm, really, what was his motivation? It certainly wasn't survival anymore, as he embarks on a series of rescue missions and ultimately leads a civil rebellion simply because misc. resistance member whomever tells him so. Is that any realistic motivation to the character who, for a game and a third was focused solely on survival? Does this make sense for someone who is not a soldier but rather a theoretical physicist in a nice suit of body armour? No, it doesn't. Another failing of
Half-Life 2's believability.
Finally, there's a great quote in
Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar on page 278 from Doug Wood of Valve:
"As players fought their way through the street-war maps, we wanted to make sure they knew what they were fighting for. We decided to add a scene with citizens pulling down a monitor while Breen was making a speech."
So basically, V
alve is saying they needed to remind the player of the game's supposed central theme, one of rebellion and liberation against oppressors, in the final quarter of the game. If you need to remind your audience of the central theme that far into a story, than really, your story isn't that strong to begin with, it lacks clarity and attachment.
The above are things that concern me for the upcoming episodic expansions for the
Half-Life series. Episodic television, for example works so well because it hooks people into a continuing story and unique characters, so you keep tuning in to see what happens next. When a plot is as weak as
Half-Life 2's, do I really care and want to wait for tidbit after tidbit, hoping the next scrap of info will actually reveal some deep info into the game's story? The answer is no, no I don't at all.
creatures. I still get my ass handed to me from time to time, but I have a feeling I'm wandering into areas that I'm not properly preped for yet. The game is also played form a first person perspective, which is something I'm not used to in an RPG. I'm presently playing as an Imperial (Human) Knight, so I'm using a sword/shield combo with a few spells.
tions and voice acting in the game are spectacular, there's no question about that, and this makes it all the more unfortunate that Valve kept a silent Gordon Freeman as the player character. Alyx, Barney, even Dr. Breen all have engaging, emotional chats with Gordon, yet due to the game's signature mute style, Gordon doesn't respond at all. While this worked well in the original Half-Life, the depth of the conversations weren't nearly as, well, deep. In Half-Life, Gordon wasn't attached to anyone in particular, he was mainly encountering random scientists and security guards for brief periods, however this all played well for the purposes of that game; it was believable. Half-Life 2, however, carries on the same style but with reoccurring supporting characters who are acting like one would in a true dramatic narrative. Trying to get an emotional attachment between characters when the lead doesn't even respond or carry his weight in the conversation is, in my opinion, a major blow to Half-Life 2. How can I care about Alyx's fate, for example, if the only thing I have to go on are a bunch of one-sided conversations? No matter how strong her voice acting is and how realistic her model's facial expressions are, I can't empathize with her when there's no real character interaction.
everything he did and everyone he encountered were geared towards that end and that end alone. It fit, it was realistic to the game world, and everything had purpose. So what was Gordon's purpose in Half-Life 2? At the beginning of the game, it's the same as in Half-Life, to simply survive and everything caters itself well to this. However once Gordon escapes from Ravenholm, really, what was his motivation? It certainly wasn't survival anymore, as he embarks on a series of rescue missions and ultimately leads a civil rebellion simply because misc. resistance member whomever tells him so. Is that any realistic motivation to the character who, for a game and a third was focused solely on survival? Does this make sense for someone who is not a soldier but rather a theoretical physicist in a nice suit of body armour? No, it doesn't. Another failing of Half-Life 2's believability.
alve is saying they needed to remind the player of the game's supposed central theme, one of rebellion and liberation against oppressors, in the final quarter of the game. If you need to remind your audience of the central theme that far into a story, than really, your story isn't that strong to begin with, it lacks clarity and attachment.
nt through the original 3 Episodes of The Ultimate Doom, however I was finding the newer 4th Episode too hard and started up on Doom II. I was never as much of a fan of Doom II as The Ultimate Doom, the dark, claustrophobic corders of the original really hit it off with me, but I got through it and had a great time save that really annoying bug that is in Level 30, Icon of Sin.
s between the land of the living and the land of the dead. Both Burton and Danny Elfman explain in detail how they invigourated the land of the dead, how it is so much more alive and how the land of living is simply bogged down with the nuances of life. All of the puppets are also shown, including the tricks of how garments were made to flow in the wind, facial expressions, etc. We also get to see all the voice cast in the booth during various recording sessions, as well as their thoughts on the film, their characters, and Tim Burton's directorial abilities.
