Most people who have played any of the games of the half life series understand that it follows a generally linear format. The player is led along a fairly narrow path with few, if any, choices to be made. The primary reason for this choice in game design is so that various narrative features can be deployed to enhance the player’s enjoyment of the game. In an earlier post I showed how they used the linear gameplay experience to foreground future events and build anticipation. As I remarked at the time, I found this to be a skillful deployment of the narrative art.
Generally, narrative highlights (important set pieces and the like) must be constructed in such a way so as to not be dependent on the actions of a player – otherwise, the player could inadvertently work their way around and miss vital parts of the story. More often than not Valve avoids this problem because of the linear format. They can cue the narrative element when the player reaches a certain spot, ensuring that they don’t miss the action. Where they can’t block player progress, they employ various tricks to keep the player from moving at a particular time. For example – they use barrells to hide an exit in this scene as explained by the developers in this video:
But good narrative in a game is not just about great set piece scenes scattered thorughout – gameplay events themselves should be memorable and exciting. The player needs to feel that they participated. In first person shooter games this is very hard to do well. One of the reasons for this is the limitations of the genre. It’s expected by the audience that the player is going to spend a lot of time shooting things – and while this might be enough for an average gameplay experience, it’s not enough if we’re talking about producing memorable gameplay events. Many games tackle this by simply providing the elements of a great gameplay experience – but leave it up to the player to create that experience. One example that comes to mind is the Halo series in their multiplayer games. It’s no accident that many gameplay videos of Halo 3 make it to the front pages of Digg and Reddit – it’s because the players play it enough to generate memorable moments – like unlikely bullet richochets and the like. Much of the time the gameplay experience in those games in run-of-the-mill… but the extraordinary moments happen often enough to keep the players hooked. And because those moments are completely unscripted it adds an element of authenticity to that experience.
Valve too often relies on scripted events to create those sorts of gameplay set pieces. For example, in the following video, Valve explains how they scripted a set piece where the player barely escapes from the ant lion guard just in time. While playing the player thinks that it’s just a bit of luck (or great skill on their part) that they managed to escape. But it actually has nothing to do with them at all. It’s all by design. In this video you can hear the explanation by the game developer followed by the scene itself.
On first play – it’s very easy to be fooled and so the scene has the effect that Valves desire of it. But a second time around – when the exact same event happens, the player is likely to cotton on to the fact that this is actually scripted. Valve is honest about it since they tells us about it in their developer commentary – but this is like a magician revealing his tricks. Once we know how the trick is done we are no longer impressed by the magic. Removing the commentary is not going to help them in the long run – since replaying the game will reveal their tricks anyway. It does seem that Valve has become addicted to the linear gameplay format so as to ensure that memorable events such as these can be scripted. But it’s a catch 22. In general, being aware of these tricks removes the sense of authenticity of the gameplay event and as such detracts from our sense of immersion. This will make it harder for Valve to keep a hold of their audience in the long run.
Another important aspect of narrative design in any medium – is pacing. If you listen to the developer commentary in episode two you can see that Valve is keenly aware of this. Time and time again they choose to sacrifice gameplay or other narrative aspects so as to ensure that the player is kept moving. This is a fashion in story telling that infected all the various mediums in the second half of the twentieth century. It was thought (perhaps correctly) that in order to hold the attention of your audience, the plot had to be kept moving at a fast pace. Less and less time was given over slower periods of character development – the long slow pan over a landscape in cinema has become a thing of the past.
Compared with Half Life 2 – episode 2 feels like an MTV music video. Character scenes are all considerably shorter than those found in half life 2 and the puzzles are all incredibly superficial and easy. While Valve certainly had the same awareness of keeping the player moving in Half Life 2 (we were never forced to watch the rants of Dr Breen for instance) – their sensibility about how long a player should be forced to wait has certainly changed. Take for example the scene in Half Life 2 where the player arrives at Dr Eli Vance’s lab – the player is forced to wait there a considerable amount of time before being allowed to progress further. Such scenes are now considered to great a liability in the face of the short attention span of today’s gamers:
The following video is an example of how the developers removed any impediment to player progress:
You’ll note in this piece of commentary the reference to the failure of the playtesters. In fact, the playtesters are referenced in just about every piece of commentary where an admission of gameplay change occurs. I tend to think that this is one of the main reasons why the gameplay quality in the half life series has declined over the past two releases. They are relying too heavily on playtester feedback. A good analogy that helps one to see why this is the case, is to think about the way marketers use focus groups to get feedback about a wide range of products and services, from soap to election campaigns. The superficiality of the focus group approach has long been recognised. Participants tend to have their immediate interests in mind, as opposed to the longer term interests – and as a result often provide feedback that doesn’t represent their long term view. The same would be true, I expect, of playtesters. A playtester would be more likely at the time to report frustration directed at a difficult puzzle – but not the sense of accomplishment the completion of such a difficult puzzle would involve when viewed after the event.
The problem is compounded by their linear narrative structure. Since a player must complete a particular puzzle to proceed, the difficulity must be set to low to ensure that a large segment of their market isn’t blocked from seeing the rest of the story. Storytellers using other mediums (movies, writing etc) don’t have this problem – since the audience is entirely passive. Not so in gaming. It is not unthinkable for Valve to include a puzzle for which its solution would not be necessary to the completion of the game (it’s completion could be motivated by some other kind of reward such as goodies and whatnot). There is actually at least two examples I can think of in episode two – a stash of supply crates sitting high up in a tree, and the getting of the rocket launcher. But it’s actually difficult for Valve to motivate the player to solve extraneous puzzles, since they design the game such that reward is not enough of a reward (getting the crates does not substantially make things easier for the player). Valve dynamically changes the amount of health in a medic pack, for instance, ensuring that the difficulty of the game remains constant for all players regardless of their skill level (among other similar techniques) – so the addition of more goodies, doesn’t actually impact the game substantially.
When approaching the final battle I had hoped for some opening out of the gameplay experience (as was much touted prior to release) – but was left dissapointed. Here is a Valve designer explaining the structure of the battle and the challenges involved:
I tend to find the emphasis on the “non-linearity” of the battle overstated. While the map is considerably more open than any seen in previous half life games the progress of the battle is still fairly limited. The battle is ordered by the arrival of of the striders which for the most part occurs one at a time – so the player simply drives to the spot where they are announced to be, and engages them one by one. There isn’t any choice at all.
The set pieces of the battle involve the destruction of the buildings using the cinematic physics engine newly added to this episode of the game. Again, these are mostly scripted – removing a degree of authenticity from the experience. To account for the possibility that the player would not be in the right place to witness the destruction of the buildings, Valve built in various features to ensure that they would see as much as possible. While it looks great in game – there is no surprise and it’s easy to know when it’s going to happen before it happens in a replay scenario. Replay value is thus diminished since the same thing happens each time.
In the following video you can listen to the developer explain the technique and then an example of it happening in game.
At the end of the battle, Valve lets go of the strings a little bit and throws the player into the deep end. Multiple striders are released at once, the player finally has to exercise some of their own judgement in deciding how to tackle them. The potential of the scenario is finally reached as you run around desperately trying to take them all down before they blow up the rocket. It’s a great game play moment – and a great climax. But the fun is over all too briefly. Valve overall is just too cautious and worried that the player will be overwhelmed. In their commentaries they reveal their concern that the final battle would be too difficult – but are finally driven to push the player out of a desire to produce a climactic end to the game. If only, they’d decided to take the padding off a little earlier.
In this video you can see a small portion of the gameplay from this final battle scene:
So far we’ve seen how Valve undermines various gameplay aspects in order to protect their linear narrative structure – and the various effects of this choice. The result of these choices, I’ve argued, is a relatively thin gameplay experience. It should be noted however, that this is in some respect offset by a number of other aspects I’ve haven’t touched upon: the extraordinary visuals, the variety of environments and in particular the combat with the hunters (which is quite fun). But my focus is the relationship between the narrative and gameplay – so I hope I’ll be forgiven for not giving these aspects the attention they deserve.
If you are going to make the sorts of design choices which favour a linear narrative experience – then I would presume that one would do this because you had a great story to deliver. This was the case with Half Life 2. The story – simply put – was awesome. It was rich in theme, grand in scope – genuinely moving and disturbing. The opening chapter of the game was the best I’ve seen in gaming history – period – and you don’t get to fire a single shot. An excerpt is included below for those who haven’t seen it.
It’s a fantastic introduction to the world of Half Life. Every detail of the scene adds to the portrait of despotic oppression – from the little tidbits offered by the various characters the player encounters, to the stark, grey architecture with its eastern european feel (which was a deliberate choice by Valve). The story that develops, while couched in a science fiction/fantasy dress has contemporary, political relevance.
But Valve (in Half Life 2) never approaches this story in a simplistic or even moralising manner. There is a sophisticated underlying theme that drives the progression. Dr Breen is not a simple bad guy – but someone who believes that he is uplifting humanity. He serves as a fantastic portrait of what happens to those who are given power when they have the best of intentions. The ends come to justify the means – and great atrocities result.
But the resistance, as symbolised by the character of Dr Gordon Freeman, is not let off lightly either. In the voice of Dr Breen, it is portrayed as a blindly destructive force. The freedom for which it fights is openly questioned as a legitimate goal. As Dr breen states, this is a struggle by the forces of reason and enlightenment against the base instincts of human nature. He goes on to state, at the beginning of the game, that instinct is not likely to go down without a ‘bloody fight’ – foreshadowing the violence to come. The player is forced to question Gordon Freeman’s role as a freedom fighter and liberator as opposed to a terrorist who is instinctual, barbarous and rapacious.
It’s no accident either that Dr Breen references the romantic movement when characterising Gordon Freeman and the resistance. The allusion is to one of the most important philosophical battles of the modern era (starting with the enlightenment). And this is the battle between enlightenment thinking, which stresses order, control and the uplifting of human nature through the exercise of reason; and the romantics, who saw any such controls as artificial and oppresive, who celebrated the primitive and the instinctual, who always touted the necessity of freedom – whatever the cost. One should note that actual, contemporary, terrorist movements often have romantic ideologies at their core, including militant islam, which borrowed heavily from European romantic thinkers such as Sartre.
Besides that – Dr Breen just has some great lines. For example:
“Did the lungfish refuse to breathe air? It did not! It crept forth boldly while it’s brethren remained in the blackest ocean abyss with lidless eyes forever staring at the dark; ignorant and doomed despite their eternal vigiliance.”
For those who would like to listen to his other rants, a video is included below.
Sadly, this great depth and subtlety of story has been lost in subsequent episodes. The character of Dr Breen – the one who made us ask those questions mentioned above – was killed at the end of Half Life 2 and no one has replaced him to foreground these issues. We now have a simple story of the good guys versus the bad guys. The journey into the countryside does not really add much to the overall vision of a world invaded by an oppresive alien force. While we get to see a little more of the bad guys that are in charge – nothing is really provided of an explanation of the character and driving force. No portrait of the psychology of the alien oppressors is offered, even though there is a great potential for allegory (occupation of Iraq – anyone?).
I had hoped the sequal to Half Life 2 would be as great a narrative experience as it’s predecessor. After all – why would you limit player freedom unless you had a great story to tell. But for some reason Valve has lost sight of the story it was telling. Perhaps they’ll find it again before they are done.
8 Comments
I, for one, stopped to listen to Breen’s rantings. And despite the power trip he seems to have, some of what he says isn’t all that absurd. He may know that he’s merely a puppet, but I think he believes that he can help lead Earth to better times.
HL2′s story is pretty good and is a great example of how the genre’s evolved beyond the run and gun action of previous games. I thought the ending was very disappointing, even with rumors of Aftermath soon to come; it was no excuse for the “I’m going to put you on the shelf again” halt to the game.
The “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” ending of Half-Life was also a bit of a letdown after all you had done, but in all honesty, it wasn’t so bad and it did leave the door open for a sequel.
Unfortunately, when that sequel came, we were thrown into the middle of things with few clues as to what’s gone on, where we actually were or when it was. Gordon has somehow gained a cult of personality status, while at the same time being a scapegoat for everything that’s happened in the time since he was put away. No one bothers to ask where he’s been, what he’s done or if he even knows what’s happened. Everyone seems to assume that he’s just now decided to take reappear and take action after all this time.
Valve’s desire to keep the player in control of Gordon at all times, even if they do put stuff in the way to play at their pace and not ours, also seems to detach him from the world. Does he ever say anything – even if we don’t get to hear it – or is he a mute with a crowbar and an HEV suit that probably shouldn’t work in every environment that it does? Gordon doesn’t reflect in anything, you only see his hands once when he doesn’t have a weapon in them (when he first puts on his HEV suit, which he was supposed to have all along, according to what the G-Man says at the end of the first game) which I think breaks the illusion during the driving sequences and you have no clue why Gordon is seen the way he is by others.
I don’t really have a problem with never breaking away from Freeman’s point of view. But I don’t think Valve did as good a job at telling the whole story while restricted to Gordon’s eyes and ears as they could have. There’s only so much you can piece together from what’s presented in the game and I shouldn’t have to buy more than the games to know what really happened.
Now, I don’t have Orange Box yet (hopefully soon, depending on whether I have enough money to spare), so some of this may have been resolved already.
Not a lot more is revealed really… i won’t spoil the major plot developments, but none of them answer any questions… they just add more to the pile. It’s that kind of ‘lost’ style story telling that starts to annoy me after a while.
Im glad someone agrees with me that Breen isn’t the character that isn’t ‘simply’ evil. I mean – he may be evil, but one has to really think through why, and one has to find answers to his ways of thinking.
I got into an argument with a guy on reddit about this – but I guess you can’t see eye to eye with everyone…
Just as Breen isn’t neccessarily the bad guy, Gordon, Eli, Isaac, Alyx, Barney and the others don’t always have to be the good guys either. Fighting in the name of freedom is a noble cause, but is bringing the world around you down in the process worth it? What good is victory if no one around is left to enjoy it?
Plus, what if we really are better off with the Combine here? Maybe we’re doomed without outside help. We don’t know what the Combine’s intentions really are, but chances are they know a lot more than we do and have taken over Earth for a reason that might not be just for them. The resistance could trigger the end to humanity as we know it.
From what I’ve seen in HL2 and E1, Gordon is blamed for the “Black Mesa Incident”, as it paved the way for the Combine arrival and the resulting war. Yet, somehow, he’s also seen as a saviour to those who still try to resist (or reject) the Combine. This is something I don’t get. Why praise someone who opened the door for invasion? Maybe there’s something I missed or I’m thinking about it all wrong.
Breen seems to me to be in the posistion that many politicians seem to be in. A lot of people who get involved do so because they want to help and believe in what they try to get done. However, many get caught up in the political machine. In order to survive and live to play another day, you’ve got to go along and play by the rules. Sure, there are many politicians who do care and who do try to help those who put them there, but it’s not always as simple as yes or no, do or don’t. You can’t please everyone and you can’t help everyone. You have to make choices. Sometimes its good and bad. Sometimes it’s the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it’s hard to tell at all.
Breen’s in a similar situation. As far as I can tell, he is the only thing standing between us and the Combine. Without him, we might have been wiped out or turned into slaves for the Combine. Even if drunk with power, he’s still fighting on behalf of humanity, though limited to playing under Combine rules.
So, who’s right? Either work with the Combine and accept the fact that it’s happened or fight the Combine, hoping to undo everything that’s been done. Can you truly win with either situation? Is there another option?
The only solution that seems to work for sure is to go back and make sure the cascade doesn’t happen. But in doing so, you create a bit of a paradox. How can you go back and stop something from happening if you know that it happens?
But that’s a discussion about time travel, something which has no place in Half-Life, unless one of the rumors is true.
Going back to the narrative structure of Half-Life 2, it is still one of the better examples of story in a game. Half-Life may have been one of the games that helped the genre evolve, but HL2 is one of the games that’s made story king among shooters. It’s well written, but more than that, it feels believable (which I think is a more important feature than ‘realism’), albeit with a few things that don’t seem quite there.
I don’t think there’s many other games that are able to provide the atmosphere or the mood that HL2 does. System Shock 1 & 2 come to mind, especially the latter. From what I’ve heard, Bioshock is another one that’s a prime example. Fallout 3 could bring the franchise to that point, although I thought Fallout 2 did a great job in presenting its post apocalyptic setting. And there’s the plethora of WWII based games that continue to beat the war is hell mantra into the ground. There are others, most others still use story sparingly or don’t put as much effort into it as they do with the eye candy.
But until we reach a point where everything in a game changs dynamically in reaction to what we do (or don’t do), we have to rely on what the developers give us to play with. And if that day comes… well, I’m not so sure I want to play a game that is actually smarter than a human.
Yep – I think you’ve nailed the complex array of questions I thought were being addressed in half life 2. It’s probably fine to take sides in the end one way or another… but yeah… one at least has to put some thought into why. That’s what I thought was so great about half life – you really had to do some thinking for yourself.
they must have had a genius on staff at the time who quit and went to work on bioshock.
Speaking of which – it has a great story. Gameplay bored me a little bit. But it’s worth working through just for the story. It doesn’t have the critical genius of Half Life 2 – but kinda reads as an essay against Ayn Rand’s philosophy. By the end of it your supposed to conclude against her. Which is fine – although I do prefer a story that leaves it up to the reader (player) to make their own decision. The best art does this.
Most people are going to side with the resistance, and rightfully so. But at the same time, Dr. Breen and the Combine shouldn’t be automatically dismissed without a second thought as the bad guys.
I’m hoping that Valve brings some closure to Episode 3, even if they don’t bring it all to an end. I won’t be satisifed with another cliffhanger ending or something that doesn’t really provide an answer.
HL’s ending worked, even if there wasn’t really much there. Yes, it was a bit of a letdown after all you went through, but it left the door open for something to follow, which eventually happened. The abrupt ending to HL2 didn’t work, even if Aftermath was supposed to be coming along at some point. At least Episode 1 picked up right where HL2 left off and not some undisclosed amount of time later. Kudos to Valve for doing the right thing there.
I don’t care if they end up announcing that HL3 proper will be coming out sometime later, the game needs to have a real ending point; there’s no excuse for what has passed as one up to this point. It’s taking four releases to get to one (hopefully), but there needs to be a point where we can reach and say, that part’s done, what’s next?
Well, it’s been a while. I’ve since added The Orange Box to my arsenal, so I thought I’d revisit this post for a bit.
I’m not sure what Episode I like more; both have their good points and bad points. Episode One was more about the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the Citadel and what’s going on in City 17 now that Gordon’s gone and messed things up again. I guess it feels more like an epilogue of sorts. Episode Two seems to be more like the opening chapter for a full sequel to Half-Life 2 than a continuation of the story.
You’ve focused on the gameplay and how Valve uses gates and scripted events to keep things going at a certain pace, while still offering the illusion of player choice. I will agree that it’s really hard to offer a lot of choices for something like a shooter. It’s going to be interesting to see how close Fallout 3 comes to being able to do that. The Elder Scroll series have offered a lot more choices for the player outside of the main quest, and while I don’t expect FO3 to be an Elder Scroll games with powered armor and machine guns, I would think that Bethesda would still be offering as much relative freedom to the player as before with their new radioactive playground.
I think the presentation in Half-Life 2 is flawed. I can sort of understand wanting to give players the feeling that they are Gordon Freeman, but I don’t think they accomplished that. At least, not completely. I have no problem with being unable to hear Gordon speak, but it doesn’t seem like you/Gordon has much choice in anything – if at all. You’re there, so you must be willing to do whatever the cast is asking of you? Even if Gordon were actually mute (hey, he could be), I’m sure he’s more than capable of communicating.
Other than the awkward lack of any response (or reaction) from Gordon, there are a number of visual features that betray the fact that this is just a game. Unless you’re holding a weapon, you don’t see your hands. Cinder blocks, barrels, pieces of wood and metal, and rocks you pick up all float in mid-air. Switches, cranks and levers all move magically. Vehicles steer themselves. I think it looks kind of silly. The lack of reflection is another thing. I can kind of understand why Valve doesn’t want you to see Gordon, but there are ways around that. Still would it be so bad if you actually saw yourself as Gordon in the game? Or even just an out of focus orange blur (thinking of the Stargate SG-1 episode dealing with implanted memories here, where Mitchell sees himself in a mirror, but since he’s seeing someone else, it’s blurry)?
Besides, when Dr. Magnusson talks down to me, I swing a crowbar at his head, but it doesn’t connect and he keeps talking. I guess they don’t want you to kill an NPC that’s part of the story, but still… Then again, I also can’t resist the urge to whack the gunship with my crowbar after Alyx says I should so so. What does that say about me?
I think Valve broke the seamless way of telling the story too with the start of Episode 2, using the scenes from Episode 1, which include camera angles and positions that are not where Gordon would/could be.
Now, in the beginning of HL2, there’s are things in Gordon’s vision that he’s not actually seeing at the time, though I would think that this is because of the G-Man and whatever his plan may actually be. I don’t know if Gordon was aware of anything while shelved following Half-Life or whether he’s in stasis. Did he ever dream during that ten to twenty years since Black Mesa?
Fast forward to Episode 1. We start off with Gordon seeing Dr. Breen on a monitor talking to him. Was this what Gordon was seeing or just something to set up the new game? It could actually be Breen’s words echoing through Gordon’s head, perhaps sowing seeds of doubt about what he and his crowbar have just done. I doubt the G-Man was showing this to Gordon, and it’s very unlikely that the Vortigaunts were doing so either. Speaking of the Vorts, would Gordon actually be able to see them free Alyx at the same time the G-Man was taking him away from the explosion?
I already mentioned the opening to Episode Two, which shatters their concept of telling the story through Gordon’s eyes in real time throughout the course of the game(s).
Now, it’s not all bad. Having Alyx at your side has helped. It makes the game feel and play a bit different. Alyx can crack jokes, help you out (in ways other than offering supporting fire) and ask for help as well. It’s not perfect, but the way Alyx acts in the game does make for a better experience than if Gordon were tagging along with an NPC that relied solely on what their AI said to do or using scripting as a crutch. Sure, there’s some of that there too, but Alyx is somewhat dynamic in what she does when at your side.
I did like how they hinted at Aperture Science being a part of the bigger picture as well, both in Episode Two and in GlaDOS’ rantings at the Testing Facility. It’ll be interesting to see how the two line up, with the trip to the Borealis and GlaDOS’ claims that she is the only thing standing between us and ‘them’.
I don’t know if you heard it or not, but when Magnusson and Kleiner were preparing to launch the rocket, there were two things that caught my attention. The one most might hear is the eight pound discrepancy – which would be because of Lamarr (does the gnome increase that). The one you might miss is the mention of a backup site (or something like that), which I think is going to come into play next time around. I like to sit around and see (er, hear) what people have to say and this was something that I thought could end up being very important, especially since it could fill in some of the blanks.
And that’s one of the other problems I have with how Valve’s presented the story. Gordon is dumped into the middle of things, with only a handful of references to what’s gone on before. Now, I don’t know how many people have played both Half-Life 1 and Half-Life 2, but I’m sure there are plenty know don’t know the back story, however limited it may be. And this could be a problem. If you haven’t played the first game, you’re not going to understand some of what the NPC’s are talking about – or at least, not completely.
But that’s a matter that comes to play anytime you’re dealing with sequels.
Actually – now that you mention that bit about not being able to attack the NPCs I find that aspect of the game really… creepy. The NPCs become these mannequin type objects that you can’t actually interact with at all. Why is Gordon hanging around with indestructible robots?
What would have made the ending much better is if Gordon had something directly to do with Eli’s death… maybe you gotta take out some of those tripod thingos and they script his movements such that he happens to get in the way of your bullets. But of coursde they can’t do this because it would necessitate an arc in the narrative which Valve just can’t abide.
I wouldn’t worry about knowing what happened in Half Life 1 – it doesn’t really add much information besides what you are told in the hl2 installments. hl1 really was just a creature feature with a few hints at a larger story.
Well, I don’t know how much the NPC’s thatd on’t fight by your side can actually do. Eli seems to move along a certain path and if you’re in his way, you get pushed aside. Placing him in the line of fire during a battle would be rather difficult, depending on what weapon you may choose or how you position yourself.
I don’t mind being unable to move. Well, not a whole lot. At least there’s a reason to it, rather than simply restraining you for the sake of it. In HL2, you’re captured and held by one of those transports and in EP2 you’re held in place by the Advisiors. Cheap, perhaps. But it works.
Even though I knew what was going to happen (I tried to avoid spoiling it for myself, but it came up somewhere), I still wasn’t expecting what I saw. I thought the ending was well done, even if it was just a scripted event. Personally, the idea of making Gordon directly or indirectly involved in Eli’s death doesn’t sit well with me. It would seem that the G-Man has more to do with it, but I’m not so sure about that. He may have had something else in mind.
I think HL2 makes more sense if you’ve played the game – or at least know what happened other than that something bad happened. Sure, there aren’t a lot of references to the first game in HL2 and/or the episodes, but there are a few places where something other than the resonance cascade is mentioned.
Speaking of… I went back and played the original again. First, I started with HL: Source, since I couldn’t find my CD-ROM at the time. This time, I tried to pay a little more attention to what characters are saying, like the scientists and the soldiers sent in to clean up. But I also made it a point to listen to Nihilanth, extracting the sounds to listen to without anything to drown it out.
As you said, they hinted at something more with Half-Life. I don’t know if they had anything in mind at the time, and if so, whether HL2 is based on that or took a different direction. I’m still hoping that some of the blanks are filled in. Of course, there’s more than Gordon’s missing years to consider. There’s also Adrian Shephard, as well as Aperture Science’s role in the overall story to explore. Regardless, I want an actual ending with Episode 3, not another lame cliffhanger.
Post a Comment