Dont you get it, Valve?

[fez]

if u want a game where u can do whatever u want go play GTA

 

[fantasiser]

blah blah

Holy crapsticks theres no way in hell i was gonna read all of that. Jesus Christ man, replies dont have to be a thesis. And people with problems get respected if they say:

"you know, i didnt really like how you couldnt kill NPC's, does anyone else agree?" or something like that, not:
"This game f*ing sucks i hate it you cant even kill NPC's what BS im gonna tell all my friends that i like it up the ass", then they get dissed

 

[Swift]

Holy crapsticks theres no way in hell i was gonna read all of that. Jesus Christ man, replies dont have to be a thesis. And people with problems get respected if they say:

"you know, i didnt really like how you couldnt kill NPC's, does anyone else agree?" or something like that, not:
"This game f*ing sucks i hate it you cant even kill NPC's what BS im gonna tell all my friends that i like it up the ass", then they get dissed

That sums it up nicely.

For the most part, I believe Fangs post was directed at just a few guys, who resorted to words like fag. Putting in words like "insane" or "idiotic" is perfectly acceptable. Its provides emphasis although it might lack any insight.

I would say this guys thoughts on this subject are Insane and Idiotic. Thats my opinion. If he had said what Fantasiser indicated, I would have said that the thoughts were just insane.

If you don't like what goes on, then leave. Thus is the nature of the beast that is internet messageboards, you can never change it, its human nature.

 

[nagual678]

But if there is nothing to fail you..you're not in black mesa anymore, you're not being "watched" per-say, by people who employ you.

i made the original comment, and haven't seen the reply
in HL1 the reason the screen fades to black,etc.. is because the gman terminated your "test", and it should be exactly the same in HL2 -the gman watches you more than ever-. IMHO it added strongly to the story and the ambiance, and kept you wondering what the hell was your role in all this.

 

[FangsFirst]

You just spent a lot of time defending the wrong guy. Welcome to the forums.

...uh...thanks?

Holy crapsticks theres no way in hell i was gonna read all of that. Jesus Christ man, replies dont have to be a thesis.

I've made much longer posts than that before, even on this board (let alone amongst my 30,000 or so posts on message boards around the net)

And people with problems get respected if they say:

"you know, i didnt really like how you couldnt kill NPC's, does anyone else agree?" or something like that, not:
"This game f*ing sucks i hate it you cant even kill NPC's what BS im gonna tell all my friends that i like it up the ass", then they get dissed

Seriously, what IS the problem with the latter? It's not like they waltzed in and said "This sucks that I can't kill NPCs, you are a loser if you like this game."

(besides, haven't you ever heard of "not sinking to their level"?)

For the most part, I believe Fangs post was directed at just a few guys, who resorted to words like fag. Putting in words like "insane" or "idiotic" is perfectly acceptable. Its provides emphasis although it might lack any insight.

Yes, that's essentially it. Basically, maintain some level of maturity if you're going to go about being condescending--otherwise you're no better (and in fact, generally worse...at least "I hate this game" is not insulting anyone, or attempting to)

If you don't like what goes on, then leave. Thus is the nature of the beast that is internet messageboards, you can never change it, its human nature.

Oh, I will if it comes to that. I just felt the need to comment. I've had plennnnnnty of experience with message boards far and wide, and have been in my fair share of arguments. I'm just spoilt by close-knit communities and more literate attempts at argument than the examples you outlined...

 

[panzaman]

this game is not GTA, yes freedom but up to a certain point. THis game is about a story, is like a movie, you are part of it...

 

[Prone]

You cant kill pivital characters, like alyx or some guy who you have to follow into a basement fair enough.


But that stupid chick that was sitting in a drain, "you go on, i have to wait for anyone else" i wanted to be able to blow her brains out. Her death would have done nothing to hurt the story.

Characters that you meet along the way, like a few pissy civilians or someone who is tending a wounded man, i want to be able to shoot.

Okay, dude. You are sick. Simple as that. Just hope you never get your hands on a gun. Or would you kill everyone trying to help you just b/c they are not your family or your boss?

 

[FangsFirst]

Okay, dude. You are sick. Simple as that. Just hope you never get your hands on a gun. Or would you kill everyone trying to help you just b/c they are not your family or your boss?

Woah woah, let's hold on a second

Real life <----------------------------------------------------------------->games

I am one of the most pacifistic people I know, but I dearly love stapling scientists to the ceiling in HL:Source, or just killing whomever in Postal 2, or whatever game you wish...

Are you telling me you were never amused at a scientist's death in HL?
I mean, I'm sure that's possible, but everyone I've known who played it enjoyed killing those scientists...so it would be unusual to me.

But again, crowbar separation 'tween real life and games. I don't ever want to own a gun, I would have trouble firing it on someone threatening to kill me--but I have lots of fun shooting innocents in games, because they are GAMES!

 

[Prone]

FangsFirst, I do actually know about the difference between real life and games. Both are my job Anyway, the way he is stating it, it is deeper than just killing in a game (to be honest, I think Postal 2 is one of the worst, sadistic games ever made, but that is my opinion. I dislike Manhunt aswell). In Half Life1 you had no real connection with the scientists. In Half Life 2 there are ppl helping you, they are more realistic and thinking about blowing a person's brains out, who sits in a tunnel to help you is sick, for me that is.

I have myself fought literally thousands of battles against such behaviour on the net because I think something like Doom 3 is not the same as Half Life 2 is, a game where you connect to ppl.

Violence and video games is a long argument and noone will win. I have written numerous features and articles about it so I know it's of no use.

I see 14 year old kids playing the merciless mod of Call of Duty and wonder what the world is coming to. Same goes for killing ppl who help you in Half Life 2, it just doesn't feel right.

And yes, I stand by it: I think he's sick. And I think it's something different with a convincing game like HL2 is.

my two.

 

[FangsFirst]

FangsFirst, I do actually know about the difference between real life and games. Both are my job Anyway, the way he is stating it, it is deeper than just killing in a game (to be honest, I think Postal 2 is one of the worst, sadistic games ever made, but that is my opinion. I dislike Manhunt aswell). In Half Life1 you had no real connection with the scientists. In Half Life 2 there are ppl helping you, they are more realistic and thinking about blowing a person's brains out, who sits in a tunnel to help you is sick, for me that is.

I have myself fought literally thousands of battles against such behaviour on the net because I think something like Doom 3 is not the same as Half Life 2 is, a game where you connect to ppl.

Violence and video games is a long argument and noone will win. I have written numerous features and articles about it so I know it's of no use.

I see 14 year old kids playing the merciless mod of Call of Duty and wonder what the world is coming to. Same goes for killing ppl who help you in Half Life 2, it just doesn't feel right.

And yes, I stand by it: I think he's sick. And I think it's something different with a convincing game like HL2 is.

my two.

Well that's cool and all; and we'll just have to agree to disagree (which I can deal with, and I know where you're coming from with never solving anything, as all anyone can REALLY offer is anecdotal evidence and poorly performed experiments (like one that was performed in like 2000 with one group playing doom and the other playing myst or some such strangeness)
And I didn't mean to come off like a jerk if I did, btw, I re-read the post and (as can happen with me) I got a little bit of that vibe even knowing I didn't put it in. So I apologize if it DID come off like that

But, you know, keep in mind that everyone's experiences of games are different; I didn't develop much attachment to any of the characters (for reasons I'd rather not go into as it'd probably start an argument about the game, but to sum up I didn't feel IN the game myself).

Oh and with Postal; it's intentional that it be sadistic, a weird little irony that the horrible sadism is a joke (the developers are amusingly anti-violence, as is common with that sort of thing--"gross-out" lyrics oriented Carcass were all vegetarians, too, and The Haunted's lyricist, Peter Dolving, who writes songs with lyrics of a "give me a reason not to rip your ****ing face off" slant is also anti-violence) so to me it's acceptable.

Games like the one about ethnic cleansing I saw somewhere else, however, I don't accept, since the idea there IS actual misanthropic intentional violence, if you get my separation (just starting a little discourse on the subject and giving my own perceptions

 

[Eon Blue]

Oh no, I can't kill Barney and Alyx, on no, the game is limiting me.

Er... go play Morrowind?

 

[Prone]

Usually I don't try to get into the games that much. Partly because I couldn't do my job otherwise (having to play a lot of games all the time and trying to be objective). Half Life 2 is different though, not only for me, for a lot of ppl. Thing is, why splatter the brains of a person who has done nothing but help you?

Postal's developers are anti-violence? Didn't know. Could you link me to any sort of "proof" or something so I can read that myself?

Well, we agree to disagree, I feel differently about games sometimes. When manhunt came out I wrote an article about violence and computer games (you could translate the title as "How much blood is good?", sounds cocky, well, it's german and direct translations suck ) and although many disagreed, also a lot agreed. Kinda made me forget the angry emails I got with contents like "OMFG y00 l4M0r, I R sh00t0r y00 br4!n out! V10L3nc3 rulz!!!111!!!11!!". You get the idea, right? I'm used to have different opinions than others...

That article was the most read article for two months with about 2 Million readers

I just read between the lines and the way he talked about shooting the brains out from innocents gave me the shivers.

I don't feel offended at all, seems like you have your arguments on a mature level.

 

[czrsink]

Folks, people have a right to say the game is crap. We don't need to jump all over them and flame them.

I'm only just reaching the airboat, and I've loved every minute of it so far - others may already be bored. We have to remember that different people expect different things from games, and if they're not getting what they expected, they will go to a forum and complain. I find it interesting though, as I can't find anything wrong with the game thus far. It's definitely the best FPS I've played in quite some time.

And lastly, the reason why you've got main characters is because that's what everyone loved about the first game - although there were numerous scientists and Barneys, you did grow 'attached' to them. Therefore it made sense for Valve to pick up on that and make it a key pointer in HL2. Only now they have the technology to make the character even more believeable, so there's no need to have multiple clones that appear all over the place.

 

[Eon Blue]

Hmm. I don't think there needs to be a line drawn between fantasy violence, as for what's too much and what isn't. If you can distinguish between a PC game and life, you're good to go.


I'mmah finish up this psychology homework and go to sleep. Goodnight.

 

[FangsFirst]

Thing is, why splatter the brains of a person who has done nothing but help you?

To see the pretty gore effects, because you have a dark sense of humour, relieve frustration (often helpful people in games can be really annoying "unintentionally")...I dunno. It just amuses me personally in games, though I usually wait until after I finish and go back with cheats, etc

Postal's developers are anti-violence? Didn't know. Could you link me to any sort of "proof" or something so I can read that myself?

Wooo...that might be hard. I read it waaaaaay back on their official site near the game's release...let me see about that though.

Well, we agree to disagree, I feel differently about games sometimes. When manhunt came out I wrote an article about violence and computer games (you could translate the title as "How much blood is good?", sounds cocky, well, it's german and direct translations suck )

I understand the translations issue, I've done a fair number. (and I just found Manhunt annoying and boring, heh)

and although many disagreed, also a lot agreed. Kinda made me forget the angry emails I got with contents like "OMFG y00 l4M0r, I R sh00t0r y00 br4!n out! V10L3nc3 rulz!!!111!!!11!!". You get the idea, right? I'm used to have different opinions than others...

Yeah, I gotcha.

That article was the most read article for two months with about 2 Million readers

That's pretty awesome, congratulations, even if it is belated

I just read between the lines and the way he talked about shooting the brains out from innocents gave me the shivers.

I can see that, but then I read most of those comments from my own perceptions, wherein I see it as "Game Character X was annoying so I wanted to shoot them, and since it's only a character, it's not the same as wanting to kill a PERSON."
Kind of like how people get angry and say "ARGH! I'd like to KILL so-and-so!" but don't REALLY mean it; it's the same since you can't REALLY kill a game character--every time you restart, they're back.

I don't feel offended at all, seems like you have your arguments on a mature level.

Why thanks

Oh and on Postal, this bit on their site outlines it pretty simply:
http://www.gopostal.com/company/
with:

We believe that violence belongs in entertainment products - not in the streets.

in bold
(along with an explanation of their disbelief in the "violent media causes violent people" concept)

 

[Prone]

Thanks, reading on the postal site now. I think - my personal opinion, without scientific proof - that violent media can actually make a difference for ppl who have a tendency to dive into the virtual world too much. Perfectly sane people won't pick up a gun. When I was researching for that violence article I interviewed kids from differnt schools and the results were kinda shocking, that is where my opinion is from.

Gore effects in a game like Half Life 2? I do think that Ravenholm is enough for that Enough cut up and dismembered characters there.

 

[Darkside55]

First off I am going to echo Absinthe and say to you, Wes, don't speak for anyone else except yourself. I definately wanted to be a part of "the bold and the beautiful,"--although I still have no idea what that's in reference to--and I enjoyed the fact that I couldn't kill my allies. You didn't feel the same, fair enough, but judging by how many people have been outspoken on how great the game is, and the very fact that people grew attached to the NPCs in the first Half-Life, that lead Valve to dynamic characters, and having friendly fire off. Thankfully, Valve is listening to the masses, and not one or two people who are sore that they can't put a bullet in a citizen's head.

The biggest question I have for you is this: you've been on the forums for over a year. You've made 1,437 posts. So why did you stick around for so long? You knew there were going to be dynamic characters, you knew this. If you say you didn't then you are either a liar, are ignorant, or were assuming that you wouldn't see much of the characters DESPITE the fact that in almost every piece of promotional art with Gordon, Alyx is in it. DESPITE the fact that in almost every bink video there is an NPC with Gordon. DESPITE the fact that Valve created, and continuously lauded its facial animation system (did you think they wouldn't make abosolute use of that?). If you were to even assume that each dynamic character had only a fraction of time within the game, there would still be a lot of time spent with dynamic NPCs due to the number of them. Alyx, Barney, Kleiner, Eli, Judith Mossman, the vortigaunts, Father Grigori, a few others I'm not going to mention for the sake of spoilers...all these characters and yet you apparently went into the game believing you weren't going to have to deal with them? Or that you could blow their brains out at any time? I'm not going to spoil it for anybody but let me just say that if you allow any one of these characters to die on the field then you are blackscreened, with the message, "Failure to secure mission-critical personnel," or something along those lines.

Your opinion, however, is your opinion (and ONLY yours, not everyone's collective voice for Valve to listen to, as you so hope); however it still puzzles me why anyone would want to shoot their allies. Sure, it gives you freedom. Sure, maybe you have a laugh or two when you kill someone you're not supposed to; I myself used to love the Scientist Killing Club's maps for the first HL1, and one of my favorite gaming stories is when I shot an innocent bystander in Lethal Enforcers who told me matter-of-factly, "You can't shoot me!" I proved him wrong.
Thing is, even if you could kill non-mission critical personnel, such as the random citizen or rebel who would not impact the game in any way, why would you want to? Just because you could? Most of the time during group firefights you want those people around; I myself went out of my way to save them numerous times. In the case of shooting people who will never go out into a fight with you, the reason behind not shooting them is to emphasize that these are your friends. These people are important to the revolution in City 17. I suppose that's the difference between Gordon Freeman and some people who play as him; Gordon Freeman would never shoot a friend if he could avoid it, whereas some people would like nothing better than to put a slug in the unsuspecting head of an ally.

To Valve, if you happen across this thread, rest assured: you got it. You got it right.

 

[Prone]

Good post Darkside. Especially last paragraph...

 

[Dalamari]

People dont want to be part of 'The Bold and the Beautiful'.

They dont want uncappable NPCs. They want freedom. There were so many more limits imposed on things compared to HL1. I'm going to come clean here. I loved the cloned barneys, the cloned scientists, the feeling of knowing you can kill one with no consequences, other than your own conscience haunting you.

I dont like these "dynamic" characters being shoved down my throat. there's a little thing called subtlety that the first game had in spades. And whats up with dog? he was in the game for like 2 seconds. smashes 2 things then flies away, then comes back and opens a door. great character there.

i loved going through the hazard course then at the end, having 2 barneys, 2 turrets that aim for nobody in particular, a scientist, and an mp5 stocked full of bullets and grenades.

POSSIBILITIES.

my favourite thing to do was to get him to open the door, shoot the scientist, then wait for the turrets to kill the barneys, then run and take the train to freedom. that was a great feeling. there were no physics, no main characters, just freedom and fun.


i know im gonna get flamed to hell for this but i really dont care.

Ok, so no dynamic characters, cloned people all over town, and a big robot

Sounds like Postal 2.....

 

[FangsFirst]

Still, it would add a bit of realism, and wouldn't that kind of add to the drama if you had to be careful not to shoot your non-required (ie Barney, Alyx, etc) allies?
Add a certain strategy, just like multiplayer games where FF is on?
I can understand it with the major NPCs (though they're the most "satisfying" in that "HAHA! I BROKE THE GAME!" sense, like when you do something weird and manage to reach the empty space of unrendered portions of a level)..but it seems like it would make sense. I tried to be careful not to kill my antlions (now why could I kill them? I'd much prefer not to be able to kill them, as I liked them more ...or at least consistency, if you can't kill your people allies, you shouldn't be able to kill your antlion allies)

 

[DeltaBlast]

in a part of the game, alyx can actually die because of enemy fire. and when she does, your screen fades to black with the usual text (subject terminated blah blah)

So why not let us kill off everyone if we want to? if we'd kill a main character the game would end anyway.

What's even more pathetic is the way barney is invincible in one of the last levels while your other sqaud emembers are not. It looks really stupid..

 

[FangsFirst]

What's even more pathetic is the way barney is invincible in one of the last levels while your other swaud emembers are not. It looks really stupid..

Yeah, that was pretty surreal.
In a not-so-good way.

But then, I've always hated escort missions, so I was sort of glad I didn't have to protect him.

 

[Cryogenic]

I see the original topic starter's point - but respectfully disagree with it.

Half-Life was much cruder in its treatment of characters. In fact, the word "character" itself seems like a misnomer. The only person that even had a name was Gordon! Weren't "Barney" and "The G-Man" coined by the fans or Valve? I don't recall hearing them in the game itself...

Half-Life was fine in its day and should stand alone as a work of art and snapshot of what as possible (and thought possible_ back then. That means it will always be there to gratify people who want to gib scientists and Barney. And in the context they appear, who could blame them? Their path finding ability was sophisticated for its time but still limiting - sometimes, they deserved a few bullets or two. They were also exceptionally good as cannon fodder for the lethal turrets. But those days are over.

Half-Life really stands on the border between old and new. Half-Life 2 is firmly entrenched in the "new" territory. It's just no longer acceptable to have multiple occurences of the same character nor is it acceptable given Gordon's purpose within the narrative to shoot at and kill them.

Again, I see the topic starter's view here. When Valve said they elevated figures like Barney and scientsists into the limelight for Half-Life 2 because of how fans responded to them in the first game, I think their judgment was off. That is to say... I think they did the right thing in elevating them but misunderstood what these characters' original appeal was. A large part of their appeal was their sheer stupidity and gormlessness. When Valve gave them names, detailed faces and extended dialogue, they automatically destroyed that. But that's the way these things go. Since Barney and the scientists are no longer putting themselves in harms way like they did in HL1, the incentive to shoot them is greatly diminished. For comic relief, turn to the original. For sophistication, turn to the sequel.

To repeat myself, that's the way these things go. There are many examples in life of something starting relatively uncomplicated and free-flowing and getting more intense and serious. If you take a look at my profile, you'll see that one of my interests is Elvis. When Elvis started out, he sang energetic, jokey material like "Hound Dog", "All Shook Up" and "Jailhouse Rock". In later years, he preferred singing weightier songs with heavy emotion like "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and "You Gave Me a Mountain". Ditto for another of my interests. When the Sci Fi show "Farscape" first aired, its episodes were relatively funny and self-contained. Later on, it switched over to many multi-part, more serious instalments. So really... Valve are conforming to this pattern and have given us the best of both worlds. Sheer, unmitigated slaughter in Half-Life 1 and deliberate, thoughtful characterisation in Half-Life 2.

 

[Toffee]

oh, what, the main characters cant die?!! I generally dislike that feature in games..just that you have to keep your eye on the other characters constantly so that they dont get killed all the time.. ( now I´m not talking about HL2 because I havent played it yet!!!!!!!!! )
If its a war there will always be sacrifices..
Why would you want to kill a friendly character? Because its so much more fun to kill a human than a zombie in games. And thats perfectly normal by the way. It was sure fun in HL1 when you could chop off some limbs from humans too with your crowbar

 

[Doombringer]

Fact of the matter is... for better or for worse... Valve has established Freeman as more of an actual character with HL2 rather than the vague scientist he was in HL1. HL1... he did what you wanted to do, basically. Now, he "wouldn't shoot his friends" and the like. Take it as you will.

 

[Toffee]

Fact of the matter is... for better or for worse... Valve has established Freeman as more of an actual character with HL2 rather than the vague scientist he was in HL1. HL1... he did what you wanted to do, basically. Now, he "wouldn't shoot his friends" and the like. Take it as you will.

Well sure, I think that feature is actually making the game more believable and truthful, but then they have to go adding just some boundaries to make it so. No matter, its just great that theres a good story involved so the gaming experience gets more pleasant.