Half-Life 2? What a disappointment ...

[EricIce]

I just bought Half-Life 2, and I have to tell you how disappointed I am ,,, the game has great graphics, but the story is just so terrible. Especially for a game so hyped that it has to have three covers. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the orignial Half-Life, Opposing Force, and even Blue Shift. But while Half-Life 2 started off good, with a small train ride (and I do mean small) and then the introduction to City 17 was even cool and got me all excited. Then I met Alex and her father and our old friend Barney! Then a lot endless running around in sewers... then a little boat with a fan on the back, that I got to drive around. Then I got stuck, in warehouse... with an electrical fence and can't get out. I've been playing for an hour, and I'm compeltely BORED with the game.

Now I've been playing Morrowind for awhile now... with the visual xt packs, green/leafy,forrest packs, and ton's of adventure mods... has made the game exciting every where I turn. I'm still playing Morrowind, Changing characters, races, classes, and going anywhere I want and doing anything I want. In Fact, I had to admit but I still have Daggerfall on my computer.

Even Doom 3 is better than Half-Life 2 ... at least Doom 3 kept me on the edge of my seat and the storyline told through PDA's kept me interested enought to finish the game. And not to mention Doom 3's dark errie levels... which I cut the lights off in my computer game room and played the game in the dark. (much like I did with the Thief series)

But Half-Life 2 just isn't holding my attention... not like I thought it would. The orginal Half Life had a good enough Escape Story to keep you on your toes and keep you moving throught he levels... but not with Half - Life 2.

And while I enjoy the new city landscape of City 17 and the cool guards with their skull mask and Taser Batons... and the NPC's look real enough with their freakles and wringles... the story just isn't there!

Maybe I'm just in at a boring part of the game... ???

But Morrowind never had me competely bored, that I thought about returning it to the store, like I feel right now with Half-Life 2.

I just expected more... more of a story... more of a push for me to complete levels. At least with Doom 3 I kept hunting for new PDA's to find and read... which was exciting in of itself.

The orginial Half-Life stayed on my computer for a very long time. But Half-Life 2 although graphically appealling dosen't capture the same stroy or feel of the orginial game!

With Bethesda now buying the rights to Fallout 3 ... I'm sure we will get a great game and a great stroy!!! That will make Half-Life 2 look really bad...

How do you feel?



EricIce

 

[Spartan]

HL2 has great technology (even if its slow) and good gameplay, but that's about it. No amount of facial animation can make up for a lackluster story and setting. I guess the multiplayer mods will keep me interested, but it's going to take time before we'll see any.

About that tech: the engine is good, but the rest is shit (Steam, stability and performance issues etc.).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Stuck at the fanboat? You're only on the second level. You haven't even reached the plot yet.

How much did you expect them to tell you in the first hour of gameplay?

Hint: The gate on the electric fence is open, and you can walk right through it.

And no, the plot doesn't come in little text-message bundles. But you do need to find plot details on your own. Look around, listen to people and put the pieces together.

It's really a better plot than HL1. In that game it was either "get to the surface" or "get to the lambda labs" up until the very end.

Right now, you arrived in a city run by a totalitarian police state, and are met by your old friends who are part of a resistance movement. An accident identifies you as a resistance sympathiser, alerts your presence to the police, and they start a full-force citywide manhunt for you that you are escaping from with a boat.

That's a lot of info for just an hour, and what's not to understand?

 

[EricIce]

Actually I've been playing for a while now... stayed up all night and now it's the next day, and I'm dead tired, but still bored with the story. The Redemption Mod for Half-Life 1 had a much better opening sequence and story than Half-Life 2. You would think after Value sponcered that MOD that they would have hired the guy to do the opening....


EricIce

 

[The Monkey]

Don't make threads like this before you have completed the game.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Actually I've been playing for a while now... stayed up all night and now it's the next day, and I'm dead tired, but still bored with the story. The Redemption Mod for Half-Life 1 had a much better opening sequence and story than Half-Life 2. You would think after Value sponcered that MOD that they would have hired the guy to do the opening....


EricIce

So the game is dissapointing....
But you went without sleep just to play it for nearly ten hours straight?

Maybe the plot would be less boring if you had to pause every once and a while to pick up the laptops the combine drop and read their intimate thoughts, but HL1 didn't have PDAs either, and you said you liked it?

Fact is, the game has the exact same amount of plot detail and dialogue as HL1. Probably more. And it is presented in the same style.

Only in HL2, it's less archetypal, and therefore harder to fill in the blanks. HL1 was "I am in a military base. I am fighting aliens." It's easy to fill in the gaps.
HL2 is not that simple because it adds much more details, and has actual characters.

Personally, if I wanted to just read a text version of all the plot developments and character motivations, I'd read a book.

 

[azz0r]

You enjoyed Morrowinds `story`.

Nuff' said.

 

[Spartan]

So the game is dissapointing....
But you went without sleep just to play it for nearly ten hours straight?

Maybe the plot would be less boring if you had to pause every once and a while to pick up the laptops the combine drop and read their intimate thoughts, but HL1 didn't have PDAs either, and you said you liked it?

Fact is, the game has the exact same amount of plot detail and dialogue as HL1. Probably more. And it is presented in the same style.

Only in HL2, it's less archetypal, and therefore harder to fill in the blanks. HL1 was "I am in a military base. I am fighting aliens." It's easy to fill in the gaps.
HL2 is not that simple because it adds much more details, and has actual characters.

Personally, if I wanted to just read a text version of all the plot developments and character motivations, I'd read a book.

HL and HL2 are radically different from each other. Same narrative style, different results.

 

[vetebulle]

Morrowind had a story?

 

[r1y23]

eric is right, hl2 was a big disapointment (;

it didnt even cure cancer or walk on a tight-rope across the grand canyon blindfolded.

 

[HadouKen24]

HL and HL2 are radically different from each other. Same narrative style, different results.

Not the same narrative style. Similar, but not the same.

Half-Life 2 dumps you into an actual world. Someplace you've never been before. Someplace with real people. Not just a military base filled with clones. There are lots of little touches that you probably don't even notice that make it seem like a real place.

There's more to storytelling than just feeding you one event after another.

 

[StardogChampion]

I didn't really like the way you played through the story. I like the idea of the combine invading earth and Breen, but it turned into "drive to this location for some reason, oh noes my dad got kidnapped, go save him!". Like some cheap action movie.

 

[EricIce]

I wanted to give a game a fair shot... so I stayed up playing it last night. Doom 3 really kept me on the edge of my seat, it was dark and moody and you always wondered what was going to happen next. And Morrowind I'm still playing, the orginial Half-Life is still on my computer...

I guess when a few great single player mods comes out... like an updated version of They Hunger or Redemption then I will feel differently.

Half Life 2 is a typical FPS - go here, run there, in the sewer ... play catch with the dog... while it is fun... I admit. The story just isn't there, that grabs you and holds you to the game. There's nothing really pushing you to complete the levels...

With the orginal Half-Life I had a mission to escape Black Mesa... and the scientist were funny and Barney, and it was all exciting. The mysterious G-Man... walking around. Now you work for him, but you still don't know what he is doing... (maybe I should finish the game)

What could make Half-Life 2 exciting... being able to actually converse with the NPC's like in Morrowind. Or being able to explore City 17... granted I havn't finished playing the game yet.

I just expect more, after all the hype. Yes the Source Engine is cool !! The animations of the NPC's and the G-Gun is way cool ! But it dosen't replace the need for a compelling story...


EricIce

 

[aneill]

So how do I get my joystick to steer the boat? I am using the joystick to move elsewhere but it will not here.

 

[r1y23]

Doom 3 kept you at the edge of ur seat?! wow. Doom 3 was one of the most predictable games i have played in my life. It was scary for the first 20 minutes but then zombies coming out of closets got kinda old. The story also was nowhere near as good as hl2. But if your into the ultimate flashlight simulator then Doom3 is for you and hl2 is not.

 

[HadouKen24]

Hmm. I'm having a little difficulty understanding your criticism of HL2. Doom 3 didn't really have any story to speak of. Just the old rehashed story of scientists tampering with forces beyond their reckoning and unleashing something nasty. Don't get me wrong, it's not really a bad story--it's the plot of Frankenstein (an excellent book, btw)--but there was nothing really new or especially compelling about the Doom 3 storyline.

The HL2 storyline has some fascinating complex aspects to it. It doesn't resolve everything, but it's fun moving through it. Or at least, that's what I thought. What I really liked, though, was the way that much of the story was told nonverbally, though images and things that you have to spend some time looking around to find. But heck, I loved looking around. They created a whole new world here, and I had a great time exploring it.

It was built to explore. You said it yourself: "There's nothing really pushing you to complete the levels..." That's right. You're not supposed to rush through guns blazing.

Others may not enjoy exploring it as much as I did. You don't seem to have.

* shrug *

But that's okay. HL2 is a little bland on storyline if you just go frag everything, but not everyone has the patience to decide on their own to go look around. That's not a bad thing, it's just that people like different things.

 

[clarky003]

I dont think some people truely appreciate how well thought out the story is., 'claiming its boring maybe a call to say your tastes lie elsewhere. But the subliminal story is awsome.. Im a Sci fi fan .. and this is the best game story in that genre.

negative point feedback would be constructive if it wasnt so based on a few individuals personalised tastes and put across in an odly bitter tone. I just think its nit picking , or complaining about the idea you had about what the game would be like... and what it actually is.

 

[Unfocused]

You are comparing a cRPG story to an FPS story. How can you do this? It is obvious that a cRPG will have a deeper story and a FPS is made for the fun of shooting. So I'll say "I'm dissapointed with shooting in Fallout 2, I can't aim myself and I can miss an NPC even if I'm standing right next to him"

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm really surprised that some people didn't understand the motivations behind the actions you take in the game. They were spelt out rather clearly, if you ask me.

Every action you take in the game has a clear reason behind it.

 

[Narcolepsy]

Everyone has their "ideal game(s)". Based off of all the hype, people expect Half-Life 2 to be the perfect game for everyone. In reality, it's just the perfect game for people who games like Half-Life 2.

 

[Ryjalon5k]

dont blame the game because you suck (you got stuck and are now bored. not the games fault)

 

[Spartan]

I dont think some people truely appreciate how well thought out the story is., 'claiming its boring maybe a call to say your tastes lie elsewhere. But the subliminal story is awsome.. Im a Sci fi fan .. and this is the best game story in that genre.

And what science fiction elements does the story have? Does it have something profound to say about society, human nature or our relationship with technology? Shooting aliens with ray guns doesn't make it scifi.

 

[JCampbell]

And what science fiction elements does the story have? Does it have something profound to say about society, human nature or our relationship with technology? Shooting aliens with ray guns doesn't make it scifi.

Actually, it does.

From www.dictionary.com
-A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

www.websters-online-dictionary.org
-Literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society.

Maybe we didn't play the same game, but let's go down the list:

Fantasy? check
Speculative scientific discoveries? check (teleportation)
Evnironmental changes? check (the earth changed)
Space travel? check (implied)
Life on other planets? check

What about your list?

Something profound to say about society?
A: I'm not sure what you mean here. There are many parallels that can be drawn between the domineering aspects of the combine, and the human race's relentless pursuit of technology. Keep in mind that this IS a middle chapter, and that the big 'moral payoff' that you seem to be waiting for will most likely, if at all, come near the end of HL3.

Human Nature?
A: Oi. The pockets of resistance scattered throughout City 17 are a testimony to people's unwillingness to accept defeat. Listen to what they have to say. Think about what you are doing. I found myself sympathizing with the resistance because I knew, as well as they did, that they were going to die. That's a pretty strong statement.

Relationship with Technology?
A: The invasiveness of the Combine technology is pretty apparent.

Besides, I never shot an alien with a ray-gun in the entire game. What exactly were you referencing? Was it a generalization to what you think the majority of people describe as sci-fi?

 

[clarky003]

And what science fiction elements does the story have? Does it have something profound to say about society, human nature or our relationship with technology? Shooting aliens with ray guns doesn't make it scifi.

can you do any better without loosing people in something too complex,, its origional stuff. and uses real world relations within the plot.. if you study it in depth, its focusing on our core emotion and fear of the unknown in combination with the emotion invoked from the characters it amplify's itself from just being a story, into a state of mind taken on by the player,, kind of subconciously believing your there , and you have a great purpose , maybe not intended but accomplished like no other game...

exploring sci fi, and sci fact and splicing them together to make the zero point gun, using that splicing to create a believeable world, without being throughly realistic. almost makes transportation seem tanjable , along with alternate realities.. its very creative.. and execution in design puts it at the top.. hence the proffessional majority of reviews scoring it very high. The characters arnt stale like in most games.. , (cortana in Halo 2, and the marines with their literally stiff upper lip get on my nerves now ive seen what HL2 accomplished), Breen is a fantastic character , along with the others, when i saw breen in the citadel, that sequence made me laugh, which moved to anger. i actually felt restricted in that harness, the atmosphere enveloped me like a great scene from a movie would.

 

[cleckmoon]

I can understand how some people don't get excited about the 'plot' of HL and HL2. There is a LOT of footwork you have to do to get even a clue of what's going on. But, that's Valve's intent.

They do have a lot of dificulty in expressing a workable plot in this medium, especialy not to produce something contrived. By placing the restraint on themselves that Gordon can not speak, that the player is indeed Gordon Freeman, they have to work around a lot. They are not going to go the route of a handy NPC going "Hey! Gordon Freeman! Savior of the universe! You must have been through a lot, but in case you have suddenly suffered a brain anuyrism (seeing as you dont wear a helmet or anything), here's a recap of the plot so far!"

I still think we should go back to my plan of kidnapping Mark Laidlaw.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How is it Science Fiction, you ask?

www.websters-online-dictionary.org
-Literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society.

Call me crazy, but couldn't that definition JCampbell posted be used as a very basic summary of everything that happens in HL2, except the "literary" part?

Breen is purely a scientist. He believes that the only way for society to evolve is to abandon "instict" which leads to mysticism and "magical thinking". So, he is forcibly integrating scientific developments into society.

The entire plot is about the (almost literal) impact of science on society. It is also undoubtedly a depiction an imaginary situation.
Imaginary depiction of science's impact on society = science fiction.

Now, what does it say?
Breen's quest against "magical thinking" is clearly a metaphor for the evils of religious intolerance, and the danger of using goverment as a way of imposing specific ideology onto society at large.
With clear parallels to stalinist russia, there's also the message of those disregarding history being doomed to repeat it.
It's an especially potent message today, in a time when a gay marriage ban is nearly imposed, and some pharmacists are refusing to sell birth control to the public for religious reasons. Not to mention fundamentalists in the mid-east and elsewheres.

And that's just the Breen part.

There's lots of stuff to see, but you'll miss it if you look at the game through shooting-alien-with-raygun-coloured glasses.

 

[Spartan]

Actually, it does.

From www.dictionary.com
-A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

I don't consider that a definition of science fiction. Philip K. Dick's definition is much better.

What about your list?

I don't have one, because I really don't see any scifi elements in the game.

Something profound to say about society?
A: I'm not sure what you mean here. There are many parallels that can be drawn between the domineering aspects of the combine, and the human race's relentless pursuit of technology. Keep in mind that this IS a middle chapter, and that the big 'moral payoff' that you seem to be waiting for will most likely, if at all, come near the end of HL3.

Very superficial parallels.

Human Nature?
A: Oi. The pockets of resistance scattered throughout City 17 are a testimony to people's unwillingness to accept defeat. Listen to what they have to say. Think about what you are doing. I found myself sympathizing with the resistance because I knew, as well as they did, that they were going to die. That's a pretty strong statement.

And this is something that I haven't seen in every movie and game of the same subject matter? It's nothing new, out of the ordinary or otherwise exceptional.

Relationship with Technology?
A: The invasiveness of the Combine technology is pretty apparent.

It's apparent, but nothing that I haven't seen a thousand times. It also doesn't give me any new ideas or thoughts like scifi does.

can you do any better without loosing people in something too complex

Would a complex and throught provoking story be a bad thing, then?

,, its origional stuff. and uses real world relations within the plot.. if you study it in depth, its focusing on our core emotion and fear of the unknown in combination with the emotion invoked from the characters it amplify's itself from just being a story, into a state of mind taken on by the player,, kind of subconciously believing your there , and you have a great purpose , maybe not intended but accomplished like no other game...

Fear of the unknown? It's more like a rerun of Nazi Germany. Nothing scifi about that.

--

I'm pretty sure that If I came here and said "I don't think HL2 is as good as some of the literature classics like Don Quixote" people would come up with all sorts of crazy shit to prove otherwise. HL2 is not science fiction just because it has a futuristic society with futuristic technology being used by oppressive bad guys.

 

[JCampbell]

I don't consider that a definition of science fiction. Philip K. Dick's definition is much better.

Perhaps if you provided a link to the said definition your point would hold more merit. I provided two. At least you could give one. My opinion on that is still pending.

I don't have one, because I really don't see any scifi elements in the game.

The list I quoted was the list that you had used to describe what you think a science fiction game should encompass. Perhaps by defining what you think science fiction games should be you are limiting the amount of enjoyment you could get out of the game. If it helps, just don't think of it as a science fiction game. If not, I 'm not sure what you'd classify it as.

Very superficial parallels.

That may be, but think of it this way. The first game was supposed to have taken place in 199x (I can't find a direct quote. Maybe someone can help me out). Ok...so this is 10 years after that. That makes the game era sometime between 2001 and 2009. If the parallels were any less superficial, they would be borderline copycat.

And this is something that I haven't seen in every movie and game of the same subject matter? It's nothing new, out of the ordinary or otherwise exceptional.

You can't bring movies into the picture. That's a completely different medium, and trying to draw a comparison out of the two is pointless. As for other games with the same subject matter, name one that did it WELL. Name a game that made you empathize with the characters while at the same time gave you a distinction from them. I can't think of any off the top of my head. It's not so much that it's new. It's just a matter of how well it does what it set out to do.

It's apparent, but nothing that I haven't seen a thousand times. It also doesn't give me any new ideas or thoughts like scifi does.

See above comment. Also, what 'sci fi' entity are you referring to that seemingly spawns out new ideas and critical thinking at will?

I'm pretty sure that If I came here and said "I don't think HL2 is as good as some of the literature classics like Don Quixote" people would come up with all sorts of crazy shit to prove otherwise. HL2 is not science fiction just because it has a futuristic society with futuristic technology being used by oppressive bad guys.

Hehehe...you're probably right. However, I think comparing literature to video games is as futile as comparing movies to video games. It's just not a fair comparison with the current level of tech available for video games.
I happen to think that there is literature far superior than the story of Half-Life. Why haven't these story ideas been converted to video games? It's pretty simple. While the stories may be enthralling to read, they don't translate well to gameplay. Lots of character development is nearly impossible in games, especially FPS. A lot of the stories' emotions are based on thoughts that describe how the people are feeling. That just wouldn't work.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of story would you think that Half-Life is if it's not sci fi? If it's not that, then it certainly seems to be the bell curve that fits best.

 

[Spartan]

Perhaps if you provided a link to the said definition your point would hold more merit. I provided two. At least you could give one. My opinion on that is still pending.

Found it...

I will define science fiction, first, by saying what sf is not. It cannot be defined as "a story (or novel or play) set in the future," since there exists such a thing as space adventure, which is set in the future but is not sf: it is just that: adventures, fights and wars in the future in space involving super-advanced technology. Why, then, is it not science fiction? It would seem to be, and Doris Lessing (e.g.) supposes that it is. However, space adventure lacks the distinct new idea that is the essential ingredient. Also, there can be science fiction set in the present: the alternate world story or novel. So if we separate sf from the future and also from ultra-advanced technology, what then do we have that can be called sf?

We have a fictitious world; that is the first step: it is a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our known society; that is, our known society acts as a jumping-off point for it; the society advances out of our own in some way, perhaps orthogonally, as with the alternate world story or novel. It is our world dislocated by some kind of mental effort on the part of the author, our world transformed into that which it is not or not yet. This world must differ from the given in at least one way, and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society -- or in any known society present or past. There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation; that is, the dislocation must be a conceptual one, not merely a trivial or bizarre one -- this is the essence of science fiction, the conceptual dislocation within the society so that as a result a new society is generated in the author's mind, transferred to paper, and from paper it occurs as a convulsive shock in the reader's mind, the shock of dysrecognition. He knows that it is not his actual world that he is reading about.

Now, to separate science fiction from fantasy. This is impossible to do, and a moment's thought will show why. Take psionics; take mutants such as we find in Ted Sturgeon's wonderful MORE THAN HUMAN. If the reader believes that such mutants could exist, then he will view Sturgeon's novel as science fiction. If, however, he believes that such mutants are, like wizards and dragons, not possible, nor will ever be possible, then he is reading a fantasy novel. Fantasy involves that which general opinion regards as impossible; science fiction involves that which general opinion regards as possible under the right circumstances. This is in essence a judgment-call, since what is possible and what is not possible is not objectively known but is, rather, a subjective belief on the part of the author and of the reader.

Now to define good science fiction. The conceptual dislocation -- the new idea, in other words -- must be truly new (or a new variation on an old one) and it must be intellectually stimulating to the reader; it must invade his mind and wake it up to the possibility of something he had not up to then thought of. Thus "good science fiction" is a value term, not an objective thing, and yet, I think, there really is such a thing, objectively, as good science fiction.

I think Dr. Willis McNelly at the California State University at Fullerton put it best when he said that the true protagonist of an sf story or novel is an idea and not a person. If it is good sf the idea is new, it is stimulating, and, probably most important of all, it sets off a chain-reaction of ramification-ideas in the mind of the reader; it so-to-speak unlocks the reader's mind so that that mind, like the author's, begins to create. Thus sf is creative and it inspires creativity, which mainstream fiction by-and-large does not do. We who read sf (I am speaking as a reader now, not a writer) read it because we love to experience this chain-reaction of ideas being set off in our minds by something we read, something with a new idea in it; hence the very best science fiction ultimately winds up being a collaboration between author and reader, in which both create -- and enjoy doing it: joy is the essential and final ingredient of science fiction, the joy of discovery of newness.
(in a letter) May 14,1981

You can't bring movies into the picture. That's a completely different medium, and trying to draw a comparison out of the two is pointless.

It's a different medium, yes, but I don't see how that matters.

As for other games with the same subject matter, name one that did it WELL. Name a game that made you empathize with the characters while at the same time gave you a distinction from them.

A game that made me emphasize with the characters? Chrono Trigger (I know - it doesn't have faceposer or DirectX shaders). Final Fantasy VII also comes to mind.

See above comment. Also, what 'sci fi' entity are you referring to that seemingly spawns out new ideas and critical thinking at will?

Scifi literature, obviously. I don't know anything about modern sf, I only read old (1900-1990 or so) stuff.

However, I think comparing literature to video games is as futile as comparing movies to video games. It's just not a fair comparison with the current level of tech available for video games.

It's not a matter of technology. It's the opposite of technology. Even text adventures can be a hundred times better than most literature, or have stories that surpass most films.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of story would you think that Half-Life is if it's not sci fi? If it's not that, then it certainly seems to be the bell curve that fits best.

It's a shooting game that takes place in the future, like Doom.

 

[Chiefi]

I really don't see any scifi elements in the game.

You're either blind or ignorant.

Aliens.
Combines.
The seven hour war.
Teleports.
Manipulator.
Citadel.
G-man.
City 17.

etc...

 

[JCampbell]

I have to sleep now, and don't have time for an adequate response. However, I would appreciate it if you didn't immediately assume that everyone with a different opinion than you can be lumped into a single catagory (a la the "faceposer dx9 shaders" comment). I played HL2 on a fairly lame computer:
athlon xp 200
gforce 2 ti
512 ram
blablabla
So I'm not defending the game on purely graphics related issues. I also agree that purely text based games can be fun. Remember Lords (an acronym, I think)? I played it years ago on a 486. It was good fun until you got so far and had to pay to register. Anyways, thanks for the quote. It's compelling, if anything.

on another note, I cannot even run Doom3 adequately enough to play, whereas I've heard others have been able to integrate Voodoo tech to allow them to play. Could this be a driver problem?

 

[Spartan]

You're either blind or ignorant.

Aliens.
Combines.
The seven hour war.
Teleports.
Manipulator.
Citadel.
G-man.
City 17.

etc...

None of those elements make the game scifi.

 

[Phirax]

I think HL2 is a fantastic game, but I do agree that the storyline is rather washed out, there doesn’t seem to be any depth at all. But hey this is just my personal opinion. I don’t see how anyone can compare HL2 to Doom3. Doom3 was developed as a remake of the original Doom, so obviously iD had little to work with. HL2 has the advantage of all the background, yet it uses none of it and little is explained about exactly what is going on in HL2. I mean really, put yourself in that world, you should know when the combine came (atleast roughly), have a fair idea why they are here, and what their plans are for humanity etc. Those who use to the tiring old excuse ‘fill in the blanks yourself’ to defend HL2’s story, are quite simply in denial. As much as I like to speculate about things, we should not need to as much as HL2 requires us. I’ve finished HL2 twice now, hoping that the second time I would understand more of what is actually going on, but to no avail. In all honestly though, there is nothing wrong with the overall story itself, I just believe it lacks substance and depth. I never liked the original HL, thus I never finished it, so I guess if I was to play that, things would make more sense, but from all reports I’ve heard, HL2 doesn’t seem to tie in at all anyway. That being said, I still don’t understand why developers don’t use examples such as Freespace 1/2 and Deus Ex (not Deus Ex Invisible War), to help them when developing their stories.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I mean really, put yourself in that world, you should know when the combine came (atleast roughly)

Approximately 1-2 decades after HL1, based on Alyx's age and the state of the combine invasion.

have a fair idea why they are here, and what their plans are for humanity etc.

The combine are a large group of species that use extremely advanced technologies to enslave new races and add them to their collective armies. They arrived on earth and began to farm it's resources and people. When you talk to the vortigaunts in the game, they imply that Nihilanth from HL1 was a combine leader which, if it's true, tells us more about the combine's practices. Slaves are forced to create powerful armies. The stalkers, weakened and extensively modified humans welding together gunships in HL2, are very similar to the vortiguants working in the Nihilanth's grunt factory.

Yeah, we don't know much about the combine beyond that, but that's because there's a very big chance, IMO, that the third game takes place at least in part in the combine homeworld.

We do, however, know a lot about Breen's motivations. He's a transhumanist. His belief is that humanity will slowly die off unless it abandons nature and uses technology to make itself super-human.
So, he joins the combine, and helps them to build technologically enhanced armies of humans. Then, in order to prove that humans will be a worthy part of the combine, he uses the transhuman overwatch armies to capture the leaders of the anti-combine resistance.

That's all in the game. Hardly any speculation, except the Nihilanth part. And most people I've heard think the same thing. Just listen to Breen's speeches and look at the experiments in Nova Prospekt and waht's going on in the citadel.

Those who use to the tiring old excuse ‘fill in the blanks yourself’ to defend HL2’s story, are quite simply in denial.

No I'm not!

But really, your questions above were answered by just using common sense, listening to a few of Breen's speeches, and keeping your eyes open in the last level. It's not like you had to search extensively.

As much as I like to speculate about things, we should not need to as much as HL2 requires us.

The combine invade humanity. They use slaves that are human. Maybe, just maybe, they arrived in order to enslave humanity? I really don't see how that's complex speculation.

I’ve finished HL2 twice now, hoping that the second time I would understand more of what is actually going on, but to no avail. In all honestly though, there is nothing wrong with the overall story itself, I just believe it lacks substance and depth. I never liked the original HL, thus I never finished it, so I guess if I was to play that, things would make more sense, but from all reports I’ve heard, HL2 doesn’t seem to tie in at all anyway.

Well, that explains things. The entire last half of HL1 has you fighting combine aliens and visiting a combine world.
If you don't know key spects of the first game, how can you expect the sequel to make sense to you?

That being said, I still don’t understand why developers don’t use examples such as Freespace 1/2 and Deus Ex (not Deus Ex Invisible War), to help them when developing their stories.

Because, frankly, not everyone likes those stories. I beat DX twice, and I have to tell you the story was really only 'okay' to me. Unless you pause every five minutes to read what essentially amounts to a novel's worth of text messages, the game makes very little sense beyond some basic conspiracy tropes.
Sure, it's a complex and well-made plot, but it's not worth the search. I don't want to play a newspaper/e-mail reading sim with occasional firefights because that's not very fun to me.

Hl2's plot works the same way as Deus Ex's though. You find scattered bits of information and draw your own conclusions about the events around you. HL2 just does it in a way that is better integrated into the actual gameplay.

The greasels, for example. In DX, they're just crazy bird-lizards. You have to search for and read several e-mails, journals and notes to understand how they were made, and why. I still don't know why the badguys made them because I probably missed an e-mail somewhere.

If there were greasels in HL2, Valve would take you to a greasel lab, have you run into a team of combine scientists working on the greasels, or examining their growth. Then they'd later have you fight combine soldiers releasing caged greasels on the resistance populace.
You get the same plot details much more clearly and interactively.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I missed this earlier because Spartan is on my ignore list.

I don't consider that a definition of science fiction. Philip K. Dick's definition is much better.

Interesting how no link is provided that actually tells us Dick's view.

I found one though.

http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume116issue1_more.php?id=115_0_18_0_C
(Quoted below, bolds are mine.)

"The SF writer and theorist Philip K. Dick defines Science Fiction in much the same way as Suvin. Dick asks if a concern with the future and technology are not necessary and sufficient to define SF, what is? — “what then do we have that can be called SF? We have a fictitious world; that is the first step: It is a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our own society — that is, our known society acts as a jumping off point for it; the society advances out of our own in some way, perhaps orthogonally, as with the alternate world story or novel. It is our world dislocated by some kind of mental effort on the part of the author, our world transformed into that which is not yet. This world must differ from the given in at least one way and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society — or in any known society present or past.” Dick, like Suvin and Scholes, sees as the crucial factor the way in which the fictional world is different from ours — the type of novum that is used. “There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation: that is, the dislocation must be a conceptual one not merely a trivial or bizarre one.”

The Suvin-Dick Definition of SF, therefore, has a mainframe of three points:

1: We have a world in one or more ways unlike the real world. (Fiction)

2: This Otherness (Dislocation, novum etc., etc.) has to be conceivable within modern scientific philosophy. (Empirical)

3: This cognitive dislocation has to act as the heart of the narrative. (Central)"

...which is exactly what we see in HL2.

Oh snap!

 

[Spartan]

I missed this earlier because Spartan is on my ignore list.Interesting how no link is provided that actually tells us Dick's view.

Yes, I can see why I'm on your ignore list. It's easier to live when you can silence anyone who disagrees. Makes arguments that much easier, doesn't it?

If I wasn't on your retard ignore list, you would have noticed that I quoted Philip K. Dick.

1: We have a world in one or more ways unlike the real world. (Fiction)

2: This Otherness (Dislocation, novum etc., etc.) has to be conceivable within modern scientific philosophy. (Empirical)

3: This cognitive dislocation has to act as the heart of the narrative. (Central)"

...which is exactly what we see in HL2.

Oh snap!

That's not all there is to it. If you had read the article I posted, you would have noticed. Too bad, so sad.

It's really great to talk to Mechagodzilla when you know that he'll never reply.

 

[DSDchemE]

Spartan - So what would you consider Half-Life's genre to be? If it's not Sci-Fi? By your logic, what game would you consider to be truely Sci-Fi?

And yes I have read the entire article you posted and think that Half-Life fits Sci-Fi perfectly. Even if it didn't, lack of proof does not indicate falseness. Give some examples, from your article, that show that Half-Life is not Sci-Fi (statements regarding Sci-Fi that directly contradict with points of the game).

 

[Chimaera_421]

i'm really dissapointed. half life 2 sounds like an awesome game however, how am i supposed to play the damn thing? i bought it, only to find u need an internet connection just to play singleplayer..... i'm not going to have net access on my pc for at least a year (i'm on the net at a netcafe) so i guess that money is wasted. i think its stupid for the valve and steam to autmatically assume everyone has an internet connection!

 

[HadouKen24]

Spartan, you're a real purist.

I'm a big fan of science fiction. Hell, I've written some short sci fi. Maybe not really good sci fi, but even you would admit it's sci fi.

I would classify HL2 as sci fi, myself. Not good sci fi, of course. The science that is there is vague and unexplained, an alternate universe like Xen isn't indicated by modern science, and many of the ideas it presents have already been done many times in other contexts. In fact, the only reason I say it's sci fi is because it tries to present the teleportation, the G-man, etc., as essentially scientifically explainable, and not supernatural or magical. But what makes HL2 good isn't the sci-fi elements.

I say this because, while I agree that Phillip K. Dick's "definition" is an excellent indicator of good science fiction, I think that it is flawed to limit the boundaries of science fiction to just the stuff that makes us think. That's what makes science fiction such a great genre, of course, but what makes it "science" fiction is, quite simply, science. It has the capability to raise questions that are not possible--or are at least difficult--in other types of fiction, but just because a work does not take advantage of that does not mean it is not science fiction.

BTW, there's been some great science fiction published in the last 14 years. If you like world-building on a grand scale, I can't recommend John C. Wright's Golden Age trilogy more highly. It's fantastic both to read and think about.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It's true that I had not read your post, Spartan. Someone else said you posted no link, and I took their word for it.

You've ignored a bigger fact though. This is a direct quote from Philip K Dick. It was highlighted in bold before, so that you would have trouble missing it. Here it is again.

“what then do we have that can be called SF? We have a fictitious world; that is the first step: It is a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our own society — that is, our known society acts as a jumping off point for it; the society advances out of our own in some way, perhaps orthogonally, as with the alternate world story or novel. It is our world dislocated by some kind of mental effort on the part of the author, our world transformed into that which is not yet. This world must differ from the given in at least one way and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society — or in any known society present or past.”

Philip K Dick said that. It is his exact definition of science fiction. It is also a basic description of the events that happen in Half-Life 2.

Now, let's look at what you had quoted, which is just a longer version of my quote without the analysis.

[/quote]I will define science fiction, first, by saying what sf is not. It cannot be defined as "a story (or novel or play) set in the future," since there exists such a thing as space adventure, which is set in the future but is not sf: it is just that: adventures, fights and wars in the future in space involving super-advanced technology. Why, then, is it not science fiction? It would seem to be, and Doris Lessing (e.g.) supposes that it is. However, space adventure lacks the distinct new idea that is the essential ingredient. Also, there can be science fiction set in the present: the alternate world story or novel. So if we separate sf from the future and also from ultra-advanced technology, what then do we have that can be called sf?[/quote]
As I will point out below, HL2 is not merely a "space adventure."

We have a fictitious world; that is the first step: it is a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our known society; that is, our known society acts as a jumping-off point for it; the society advances out of our own in some way, perhaps orthogonally, as with the alternate world story or novel. It is our world dislocated by some kind of mental effort on the part of the author, our world transformed into that which it is not or not yet.

City 17 does not exist, but it is based on our society. It is our world transformed into another as a result of Marc Laidlaw's ideas.

This world must differ from the given in at least one way, and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society -- or in any known society present or past.

The HL2 world differs in one way: an alien power has invaded. This creates an event that is impossible in society: the forced evolution of the entire human race.

There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation; that is, the dislocation must be a conceptual one, not merely a trivial or bizarre one -- this is the essence of science fiction, the conceptual dislocation within the society so that as a result a new society is generated in the author's mind, transferred to paper, and from paper it occurs as a convulsive shock in the reader's mind, the shock of dysrecognition. He knows that it is not his actual world that he is reading about.

Half-life 2 is not merely weird for weird's sake and, as I pointed out earlier, it provides at minimum one societal critique that is contemporaneously relevant, thus excluding triviality.
Laidlaw has created a complex society that is dissonant to our own, and has presented it to us via the game.

Now, to separate science fiction from fantasy. This is impossible to do, and a moment's thought will show why. Take psionics; take mutants such as we find in Ted Sturgeon's wonderful MORE THAN HUMAN. If the reader believes that such mutants could exist, then he will view Sturgeon's novel as science fiction. If, however, he believes that such mutants are, like wizards and dragons, not possible, nor will ever be possible, then he is reading a fantasy novel. Fantasy involves that which general opinion regards as impossible; science fiction involves that which general opinion regards as possible under the right circumstances. This is in essence a judgment-call, since what is possible and what is not possible is not objectively known but is, rather, a subjective belief on the part of the author and of the reader.

I don't really need to comment on this, except to re-emphasize the fact that the line between fantasy and sci-fi is soley a matter of opinion.

Now to define good science fiction. The conceptual dislocation -- the new idea, in other words -- must be truly new (or a new variation on an old one) and it must be intellectually stimulating to the reader;

To name one such idea in HL2, the metaphor of mandatory scientific transhumanism as a parallel to the merging of church and state is new to me. If someone can fiind the same idea done before, I'd be surprised.

it must invade his mind and wake it up to the possibility of something he had not up to then thought of. Thus "good science fiction" is a value term, not an objective thing, and yet, I think, there really is such a thing, objectively, as good science fiction.

Again, I must emphasize the fact that this is a matter of opinion. The plot made me think, so it is good sci-fi to me. No-one can deny that opinion. Speaking of which, the next paragraphs are opinion-based as well.

I think Dr. Willis McNelly at the California State University at Fullerton put it best when he said that the true protagonist of an sf story or novel is an idea and not a person. If it is good sf the idea is new, it is stimulating, and, probably most important of all, it sets off a chain-reaction of ramification-ideas in the mind of the reader; it so-to-speak unlocks the reader's mind so that that mind, like the author's, begins to create.
Undoubtedly the ideas behind the plot are more center-stage than the character of Gordon Freeman. As a protagonist-as-observer, his character only emphasizes this importance of putting the ideas center-stage. Thus sf is creative and it inspires creativity, which mainstream fiction by-and-large does not do. We who read sf (I am speaking as a reader now, not a writer) read it because we love to experience this chain-reaction of ideas being set off in our minds by something we read, something with a new idea in it; hence the very best science fiction ultimately winds up being a collaboration between author and reader, in which both create -- and enjoy doing it: joy is the essential and final ingredient of science fiction, the joy of discovery of newness.
(in a letter) May 14,1981

Good sci-fi inspires others to think, eh? How many people have made mods, games, movies, stories and all manner of other things either based directly on or inspired by both HL1 and (already!) HL2, with all-new results? I, for one, have. And those are just the people who have transformed thier creativity into some tangible media.

Now remove the opinion-based sections I've noted above and, subsequently, the vast field of individual interpretations, likes and dislikes. What do you get as a specific concrete definition of all science fiction?

We are left with "a mainframe of three points:

1: We have a world in one or more ways unlike the real world. (Fiction)

2: This Otherness (Dislocation, novum etc., etc.) has to be conceivable within modern scientific philosophy. (Empirical)

3: This cognitive dislocation has to act as the heart of the narrative. (Central)"

...which, again, is exactly what we see in HL2, as well as in my previous post.

So, basically, the quote you posted has actually fully re-enforced my point. Half-life 2 is science fiction. You might not have been happy with it, but that merely means that it was not good science fiction in your singular opinion.
It's still sci-fi though. And, to most people, it's good sci-fi.
What you are doing by saying otherwise is taking the concrete definition, adding your own individual thoughts and desires onto it, and then expecting that definition to be equally universal as it was before.

Your assertion that Half-life 2 has no relevant critique because you believe your personal opinion should be the universal standard is basically the exact line of though that Half-life 2 is relevantly critiquing through the character of Dr. Breen.
I'd go out on a limb and call that irony.

And I actually can respond to your posts, should I wish to.
I just did, after all.
It's simply more pleasant to ignore them.

I repeat: oh snap.