jb2002smg
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2003
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
Just finished the game and I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed both the journey and the destination. A lot of people are complaining about how vaguely and abruptly the game ends. But if you think about it, the lack of a definitive answer to our questions is the most logical route, and Valve took that path.
Let's say they attempted to explain everything in a scripted sequence/monologue, there would probably be even more people complaining, because the ending wouldn't fit in their concept of the Half-life universe, or what they thought should happen. Look at the Matrix. They wanted to give the trilogy some closure by trying to give a monologue about the nature of humanity, and while some understood and enjoyed the ending, many more hated the whole method of closure. The same thing would happen if Valve attempted to explain away everything. I would be willing to bet that they themselves haven't settled on the true identity and purpose of the G-Man. Making him an enigma is the safest bet and it allows you to form your own ideas.
The majority of us have a self-formulated idea of who the G-Man might work for, and what the master plan might be. Our ideas may range from vague assumption to detailed conjecture, but all of us have some thoughts on the G-Man. Never-the-less, there are some people here that are disappointed with the ending. Those disappointed are disappointed because they wanted their assumptions either validated or contested through explanation. This is a valid desire, but like most parents, Valve is pretty good at differentiating the difference between what you want and what you need. You want concrete, definitive closure to the Half-life universe. You need just enough information and exposition to form your own ideas and your own conclusions. I don't want to be forcefed an ending/idea that is going to end up disappointing me, I want just enough closure and sense of completion to feel a certain level of accomplishment and understanding.
This is where Halo 2 got it wrong. In Half-life 2, when you first see the Citadel, you know that's where you're headed, your answers/conclusion lie there. So, the closer you get, the closer to completion you feel. And in the end, you get there and complete your immediate mission: Pushing back the combine and dealing with Dr. Breen. Throughout Halo 2, you have no idea where you're headed, and the "end" is so abrupt it hits you like a frieght train, destination unknown. Half-life 2 gives you a sense of completion (destroying the Citadel), it just doesn't spoon-feed you answers.
What makes Half-life 1 & 2 great is that if you want answers, you have to look further than the game. You have to think and formulate your own unique ideas. Look within.
"I trust it will all make sense to you in the course of...well...I'm not at liberty to say.
In the meantime, This is where I get off."
A parting thought: "Time" is mentioned six times during the ending monolgue, seven if you count the time the G-Man cuts his sentence short, "time" being understood as the missing word. Coincidence?
Let's say they attempted to explain everything in a scripted sequence/monologue, there would probably be even more people complaining, because the ending wouldn't fit in their concept of the Half-life universe, or what they thought should happen. Look at the Matrix. They wanted to give the trilogy some closure by trying to give a monologue about the nature of humanity, and while some understood and enjoyed the ending, many more hated the whole method of closure. The same thing would happen if Valve attempted to explain away everything. I would be willing to bet that they themselves haven't settled on the true identity and purpose of the G-Man. Making him an enigma is the safest bet and it allows you to form your own ideas.
The majority of us have a self-formulated idea of who the G-Man might work for, and what the master plan might be. Our ideas may range from vague assumption to detailed conjecture, but all of us have some thoughts on the G-Man. Never-the-less, there are some people here that are disappointed with the ending. Those disappointed are disappointed because they wanted their assumptions either validated or contested through explanation. This is a valid desire, but like most parents, Valve is pretty good at differentiating the difference between what you want and what you need. You want concrete, definitive closure to the Half-life universe. You need just enough information and exposition to form your own ideas and your own conclusions. I don't want to be forcefed an ending/idea that is going to end up disappointing me, I want just enough closure and sense of completion to feel a certain level of accomplishment and understanding.
This is where Halo 2 got it wrong. In Half-life 2, when you first see the Citadel, you know that's where you're headed, your answers/conclusion lie there. So, the closer you get, the closer to completion you feel. And in the end, you get there and complete your immediate mission: Pushing back the combine and dealing with Dr. Breen. Throughout Halo 2, you have no idea where you're headed, and the "end" is so abrupt it hits you like a frieght train, destination unknown. Half-life 2 gives you a sense of completion (destroying the Citadel), it just doesn't spoon-feed you answers.
What makes Half-life 1 & 2 great is that if you want answers, you have to look further than the game. You have to think and formulate your own unique ideas. Look within.
"I trust it will all make sense to you in the course of...well...I'm not at liberty to say.
In the meantime, This is where I get off."
A parting thought: "Time" is mentioned six times during the ending monolgue, seven if you count the time the G-Man cuts his sentence short, "time" being understood as the missing word. Coincidence?