HL2 Game Design Breakdown: Part I

As one astute poster put it, every generation has their own form of artistical expression. Be it oil paintings, literature, movies or television, the population has attempted to put their own meaning into these art forms. Naturally, video games for today's generation can also fit this category. This isn't a recent event with electronic video games. Since the days of interactive fiction, video games have been able to tell a story and in turn examine our society as well as any other art form. Video games have become part of the popular culture, inspiring songs and rap lyrics; a touchstone for societal blame; or a way of interacting with others.

It's the intention of this article to examine one of the most anticipated games of 2004: Half-Life 2. The focus will be limited to the design and elements related to gameplay. The technical aspects of the product relating to video and programming are best left to other discussions. In writing this, I've attempted stayed away from interviews by Valve or publications such as "Raising the Bar" to maintain an objective viewpoint. I base my analysis based only on my work experience in the gaming industry, conversations with close friends who are game developers and my own gameplay experience. I hope that when reading each article that you might write down some thoughts to type in later for discussion. I never claim to be able to read Valve's collective mind, nor do I have all the answers. By dissecting this game in an intelligent manner, I hope that you can gain some insight on how a AAA title is made, the decisions made and some of the possible reasons for them. There are many spoilers, so if you haven't played the game, stop reading. This first part will involve a lot of opinion and setup for the levels to come. The meat of the critique will start with Part II with the level breakdowns. Enjoy.

Part I: Introduction, Challenges and Key Elements

Creating a sequel to a game is a daunting task. In some respects, working on a sequel would seem fairly easy to do. You already have established characters, storyline, a universe with laws to follow. When creating a Star Trek game, you know there will be spaceships, Klingons and Vulcans. Make a Star Wars game and you'll have Jedi Knights, force powers and light sabers. It's all there for you.

A designer is already behind the 8-Ball, facing the unrealistic expectations of an adoring fan base. The designer is tasked for making a new game that's bigger, better and more fantastic in every way. You mistreat your established characters or universe you can kill the franchise. If the laws of the universe takes a wrong turn, the company is accused of heresy.

In almost all of the video game brainstorming sessions that I've taken part in, it's very similar to deciding what type of book or movie that you would like to make. There is much consideration as to what the public will buy as well. For example, I may be dying to make a Strawberry Shortcake FPS game, but chances are that my audience is going to pass. Valve didn't have to worry too much in this scenario since stamping the Half-Life 2 name on a Strawberry Shortcake FPS would still sell like hotcakes.

The process starts with a genre; such as science-fiction, history, western, mythical, fantasy, etc. From there, the type of conflict is chosen: man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. himself, man vs. society and so on. The best video games of all time have used the harder themes of man vs. himself (Ultima IV, Planescape) or man vs. society (The Longest Journey) but that doesn't translate to sales. Almost all first person shooters, and Half-Life 2 is no exception, uses man vs. man. Now the stage is set for the storyline.

Storyline

Not all games require a deep storyline. Pong has no story at all, but yet started the home videogame revolution. Most early arcade games required only a sentence or two to describe the objective. Doom can be boiled down to "Find card. Open door. Kill anything that gets in your way." It's fun and enjoyable but doesn't make a lasting impression on the player. A simple experiment is to ask a gamer of their favorite moment in Unreal Tournament 2004 and Final Fantasy X. A fan of UT2K4 will describe an action or event that occurred. The FFX player will describe a key story element that unfolded. The original Half-Life did an excellent job of mixing action and story. Players will recount both types game elements when asked to describe their favorite part of the game.

Half-Life 2, in order to meet expectations needed to go further. It exceeded in some areas, but failed in others. One of the first rules of sequels is to design it so that people who have never experienced the original can quickly jump in and catch up with the action. Without experiencing the original, Half-Life 2 is very difficult to understand the surrounding situation. For that matter, it's difficult for established players to catch up. The designers make the incorrect assumption that everyone playing Half-Life 2 has played the original. While a great majority has played the first game, it has been five years since that release and many other players have skipped the original game and went straight for Counter-Strike.

This puts the player at an extreme disadvantage. It's a shame too, because outside of an exposition to explain the story, there are plenty of chances to explain the storyline later in the game. This is never taken advantage of. There are bits and pieces throughout the game, but they are never put together in a cohesive whole. As I played, I felt pulled instead of compelled by the storyline. Without the establishing plotline, I felt like a lost actor in a difficult movie asking, "What's my motivation?"

The game seemed designed to trickle out information little by little as the game progressed. The System Shock series used this to the greatest degree of success, using journal entries and notes to seamlessly explain the story in a controlled fashion. Half-Life 2 in the beginning levels starts to do a good job in this fashion with the G-Man starting off the game in a Timothy Leary acid-trip with ominous foreshadowing. The television monitors with Dr. Breen making Big Brother announcements clues in the player that not all is right in this place. The supporting characters such as Barney, Dr. Kliener, Dr. Vance and Alyx give the most information, but without any sense of pacing. The information only comes after long, long periods of action and then measured chunks of exposition. Those who crave non-stop action were probably annoyed when the talking began and I was annoyed when not enough information was coming my way. It's a difficult balance to strike to be sure, but for this game more information could have easily been supplied. I'll be talking more about plot as I examine each level in depth.

One thing that Half-Life 2 did exceptionally well with was mood. It nailed it as few games ever have. When designing a game, it's important for the art team to quickly establish a stylebook to follow. Structures can not have a mixture between gothic and modern design. They have to follow an established pattern of structure, palette and hue. From the beginning of the game, the aging, decrepit feel of an former Soviet Republic washes over the gamer. The trash and Cyrillic characters. The cramped living quarters to the rusted industrial complexes. The cities seemed in perpetual sunset which lent a red tint to the surroundings. This also applies to the clothing that the well-dressed Combine armies possessed to the death camp blue jumpsuits civilians wore. You could sense the despair in the people went "talking" to NPCs.

Ravenholm, which I'll discuss later in much greater detail, is soaked in terror and darkness. Obvious cues are taken from Silent Hill and Resident Evil games to great advantage. Even at the end of the game where the player is taken on tour of the Citadel, the designers succeed at instilling a sense of awe and hopelessness at overcoming such looming odds.

Characters


The designers of Half-Life 2 had two established characters to work with. Gordon Freeman and the mysterious G-Man from the last story. There were supporting characters such as the lab doctors and Barney they also had freedom to use. Characterization was only used in the first game to advance the story where it needed. In the sequel, the designers attempted to establish more memorable characters and raise the bar in this respect. This isn't as easy as it sounds since the player has no interaction with the characters. Not that it is needed mind you. Gordon is a man of action, not words as is evident since he never utters a sound unless hitting the floor after falling 9.8m/s

This was a conscious choice by the designers to have Gordon remain consistent with the previous game. There really wasn't any need for him to talk with the characters and ask them questions. It would have no impact on the game in the end. A game like Knights of the Old Republic has the main character interact with the NPCs because it has a direct impact on the player character and his alignment. Gordon doesn't need to profess his love for Alyx or confront Dr. Breen in a fit of anger. The designers have already made that choice for you... and would you choose otherwise? The drawback is that the player isn't as engaged as he could be or establish a deeper connection with the characters, but at the expense of long lulls in the action. And that is what Half-Life 2 is mainly about; action.

Let's take a moment and examine the characters for what we have in the game. The most fleshed out (and I say that loosely) is Dr. Breen. Voiced by the excellent Robert Culp at a young sounding 74 years of age, we learn more about him, his beliefs and his goals from his speeches to the populace. He's obviously in charge of this place and in command. He's confident, smug and seems to want to be a father figure to everyone. Dr. Breen wants to be a savior for the human race. One thing missing that I'm confused on his character is his motivation. Does he truly believe in what he says to the populace or is he enjoying the fruits and benefits of being head honcho?

Dr. Eli Vance, voiced by Robert Guillaume, is like a grandfather you love to visit. He seems to have all the answers to our questions, but before we're able to get of them we're either not transported correctly, forced to play with Dog or kidnapped.

Dr. Kliener is obvious comedy relief. As far as the story goes, it's a great addition to the game and he does provide some good information for the player. Even better is that he's voiced by the same guy from the first game. Continuity is always a good thing.

Barney Calhoun finally gets a last name. He only provided cursory background as to his current position, but his southern style of speech and uncanny ability to be actually useful is welcome. Unlike the freedom fighters later encountered, Barney has personality and is able to separate himself from the rabble.

Judith Mossman is probably the most confusing character, mostly from the way she's written. When first encountered at Black Mesa East she seems well rounded. Later in the game, the lust she has for Eli almost seems like she stalked him in her spare time and Eli seems clueless to her true feelings. In the end, it's hard to tell what the hell she was thinking when she double-crosses Breen. Was it out of love for Eli? A sudden epiphany? Was it the plan all along? Who knows because the script is really weak at this point.

I saved Alyx for last since she seems to get all of the attention of the gamers. Exotic, good-looking and voiced well, Alyx does fall into the stereotype of being young, brash and damn the consequences "I've got to save my father!" Forget about saving the planet, your dad has been captured and you have to save him. Alyx also too easily falls for Gordon looking at him with puppy dog eyes intoning, "Be careful". Did the designers know this? Duh, of course. It succeeds because the general gaming public loves her. They're examining her for tattoos and what color thong she's wearing. From a design standpoint, she's great, but from a critical standpoint she's a bit clichéd.

These six characters make up the heart of the game. There are other people that are met, but are anonymous denizens of the game with the sole exception of Father Grigory. His character is much like the G-Man, serving as a guide to the next section or area. The good Father is memorable for having a few bricks short of a load and being good with a shotgun. I'll discuss him in more detail in the Ravenholm breakdown, but suffice it to say that he was so good at what he did, Valve will do us all a disfavor and dig up his corpse to be used in Half-Life 3. Sometimes it's just better to let a character like that be used once and remembered forever rather than recycled and abused.

There's a reason I didn't include Gordon Freeman in this list. I didn't include Gordon because in this particular game, he has no character to speak of. He interacts with no one, he has no growth or show any kind of emotion. This is in contrast to the first game where time was spent getting to know Gordon, his routine and his co-workers. People related to Gordon because they had had boring jobs and wished something exciting (perhaps not with aliens) would happen to them. In the sequel, Gordon Freeman runs around, does some things and that's about it. The characters, including the G-Man give little feedback as to what Gordon might be feeling or expressing. Simple phrases like "Hey, wipe that smile off your face!" or "Don't look so scared! It's just a headcrab" can make the experience a bit more engaging. Simple additions to the script is all it takes.

Interaction

Being able to interact with your environment is a challenge in every new game. It's one thing to turn on a switch and have a light come on, it's a greater feat to grab a bottle and throw it at someone in a realistic matter. One thing that most people agree on is that the interaction in Half-Life 2 brings games up to a new level. This can be attributed to one item in the game, the gravity gun. The physics engine incorporated into the game is fantastic. Bodies fall down, objects bounce and toilets can be thrown in multiplayer.

The use of objects in such a manner opens the door to new gameplay possibilities. The Sandtrap level where you need to use the objects lying around to traverse sandy open spaces is an example of how this could be done. While Half-Life 2 isn't the first game to use this technique, it exhibits the best use of it to date. Rather than a straight shooter, certain puzzle elements can now be used.

Not that there aren't drawbacks to this method. The challenge for designers is come up with limitations for such a device. Not everything thing in the game can or should be manipulated. It's just too much work for a game team to currently do. That's why they incorporated the visual opening of the "claws" and the buzzing sound when the gun was pointed at something it could move and grab. All the level designers need to do is make sure that objects moved and grabbed are consistent.

A problem I constantly had was being able to manipulate objects so I could place them accurately. If you grabbed plank wrong, you couldn't just turn it around just like that. It took plenty of trial and error to get the darn thing straight. During the prison levels when a gun turret was knocked down, it was damn impossible to set it back up facing the right direction. I honestly don't think the programmers had time to figure out how to rotate an object properly.

One thing I never did like was picking up an object and not showing my hands holding said object. The reason for not showing your arms is simple. It comes from a game called Trespasser. It featured full physics and hands holding objects like crates and books and what not. The problem is that the arms looked totally goofy and distorted. To do something similar with Half-Life 2 would be problematic. I'm sure it was tried, but was probably dropped due to the complexity and animation it would take. Still, it's a bit strange to pick up a bottle and have it "float" there.

One thing of note when it comes to interaction. There comes a point in game evolution that a game has so many objects that can be manipulated, those that can't really stand out. Nothing bothers me more than to look at some large panel with a horde of shiny buttons and I can use it. In Half-Life two, I can turn stations on monitors, grab a cardboard box, whack a dead guard in the crotch, but I can't turn off a generator or work a monitoring station to tune in reruns of the Brady Bunch. The lesson is that if you're going to place objects that look interactive, you should probably make them that way or be able to give some sort of feedback on why you can't use that object.

Quick example. When using a Combine terminal, just have a voice state that the terminal has been locked. Tuning a radio just features static. Doors that don't open have a "locked" sound. If something is too heavy, have the player "grunt". Audio cues are probably the easiest form of feedback to implement. Is it overkill? As long as the game designers are able to maintain the illusion of the player being in another world, the better.

This is just part one of a larger series. The remaining parts will concentrate on individual levels, the choices the level designers made, some more comments on the game structure and other individual game elements.

One request for those posting comments is to please limit your comments to game design, elements and to points raised in this article. Please save your comments on graphic engines, performance or Steam. Models, textures and lighting comments should only be posted as it pertains to game or level design. An example of a good comment is "The darkness of Ravenholm lent to a creepy atmosphere, but the illusion was destroyed by the stark white textures of the zombie white lab coats." A bad comment would be "By not using Shader 3.0 instructions to their fullest, frame rates dropped in combat situations."

That was really well said, and now that I think back, it would have been nice(r) to have some of the subtle nuances you were talking about; if you try to lift something heavy a grunt is heard, or if there is a large video panel, and you try to use it, do have a voice say "Terminal is locked due to unauthorized use"or something like that.
Thanks again for your hard work.

Very well written. I agree on most all of your comments.

That was VERY well laid out, very nice. I agree with it.

One thing I want to add to the interaction with the physical world is weight. It seems Gordon has no trouble picking up any object what-so-ever, even if it is rather heavy. The gravity gun negates this of course because of the nature of it, but when Gordon is picking up objects with his bare hands he does it a bit too easily on some of the heavier objects. A minor detail.

Yeah, I got into an argument in another thread on this issue Brent. What you're talking about is momentum. The gravity is negated by the gravity gun, but there is still a large object with lots of mass moving towards you. It doesn't seem "right" somehow. That breaks the suspension of belief the player has in the game. I thought it would be appropriate to have the feedback to the player of him moving back like a foot when catching an object.

You could always explain away the Gordan lifting heavy things because of his HEV suit. Maybe it has actuators or something. In that case, you can always have the suit complain about the weight "Warning: Heavy object overloading suit systems" or something.

Brent_Justice said:

That was VERY well laid out, very nice. I agree with it.

One thing I want to add to the interaction with the physical world is weight. It seems Gordon has no trouble picking up any object what-so-ever, even if it is rather heavy. The gravity gun negates this of course because of the nature of it, but when Gordon is picking up objects with his bare hands he does it a bit too easily on some of the heavier objects. A minor detail.

Click to expand...

Ah yes...that's something that I forgot to mention. Like when you run into a big toolbox and knock it over.

Torgo said:

Gordon doesn't need to profess his love for Alyx or confront Dr. Breen in a fit of anger. The designers have already made that choice for you... and would you choose otherwise? The drawback is that the player isn't as engaged as he could be or establish a deeper connection with the characters, but at the expense of long lulls in the action.

Click to expand...

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the snippet above. I found that playing as Gordon in both HL games had me feeling more engaged than in any other game I've ever played because of the way the designers implement the Gordon character. In other games there are moments where you are detached from your character so that a cut scene showing interaction between your character and various NPCs can be shown. The fact that you are never detached from Gordon's point of view helps maintain the illusion that you're not just controlling Gordon, you are Gordon.

Then again I understand that this is more dependent on opinion than anything else. What one person finds engrossing might take another out of a game entirely. the fact that Gordon never talks didn't bother me a bit but it might be enough to hurt the experience for you.

Dijonase said:

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the snippet above.

Click to expand...

Great insight. The decision to keep Gordon silent is a tough one. One thing I absolutely agree with is keeping the 1st person viewpoint... no matter what. You are absolutely correct that it keeps you in character the entire time.

At some point in future games, keeping the character silent is going to present some serious challenges. I mean, if a piano were falling on Alyx, you wouldn't be able to shout "Watch out! Falling piano!" For a designer it does become a fun challenge to think of new ways of communication through a silent hero. (Perhaps Gordan is mute? Wouldn't that be a twist?)

Personally, I'd love to have a selection menu of things to say to NPC in the game. It does change the dynamics of the game though. What you say has an impact on the game (or at the very least it should) and it introduces a new variable in the game design. That could be bad or good depending on the implementation. I'd be fine with the silent treatment if I knew that it was part of Gordon's character.

I have a feeling that Valve is going to keep him silent for the next game, although I bet that they'll fall for the old cliche where something huge is shown in the game, something awesome in scope in which he'll just udder one word. Probably along the lines of "Sh!t" or "Damn!" I hope he doesn't. If Valve falls for this trap, please at least make him say something a bit more profound.

Torgo said:

....
I have a feeling that Valve is going to keep him silent for the next game, although I bet that
they'll fall for the old cliche where something huge is shown in the game, something awesome in scope in which he'll just udder one word. Probably along the lines of "Sh!t" or "Damn!" I hope he doesn't. If Valve falls for this trap, please at least make him say something a bit more profound.

Click to expand...

I was going to post something (i thought was) witty here, but I will just concur. I really hope if he does say something it's better than a cliche'd phrase or word.

Torgo said:

Yeah, I got into an argument in another thread on this issue Brent. What you're talking about is momentum. The gravity is negated by the gravity gun, but there is still a large object with lots of mass moving towards you. It doesn't seem "right" somehow. That breaks the suspension of belief the player has in the game. I thought it would be appropriate to have the feedback to the player of him moving back like a foot when catching an object.

You could always explain away the Gordan lifting heavy things because of his HEV suit. Maybe it has actuators or something. In that case, you can always have the suit complain about the weight "Warning: Heavy object overloading suit systems" or something.

Click to expand...

This has been argued here on the [H] Forum before in regards to the gravity gun. It is a singularity generator where at the point of the singularity gravity in and of itself is effectively infinite. Thus, the reaction of any object that comes at you is accurate. What you should really be asking is why said object doesn't implode upon arrival at the singularity. My initial reaction to that is that somehow the gravity gun is intelligent enough to understand what mass is being hurled at it and does what it can to compensate for said mass arrival at the point of singularity. That could be as simple as fluctuating on/off of the singularity itself to keep said mass in place or altering the singularity itself to affect the object solely at the atomic level and nothing further...therefore the object would still act/react as it does in the game and there would be no possibility of implosion/explosion of said mass on arrival at the singularity.

Torgo said:

Great insight. The decision to keep Gordon silent is a tough one. One thing I absolutely agree with is keeping the 1st person viewpoint... no matter what. You are absolutely correct that it keeps you in character the entire time.

At some point in future games, keeping the character silent is going to present some serious challenges. I mean, if a piano were falling on Alyx, you wouldn't be able to shout "Watch out! Falling piano!" For a designer it does become a fun challenge to think of new ways of communication through a silent hero. (Perhaps Gordan is mute? Wouldn't that be a twist?)

Personally, I'd love to have a selection menu of things to say to NPC in the game. It does change the dynamics of the game though. What you say has an impact on the game (or at the very least it should) and it introduces a new variable in the game design. That could be bad or good depending on the implementation. I'd be fine with the silent treatment if I knew that it was part of Gordon's character.

I have a feeling that Valve is going to keep him silent for the next game, although I bet that they'll fall for the old cliche where something huge is shown in the game, something awesome in scope in which he'll just udder one word. Probably along the lines of "Sh!t" or "Damn!" I hope he doesn't. If Valve falls for this trap, please at least make him say something a bit more profound.

Click to expand...

A menu of responses would be an option, but then it starts to become more of an RPG than an action FPS. But then is that such a bad thing? When we come to a point that a genre has been absolutely done to death it's only natural to start to blend genres. After a deluge of zombie films the brilliant zombie romantic comedy "Shaun of the Dead" came out and ended up being both hilarious and an excellent zombie film (a bit off topic there, but if you haven't seen this movie then check it out).

I actually think that in this instance I'd prefer a silent main character to an RPG-like shift, although there are limitations as you said. At the moment I can't think of any other way to allow Gordon to talk with his companions without taking the player out of the first person perspective other than just having him talk, but I find that less effective than leaving him silent. I'd be curious to hear suggestions from anyone else.

If you can figure out ways to keep Gordon silent, with the difficulty of it not be coming a running gag, y'all are well on your way to becoming a game designer. A good one at that.

That is hands-down one of the most intelligent posts I've ever seen anyone make in this forum, ever. Great read, can't wait for the next one.

I've got a little to add to your world interaction criticisms as well. I feel exactly the same way with regard to certain objects that seemed like they should be interactive on at least some level (HL1 was VERY good about this if anyone payed close attention, especially for the time... albeit there were shortcomings, but in 1997, it was truly revolutionary). My biggest (and most readily available) complaint is with regard to the way the lighting was set up. The lighting was so incredibly static that it gave the feel of an outdated engine. You couldn't shoot out exposed lightbulbs (which would be nice, if an ill-planned grenade happened to blast out the lights in a hallway, it'd be that much more realistic). If Far Cry, with a *fraction* of the budget, could do truly dynamic lighting (shooting a fixture, making it swing around, and having the light cast and shadows change in real-time? I found it to be INCREDIBLY absorbing), why couldn't HL2? I'm hoping they add it in HL3, but who knows. I expected it to be part of HL2 after playing Far Cry extensively, but alas, no... Also, in HL1, there were LIGHTSWITCHES. Anyone else notice their bizarre absence in HL2?

Damn, just imagine if you threw a grenade into a hallway full of Combine soldiers (say, in the City 17 portion of the game) and blew out all the lights in a given radius... Imagine that eerie feeling you'd get walking into the hallway after the smoke cleared with silhouettes of corpses and every light knocked out. It'd make the flashlight incredibly useful. I dunno, I may just be ranting, but these are my major complaints.

aNtHrAx323 said:

Damn, just imagine if you threw a grenade into a hallway full of Combine soldiers (say, in the City 17 portion of the game) and blew out all the lights in a given radius... Imagine that eerie feeling you'd get walking into the hallway after the smoke cleared with silhouettes of corpses and every light knocked out. It'd make the flashlight incredibly useful. I dunno, I may just be ranting, but these are my major complaints.

Click to expand...

There would be two components that would need to be addressed. One of course being the lights being interactive. The second is programming the AI to be "light-aware". Let me let you in on a little secret to the gaming community. Most game AIs cheat. Meaning, they know where you are and your status. Now why would developers do that?

Two reasons. First, because it's easier to program. Only hardcore programmers like doing AI. They're the guys giving lectures and presentations at GDC. Most developers throw a programmer that rather do some sexy graphic programming and he takes the easy way out. It's much easier to program 'if $player_health = 50 then $aim=$aim +10'. The second reason, and this can be a good one, is so that the AI can adapt to the player. The game may be watching how you play, notice what weapons you use, your status, your position, etc. so that the game can auto adjust difficulty accordingly. Many fighting games do this without you knowing it.

Okay, back to the scenario of shooting out lights. The AI for the combine soldiers need to be programmed to react to sudden total darkness. Do they become confused? Do they fire wildly killing each other? Do they run for the light? It doesn't really matter as long as they act like there's no light. Otherwise, what's the point of shooting out the light? It's an attractive scenario since it gives the player another option of solving a problem. Does he go Rambo and kill everything? Or does he sneak by everyone in darkness? Splinter Cell and Metal Gear Solid do this well, with Thief being the total master of this game strategy. The game designer needs to ask himself, "Do I want to go this route, or go for a more action oriented game?"

Hey, I'm would be in favor of it in Half-Life 2 because the way the levels are layed out, it wouldn't remove anything from the action. I'd love to see total blackness punctuated by muzzle flashes. Y'all are starting to think about design and how it affects gameplay.

Well said, my thoughts exactly. If anything it'd make the game that much more intense from an action standpoint (specifically in close-quarters combat when Combine soldiers are trying to rush you down a stairwell and in hallways and such). I don't think they'd react to instant darkness, though, seeing as they've all got what appears to be night vision equipment (hell, they're alien-human-superbots, why wouldn't they have it?), but it sure as hell would be cool from a player's standpoint. The game already is pretty good at scaring the piss out of me at times, but this would just make it that much more of an adrenaline rush. But as you were describing, the basic coding necessary (at least as it seems) could've been added so quickly that it troubles me that they didn't. With HL1, you could tell they were going for the best FPS game ever created. With HL2, however, I get the overwhelming feeling they just wanted to continue the franchise, and cut a lot of corners in the process. The game definitely had the potential to be the Game of the Year, but they just confirmed what everyone has begun to hate about Valve... They're getting far, far too lazy. I mean, jesus, the lighting stuff seems to me like it would've only been an extra few hours of development time (my buddy at UIUC wrote a game engine in DirectX with fully interactive light and a simple but effective physics engine, quite cool for a sophomore-level project). The AI could've also had more attention paid to it, since all too often I find myself simply running circles around the Combine soldiers. Those venemous headcrabs, however, make me want to drown puppies. I hate those little bastards.

Jesus, I just realized I'm still stuck in the City 17 portion where you have to take out all those in-floor turrets. It's really starting to piss me off.

bookmark (will read once i pass the game )

Torgo said:

Great insight. The decision to keep Gordon silent is a tough one. One thing I absolutely agree with is keeping the 1st person viewpoint... no matter what. You are absolutely correct that it keeps you in character the entire time.

At some point in future games, keeping the character silent is going to present some serious challenges. I mean, if a piano were falling on Alyx, you wouldn't be able to shout "Watch out! Falling piano!" For a designer it does become a fun challenge to think of new ways of communication through a silent hero. (Perhaps Gordan is mute? Wouldn't that be a twist?)

Click to expand...

I feel that Gordon is Muted for 2 Reasons.

1.)Technical reasons. As you already eluded to, is the fact that right now it's tough and challenging to exhibit communication between the player and the NPC's.

2.) He's mute for story line reasons.

I think Gordon is Mute because it's obvious the G-man is in total control of Gordons fate and to a point, his actions. In the first HL the G-Man was seen frequently. and this was to give the impression that, you had to chase him because the G-Man was the reason for that was bad in Black Mesa. But in the end it was obvious he used himself as a Lure to have Gordon do what needed to be done.

And in Half life 2, the G-man used Gordons past relationships to steer him in the right direction.

So I think he is Mute only for story line reason more than anything. If he did talk it would take away the mystery of his relationship with the G-Man.

Mindriot said:

So I think he is Mute only for story line reason more than anything. If he did talk it would take away the mystery of his relationship with the G-Man.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think Gordon doesn't have a clue as to what the G-Man is all about. You the player know as much as Gordon does about G-Man.

Designwise, the G-Man is total genius. Countless forum threads discuss who he is, what he could be, his purpose and his abilities. Frankly, the less Valve says about him the better. The G-Man has very little to do with gameplay and serves only to drive discuss of the game and to prop up the flimsy storyline. He appears just briefly enough to clue the player that he's headed in the right direction and to lend an air of mystery.

The less that Valve says about the G-Man, the better. Once you pull back the curtain, then the mystique is gone and so is his purpose to the game. What I'm about to say next is conjecture, but important to game design, especially when designing a game with future sequels. Ever seen a television show where there are clues to the mystery strewn throughout the season and once you see the final episode you realize the answer was given in the first episode? Really neat to go back and watch that first episode again and think "Duh, it was right there all along!"

It's not that hard to do in gaming if you plan ahead and write your story arc ahead of time. You'll see games do the reverse in going back to the past to pick up a story item or tidbit and use it as plot. Much cooler to plan it out all ahead of time. It would be great to see all the answers to the G-Man in the first Half-Life (if we only knew what we know now) but instead there isn't much character development or any further clues given in HL2. Trust me, when designing a story arc (because publishers love a sequel) do a complete write-out of what's going to happen two or three games down the line. Your fans will eat it up.

FYI, I'll have Part 2 posted sometime tomorrow. I haven't forgotten, I just decided to enjoy the holidays with family rather than writing.

Along the lines of the dynamic lighting scenarios discussion, I think that right now it isn't really a viable option to take. The biggest reason I can think of is the gamer outcry that would occur if all of a sudden your normal run & gun tactics present this type of problem. Think of Doom 3. Perhaps it would be different because the darkness was caused by the player, but somehow I doubt it.

Also, I think that it can't be done for some of the same reasons you can't take a rocket launcher and dig to China, as well as some of those Torgo hinted at. It changes the environment too much to do this. If the game were based around this precep and was able to focus attention in this area it could be done, as in Thief. But I think the ability to drastically modify the game environment just can't be supported yet. Moreover (and I know you didn't refute this), it just wouldn't be very action oriented as Half Life overwhelmingly is.

I agree almost in everything in the first post, and I to look forward to the next post.

The fact that Gordon's silent is no big problem for me, since it ussually is annoying with alot of talking if you have to play the same sqeunce many times...(Not that I had to do that in HL2 ).

Ravenholm was for me a whole different part of the game, there was only a small amount of powerups and ammo(if any).
Zombies respawned out of the blue!?(even on normal) But I loved it because it was the only part of the game where I was really under pressure

Storyline wise I felt like Ravenholm wasn't part of the real story, it felt more like a detour, and the story hadn't progressed one bit since you left Alex.
You are expected to meet up on the other side(AFAIK). But if your suppose to meet there anyways and you don't get anything special out of it (knowledge, new weapon,etc.) then it's just the developers tribute to Spooky games.
Why, oh why didn't Gordon just follow alex...
Also it feels like somehow the priest knows your coming, that's how I interpretended it with all the greetings(Calling gordon friend) and elevator saving in the end.

There's a part in the game that's really dark (AFAIK), where you are going around with alex, and you enter a rooom and suddenly it's the lights go out hollywod style(one segment a time) and you have to fight of a bunch of Combine soldiers almost in the dark.
All you really see is what the flaslight shows(rest is in panic red)(dang I lost alex so many times there). But true dynamic lighting with swingning lamps I've only seen in CS:S de_prodigy(pity a HE only makes the lamps swing, and doesn't take the light out also).
Another cool effect could be the possibility to blind other players with your flashlight like a short effect flash... Lol now I'm just rambling.

Anyways looking forward to you next update and view on Ravenholm etc.

the lack of dynamic lighting was a disappointment for me as well. When the lights are out, I think it forces you into a stealth-style of gameplay, which doesn't seem to be what Valve wanted to do.

There are ways around this of course, like permanent lights (sun/moon/stars) to offset the potential dark areas, or using light switches for on/off. Now your AI can walk into a room and turn the light back on. I'm pretty sure HL1 did this w/ a scientist before the cascade, which was why it was such a letdown to not have any of that. I haven't played Thief in a while, but using older technology (torches) can give you some options to (AI relights the torch).

I think it comes down to what kind of experience you want the gamer to have. HL2 was pure action, Thief is pure stealth. Some games force you to do both when they want you to, and then, my favorite, the great games give you a choice.

I wanted to comment on an element that I thought Valve did extremely well. I played the original Half-Life through three times. I played countless hours of deathmatch. For me, Half-Life was the game that got me into the FPS genre. I think many gamers are in my position, and Valve used that to their advantage.
For example, the health meter and charging station look much different than in the original, as they should, considering the changes in graphics over the years. But the sounds that they make when dispensing health are exactly the same. The effect, at least for me, is a very powerful sense of nostolgia. I'm taken back to a time when FPS gaming was new to me, when I hadn't played dozens of these kinds of games, and everything is new and interesting. If you notice, many of the sounds, like those of the crowbar and wood and boxes, is the same. This isn't lazy programming. It's an attempt to connect this game to the first, and by extension, the gamer with himself at a younger age.
How do you revive a genre where everything has been done before? By making the gamer feel like he did when he first started gaming.

I should also add to that last comment that many of the same voice actors from the first game reprised their roles for the second. If there is a sound change from one game to the next, people do notice. I do advocate changing a sound if a better one comes along. For instance, whacking apart a solid oak desk sounds different from the current breaking balsa wood sound.

I'll just bump this for ppl who haven't read it yet