HL2 Game Design Breakdown: Part II

Torgo

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Messages
3,149
Part II: Point Insertion

Sorry for the delay in getting this next part out. I chose to spend the holidays completely with family instead of writing. I should be cranking these out every few days or so.

When designing a AAA game, right at the beginning of the game the developer wants to make an instant impression upon the gamer. There are various ways to do induce a jaw dropping effect. Some developers choose to produce eye-candy CG movies that introduce the game and get you hyped up for what is to come. This is mostly used in games such as RPGs and RTS games where the game engine can't properly generate the excitement needed. Excellent examples of this method include any Blizzard or Final Fantasy Title, System Shock, and yeah I'll include my very own Age of Empires II. My personal favorite was the Syndicate introductions. (Remind me to covert the intro from Blinker to Xvid and post it.)

The second way is what I call a storybook mode. This opening sequence is the giant book with text on it with turning pages, or some text on the screen stating that "Once upon a time, a long time ago in a kingdom far, far away". While it lacks the whiz bang visuals that full CG gives you, it's the cheapest intro to make and can give a more complete background than otherwise possible. The Myth series uses this, most early RPG titles and games that use mission introductions use this method.

The last category is using the game engine itself to produce a introduction to the game at hand. Not as cool as the CG route, it's the most direct route to immersing the player and can be as interactive as you need it. Most FPS games take this route and Half-Life 2 is no exception.

Timing is a big key to the introduction of a game. If it is too short, you can leave the player confused. Too long and you bore the player. My general rule is to limit the introduction to about 1:30 minutes or so, but take as long as you need to set up the game. This is about as long as most television shows use to catch you up on what happened last week or to explain the premise of the show. Over the holiday, I watched all three seasons of Alias. At the beginning of Seasons 1 and 2, they would have a blurb on the characters, the situation and what last happened. Any new watchers could start catching up right away. The same should apply to games. For a sequel, it should be at least somewhere in the documentation, the introduction or *somewhere* in the installation that informs the new player what the premise of the game is. Many games are great at doing this. I liked the opening of System Shock because in under a minute it explains who you are, what you did and how you got there.

For players of the previous Half-Life, HL2 starts off fantastically. Straightway the game starts off in a strange Willy Wonka boat-ride acid trip with the G-Man intoning Gordon to wake up and "smell the ashes". The close up of the G-Man with his features really shows off the engine and does get that silently intoned "Wow..." However, for the player that hasn't played the first game, you don't have a clue as to who this guy is, who this Gordon character is and what happened before. Now the counter-argument is that everyone has played the first game and therefore knows the story. That's just a generalization. Not *everyone* has played the first game. There are plenty of people that played it only for Counter-Strike. As I mentioned in Part I, there's a huge information gap for new players. There's no background, no context for the game's existence. A major, major mistake on the part of Valve. To be honest, it takes a minimum of effort to correct this and there really isn't an excuse.

Part of the standard for FPS games is the introduction level which Point Insertion does well. The purpose is to acclimate the player to the game engine, the controls and how the "laws of the universe" operate with little to no consequence. A good choice for informing the player of new options is the simple on screen text stating that to talk to people press the use key and what not. Unobtrusive and effective. It minimizes the "third wall" that games are not supposed to cross. Valve could have done this in different ways. Most mission based games have a training level where you have a trainer or a recording telling you to "Use the blaster by pressing the Triangle button and left-clicking the target". While this is the most informative method for learning a new game, it can be tedious and slow. It does give you good practice for tossing grenades at a target and adjusting to kickback to a rifle.

Valve chooses the right path and instead introduces elements one at a time throughout the game. This doesn't overwhelm the player and slowly ramps up the action. To start the player can talk to two people on the train and wander around the station. For this particular level, Valve's designers nail down the look and feel of a crumbling former Soviet city. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but damn it looks good. The train station does allow the player to interact with a few items and there are no consequences to bad behavior at this point. It's important to make sure the game doesn't discourage the player in the early stages. You need to get the player curious about their environment and the story.

You'll notice that the level is very linear until you get outside the station. It's done in a good way that doesn't force the player too fast and allows the game to progress at the player's pace. You can take time out and listen to Young Santa explain the virtues of the new society. One small issue with this foreshadowing is that it's fairly obvious that the last guy you're going to put a bullet in his brainpan is going to be Dr. Breen. This at least establishes who your target is eventually going to be. Otherwise, you pretty much get the picture that the Combine aren't friendly folk and are going to be your main opposition in the game.

Eventually you are led by the guards to an interrogation room where you encounter the first friendly face, Barney. The script here does a pretty good job of answering some questions the player has to date. With the knock at the door, you're finally given something to do with urgency. Once you're out of the window and out of the immediate danger you progress and have in my mind a strange encounter. A Combine guard will "request" that you pick up a can and throw it away. The entire purpose of this exercise is to practice picking up and manipulating objects. It does little to advance the story, although I find the placement of this element a bit out of place. Considering that you just escaped out of a interrogation room, this would have been better at the beginning of the level before you have to move the boxes around to escape. Again, no arms to hold objects and they tend to block the view as to where these items are being thrown. I guess if Homestarrunner can do it... The one thing I wish for (and I've mentioned this in Part I) is that the interface for holding and manipulating objects was given more thought and more user friendly.

Beyond the station is the beautiful outside world. There are certain elements that are placed here that are to give you hints of what is to come in later levels. The Strider, the tanks, and the blocked areas are all strategically placed. There are further smaller elements that enhance the bleakness of the situation such as the Combine abusing the remaining citizens, the continuing blaring propaganda in the square, and overall feel of the buildings; the rust and decay surrounding every building.

The one thing that I really like about this level is that it is designed very subtlety to guide the player in one direction. You can take small detours to gawk and gander, but it gently guides you to hop the fence to the next subsection. It took me a while to find it when I first played, but it was nice to take me time and experiment a little and move around as I wanted. Eventually, you'll make into a run-down building (have I mentioned I love the buildings and interiors?) and find yourself in a situation where the Combine are sweeping the building. Again, guiding the player to where he is supposed to go is used extremely well. The scripting is timed perfectly. It reminded me of Nazis swarming a building to look for fugitives. Right away the "fight or flight" instinct kicks in and the player can feel the growing tension.

All the while the player is given constant subtle cues from the non-player characters on where to go. "They're coming up the stairs!" "Go to the roof!" Yeah, some real action and you find yourself rushing to stay just one step ahead. Even when you find yourself on the roof, the route to take is fairly clear. The edges are clearly marked on where to walk and the first open window you climb into. Once you go down the steps, you'll notice that it breaks behind you. This is done on purpose to prevent the player from backtracking. It's an effective device to keep the game moving and preventing the player from just goofing around. Remember that pacing is important in a game and designers shouldn't be afraid of removing elements that slow things down. Remember that the next time you see a bridge/stair/building/house of cards collapse behind you. The level designer does that to keep you moving forward.

This next part is a pure plot point. From a design standpoint, it's a good position for a break in the action. The player has a taste of how the action moves and flows, but he needs some direction as what to do next. How this next scenario plays out brings up a few questions. The script calls for the Combine to flood the room and commence to pound you like a pinata. As the scene fades to white, you hear Alyx enter and kick some Combine butt. Fade to reality and you see the face of your savior and she leads you just a short way to the hidden lab. The design of the game, doesn't allow for any hand-to-hand combat at this point since you have no crowbar. When confronted with the forces of the Combine you have no way to fight back without the Deus ex Machina of Alyx appearing and saving the day.

The way the scene fades out reminded me of listening to a song on the radio where the band can't figure out how to end the song, so the producer in the sound studio just slowly fades out the volume. While seeing Alyx fight the bad guys would be neat to see in a Jennifer Garner way, there likely wan't time or the resources to animate that sequence. Given the time, I'm sure Valve would have liked to put this in the game. But considering that Alyx never really fights or shoots anything in the game and has the habit of staying behind to hack a computer terminal, rendering a fight scene wouldn't the best allocation of resources.

So why have the scene there at all? Why does Alyx need to save you? A few good reasons. First, it forces the player to give up control for a bit and stop the Rambo act. It also allows Alyx's character to develop as more than a pretty face and clever hacker. She is impulisve, couragous and can probably do a roundhouse kick to make you think twice before heading for second base on a date. It does present a few small problems. The first is that a whole horde of Combine fails to notice that a huge laboratory is in the basement of that building. Second, you can't take any of the Combine weapons or even a uniform from this encounter. Lastly, it's a bit curious that Alyx doesn't show this side of her personality in the rest of the game.

Overall, this first chapter of the game accomplishes several goals. Setting the mood and the scene for the story. It also introduces the beginning of the plotline and serves as an introduction to the game engine and movement. We're given glimpses of things to come, but at the same time there isn't any context as to what happened before and how we got here. It's one thing to have a story of mystery, but don't mistake that with annoying the player with confusing plot.

From here you follow Alyx into the next chapter of the game, "A Red Letter Day". I'll save that for my next installment along with "Route Kanal".
 
Some good points. I disagree about there being no plot reason for the combine telling you to pickup the can.
For me, my first reaction was to pick up the can and throw it at the combine. This got me beat with the shock stick. With no way to fight back, I felt powerless to protect myself. This is an effective way to build resentment up in the player for the combine. At that point, I wanted nothing better than to beat that combine with a crowbar. Since I couldn't do it to him, so I did it to all his buddies through the rest of the game. I thought it was a good way to involve the player emotionally in the game.
 
dude, when I figured out how to throw stuff and that the dudes would "Rodney King" me, running away never has been so thrilling.
 
Torgo said:
Part II: Point Insertion

The way the scene fades out reminded me of listening to a song on the radio where the band can't figure out how to end the song, so the producer in the sound studio just slowly fades out the volume. While seeing Alyx fight the bad guys would be neat to see in a Jennifer Garner way, there likely wan't time or the resources to animate that sequence. Given the time, I'm sure Valve would have liked to put this in the game. But considering that Alyx never really fights or shoots anything in the game and has the habit of staying behind to hack a computer terminal, rendering a fight scene wouldn't the best allocation of resources.

You're right, it would have been much better if you could have seen her beat them up. It would give the player more respect for her, and it would be one of the better remembered parts of the game.
 
Since several people mentioned the soda can incident, let me say that it serves as an interesting diversion, but if the player persists in "teasing" the soldier there is no true consquence and breaks the illusion the game is trying to present. I mean, would this combine soldier really just sit there and take getting hit with a soda can so often? He's Combine and he don't take no crap. He should put the living smackdown on Gordon.

It's like teasing my little brother. For instance: >Flick< Ow. Stop! >Punch back< >Flick< Ow. Stop it! >Punch back< >Flick< Ow. I said stop! >Punch< >Flick< Ow. Quit it! >Punch< etc. It's fun for a few minutes but quickly becomes boring. It does little to really enhance the game overall.
 
Torgo said:
Since several people mentioned the soda can incident, let me say that it serves as an interesting diversion, but if the player persists in "teasing" the soldier there is no true consquence and breaks the illusion the game is trying to present. I mean, would this combine soldier really just sit there and take getting hit with a soda can so often? He's Combine and he don't take no crap. He should put the living smackdown on Gordon.

It's like teasing my little brother. For instance: >Flick< Ow. Stop! >Punch back< >Flick< Ow. Stop it! >Punch back< >Flick< Ow. I said stop! >Punch< >Flick< Ow. Quit it! >Punch< etc. It's fun for a few minutes but quickly becomes boring. It does little to really enhance the game overall.
lol @ the brother

i think your right here...also...growing on that...how come when you can get smacked up by the combine with no consiquence(sp?)...like....death? or a blackout? at the trainstation/any other part before the alyx incident

but you blackout from the same shock stick when the combine proceed to beat your before ass when alyx kicks this $hit outta them.....BTW..i was a pussy at this point and proceeded to try to run up the stairs again..only to have them break...GREAT thing on valves part...the combine would have never caught me if i got up the stairs...
 
What I have found that helps when designing or examining a level or a scenario is to make small decision trees. At a given point in the level, what options are available to me? Where can I go and what can I do?

Eventually you can link these small trees (Visio is good for this) and start thinking of things that could impact the game in unseen ways. For instance, what would happen if I grab some insect buddies and backtrack a few levels? Do I as a designer allow this? How would a decision effect me later in the game?

When designing you need to be open to a myriad of possibilities. For this level, the designers wisely restricted the path the game could progress in. Unfortunately, they kept this up the entire game which I'll get into in later parts.
 
I'm noticing threads like "Why I still back Nintendo's Gay Purple Machine" and other lame threads getting more reads and posts than the game design breakdown series I'm doing. Before I spend another few hours on the next part, is there enough interest in continuing this? Is the forum just not ready for a series like this?
 
I think its pretty cool you are doing these, they make you remember all those little things you experience the first play through, but with a different perspective.

I think they are great
 
Please continue. It reimmerses me in the game from a different vantage point. I loved the game and am playing it again because of that, and this insight into it from an actual developers pov puts the game in a whole different perspective, for me anyway.
Thanks and please do continue.
 
Torgo said:
I'm noticing threads like "Why I still back Nintendo's Gay Purple Machine" and other lame threads getting more reads and posts than the game design breakdown series I'm doing. Before I spend another few hours on the next part, is there enough interest in continuing this? Is the forum just not ready for a series like this?
I for one is very interested into these series... I don't comment if 100% of you say is correct and i agree with them.

Just ignore those topics and continue the good work :)
 
I remembered grabbing the can and trashing it being before the interrogation room.....hmm
 
great write up...I think you're just about dead on for most all of your points.
 
NEODARK said:
I think they are great

I'll second that. If you feel that you're putting in a fairly large chunk of your time and people are igrnoring these threads then I could understand if you decide to stop, but I'd be sorely disappointed. I've enjoyed the first two parts and looks forward to the rest.

I also think that when a lot of forum kids see a thread like this they think to themselves "OH noes this is to much raeding for m3." Maybe a bit of a stereotype, but I'd say those people definitely exist.
 
Yes please continue the series. I have, and currently Mod Games and have always been very interested in Player feedback. Plus this is a nice change of pace from, "HL2 Sucked" " No it didn't it Rocked!!" "It sucks" " It Rocks" etc.....

It's a good thought provoking topic, rather than the typical poke at anothers likes and dislikes in order to get responses.

I welcome threads like this.

Keep it up!
 
Good. I wasn't getting much feedback on it so I started to question the project. I'll get the next piece up as soon as possible.
 
I think it's very good, but I refrained from posting in this thread because I really had nothing to say about the matter (other than the obvious it's very good).

Your post reads more like a textbook on game design (which isn't a bad thing, it's exactly what this kind of thread needs to be like) as opposed to an opinion generating editorial/review. I think that's why you're not generating tons of comments.
 
kick@ss said:
I think it's very good, but I refrained from posting in this thread because I really had nothing to say about the matter (other than the obvious it's very good).

Your post reads more like a textbook on game design (which isn't a bad thing, it's exactly what this kind of thread needs to be like) as opposed to an opinion generating editorial/review. I think that's why you're not generating tons of comments.
I concur.

I can't wait for the next one.
 
Torgo said:
Good. I wasn't getting much feedback on it so I started to question the project. I'll get the next piece up as soon as possible.

LOL Don't forget there's always a ton of lurkers on any forum that I'm sure appreciate your work.
 
Ima diggin' the breakdown ... if you stop now , then you'll leave a lot of peeps hangen ...kinda like the end of HL2 did :p
 
LOL Don't forget there's always a ton of lurkers on any forum that I'm sure appreciate your work

I've read both your writeups, and really enjoyed them.

Keep up the impressive work :)
 
Moar please!

You've been spot on or at least very close to how i fealt as i've played through the game. Keep up the good work! :)
 
Yeah, there are more serious lurkers around reading and enjoying each of your posts, Torgo :D

Just to make you feel appreciated and know we read, i will post a comment in each one of your topics even if i have nothing more to say than to agree with your explanation. I'm pretty sure there will be one or two things in the future I will not agree ;)
 
For the love of god please continue, much better then the mindless crap thats usually here :rolleyes:
 
The third installment will be posted tomorrow. I haven't forgotten, just been extremely busy.
 
Torgo said:
The third installment will be posted tomorrow. I haven't forgotten, just been extremely busy.


Yah gotta keep teh [H]orde [H]appy. :D

But i just wanted to reiterate, this is first class work. And i, for one, really appreciate the effort put forth to make these. This thread is one of the reasons i like the [H]ardforums so much. Yeah, there's a ton of crap to wade through, but the occasional gem (like this thread) makes it all worth while. Thanks again! :)
 
My main criticism of the openning area is that the combine guys ultimately are not threatening once you realize you can just run from them. They seem really ominous until you realize you can't die at all. This then makes them seem more trivial and less threatening.

I think in the openning, if you mess with the guards they should either crack you so hard that your dead and have to start over, or at least you should see them beating someone to an inch of their life, or both. Then the world would seem much more ominous.
 
You have to design the beginning so that the player can make mistakes without being too severely punished. A player can then ramp up his expectations and his skills for later challenges. That's the reason that you see so many games have a training level at the beginning. Better to screw up now, rather than be punished later.

My school of thought is to have at least some small consequence for screwing up at the beginning rather than none at all. The idea in Half-Life 2 in the first 30 minutes of the game is to set the tone and theme for the rest of the game. I agree, that allowing the player to taunt and tease the Combine endlessly with no consequence results in a Three Stooges situation. It's not the mood or theme that you're trying to set out and create.

Now death should be a last resort for any beginning situation. In this case, is it warranted? It's a good question. If this were anyone but Gordon slapping around a Combine soldier, would the soldier just stand there? We see later in the game what the Combine does to people that resist. They beat the living crap out of them and yes, kill them. They don't know Gordon at the beginning of the game. So when Gordon throws items and jumps on top of soldiers goofing off, does it make sense that they stay out of character and let this go on?

As one of my former employers said, "If you have time to goof off, you have time to clean up." So the way I would have dealt with the situation is probably script in either a time limit or some kind of monitoring AI that would force the player to move along or have one of the soldiers "escort" the player to the next area where Combine Barney is located. The penalty of death is avoided and the game pacing is kept up. You also have an opportunity to have the soliders "rough up" the player if needed.

Just food for thought on to handle a situation like that. Remember that usually an idle player is a bored player.
 
Once you're out of the window and out of the immediate danger you progress and have in my mind a strange encounter. A Combine guard will "request" that you pick up a can and throw it away. The entire purpose of this exercise is to practice picking up and manipulating objects. It does little to advance the story, although I find the placement of this element a bit out of place. Considering that you just escaped out of a interrogation room, this would have been better at the beginning of the level before you have to move the boxes around to escape.

I personally found that scene to very well placed, even anti-climactic. After you escape, and you see a combine guard who you think is looking for you, your first thought is 'oh shit i'm dead'. Then he just knocks a can down and makes you pick it up.
 
Torgo said:
You have to design the beginning so that the player can make mistakes without being too severely punished. A player can then ramp up his expectations and his skills for later challenges. That's the reason that you see so many games have a training level at the beginning. Better to screw up now, rather than be punished later.

My school of thought is to have at least some small consequence for screwing up at the beginning rather than none at all. The idea in Half-Life 2 in the first 30 minutes of the game is to set the tone and theme for the rest of the game. I agree, that allowing the player to taunt and tease the Combine endlessly with no consequence results in a Three Stooges situation. It's not the mood or theme that you're trying to set out and create.

Now death should be a last resort for any beginning situation. In this case, is it warranted? It's a good question. If this were anyone but Gordon slapping around a Combine soldier, would the soldier just stand there? We see later in the game what the Combine does to people that resist. They beat the living crap out of them and yes, kill them. They don't know Gordon at the beginning of the game. So when Gordon throws items and jumps on top of soldiers goofing off, does it make sense that they stay out of character and let this go on?

As one of my former employers said, "If you have time to goof off, you have time to clean up." So the way I would have dealt with the situation is probably script in either a time limit or some kind of monitoring AI that would force the player to move along or have one of the soldiers "escort" the player to the next area where Combine Barney is located. The penalty of death is avoided and the game pacing is kept up. You also have an opportunity to have the soliders "rough up" the player if needed.

Just food for thought on to handle a situation like that. Remember that usually an idle player is a bored player.


I think your idea is good. I bet they just decided it wasn't needed because a serious player would play in character anyway. If someone is gonna goof off and play around with the combine, then they wouldn't get immersed anyway.

Still, if you are gonna immerse yourself and fear them, they need to somehow put the fear in you as well.
 
I'm the Dude said:
I bet they just decided it wasn't needed because a serious player would play in character anyway.
Actually, I find the inverse to be true. Go on to any MMORPG and look at the way people chat. The n00b13's are the one that stay in character, while the vets tend to anti-roleplay. It's a generalisation, but mostly true. Players tend to play the way they want to, rather than pick a challenging role and continue to act it out. That takes work. It's more fun to play out the way that's most enjoyable. Ergo, entertaining yourself trumps all character play.
 
Back
Top