236: Gordon Freeman, Private Eye

[InsanityRequiem]

I enjoyed playing the Half-Life series and Portal, awesome story telling through and through. But for me, the most story I got from some non-story telling was every involvement G-Man was in, later talked near the end of Episode 2.

I mean, come on. A disturbingly symmetrical human-like being in a business suit who is involved the two worse times in humanity's near destruction. The first is that he gave the material to Black Mesa in the first Half-Life and then watched you as you went about, killing the alien invaders. I immediately got the feeling that he was Humanity's watcher, but had some sort of 'falling out' I guess would be the word to describe his machinations in the attacks.

The second part that really got me was when the Vortigaunts came at the beginning of Episode 1, barring G-man from taking Gordon. That is when I learned that the Vortigaunts obviously knew what G-man was, and when combined together the Vortigaunts were able to disrupt G-man's powers and machinations.

And the second part directly leads to this third part, Episode 2. That's when it all struck me hard that many of the characters are here 'because' of G-man's machinations in the current downfall of humanity. He made sure Alyx wasn't killed at Black Mesa. He made contact with Eli with Black Mesa and the confirmation of giving the GG-3883.

What makes me wonder what happens next is how G-man will be involved in Episode 3 when/if it comes out.

 

[The Random One]

I dunno, man. I've been saying for internet ages* that storyline in games needs to shy away from the traditional book/movie/etc. linear progression, and focus on giving players experiences rather than just telling them what happens. This is exactly what I'm talking about. And yet... Half-Life? Meh. I had no enjoyable experiences playing it, the no cutscenes method they use is entertaining precisely once and utterly boring every time you want to replay it, and... those little tidbits are just part of the world. I wouldn't call that story, although by my own definition I should.

Perhaps it's because the HL series is so close to my primordial idea of what a game should be like that my mind immediately classifies it as 'average'. Or maybe when I finally got around to playing HL2 I was so surprised by how awful its game design was that I saw nothing more in blind rage. The episodes were better, though (or maybe I got used to the bad?) and Alyx deserves everything good that's said to her as a character, even if I can't remember how her name is spelled.

My most pertinent memory regarding this is when I was playing the game with the commentaries, and I went into that room where the larval advisor first appears. In it there was a commentary regarding all the things the developers had put to make absolutely sure players would look at the advisor during that sequence, I think there were about four redundant tools to make sure the scene would go as planned. I was like, "What the fuck is he talking about? What is there to see in this room?" Not only had I missed the advisor on my first playthrough, I missed it again on my calmer, commentary playthough, and didn't even know I had missed something. There's probably a point in there, and I think it is 'never underestimate players' ability to stare at a mildly interesting floor tile when something amazing happens elsewhere'.

What the hell??? The entire half life series has been slightly entertaining at best, and portal had shit for story line! I loved the game portal because it was fun NOT because it was full of depth. Its like saying Mario Bros. had a revolutionary storyline and amazing character development. No...it...fucking...didnt.

t(''t)

Yet,I kinda have to agree with this, especially the kirby flipping off, which is kind of awesome. Portal had interesting characters and what they said could keep you engaged, but that's only a small part of a good story. Perhaps this is already a matter of semantics.

(By the way, my favourite theory about the Rat Man is that Chell clones are massively produced and he is one that escaped midway through the test.)

[small]*1 internet age = 2.5 weeks.[/small]

 

[boholikeu]

I dunno, man. I've been saying for internet ages* that storyline in games needs to shy away from the traditional book/movie/etc. linear progression, and focus on giving players experiences rather than just telling them what happens. This is exactly what I'm talking about. And yet... Half-Life? Meh. I had no enjoyable experiences playing it, the no cutscenes method they use is entertaining precisely once and utterly boring every time you want to replay it, and... those little tidbits are just part of the world. I wouldn't call that story, although by my own definition I should.

Perhaps it's because the HL series is so close to my primordial idea of what a game should be like that my mind immediately classifies it as 'average'. Or maybe when I finally got around to playing HL2 I was so surprised by how awful its game design was that I saw nothing more in blind rage. The episodes were better, though (or maybe I got used to the bad?) and Alyx deserves everything good that's said to her as a character, even if I can't remember how her name is spelled.

My most pertinent memory regarding this is when I was playing the game with the commentaries, and I went into that room where the larval advisor first appears. In it there was a commentary regarding all the things the developers had put to make absolutely sure players would look at the advisor during that sequence, I think there were about four redundant tools to make sure the scene would go as planned. I was like, "What the fuck is he talking about? What is there to see in this room?" Not only had I missed the advisor on my first playthrough, I missed it again on my calmer, commentary playthough, and didn't even know I had missed something. There's probably a point in there, and I think it is 'never underestimate players' ability to stare at a mildly interesting floor tile when something amazing happens elsewhere'.

What the hell??? The entire half life series has been slightly entertaining at best, and portal had shit for story line! I loved the game portal because it was fun NOT because it was full of depth. Its like saying Mario Bros. had a revolutionary storyline and amazing character development. No...it...fucking...didnt.

t(''t)

Yet,I kinda have to agree with this, especially the kirby flipping off, which is kind of awesome. Portal had interesting characters and what they said could keep you engaged, but that's only a small part of a good story. Perhaps this is already a matter of semantics.

(By the way, my favourite theory about the Rat Man is that Chell clones are massively produced and he is one that escaped midway through the test.)

[small]*1 internet age = 2.5 weeks.[/small]

Interesting, you're the first person I know of that wants games to move away from the linear movie/novel method of telling stories but doesn't like Half-Life 2. Can you give examples of its "awful" game design? Cause even all these years later I still think most games would do well to take a page from the Valve design book.

 

[NEVRINx54]

(hand of applause)

 

[Silva]

The only problem with Half Life 2 for was that it is easy to miss its brilliance until you've played it through several times.

At the point when a player has the patience to do a little exploring instead of following the most linear paths, they notice that little stories have been implanted in the way maps have been designed. It is these Easter eggs that give the game much of its depth and excellence, and this is a good article to acknowledge that fact.

Hear that, designers? We want more Easter eggs in our games! They're always awesome. Always.

 

[Killerbunny001]

Great article, I haven`t realized this detective work bit before I read the article although I did it throughout HL and Portal.

I fear only one thing : that this way of story telling will die once the half-Life series is over.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

The medium of gaming is one of experience... The story is formed as you play it. There are people who foolhardily dismiss straightforward games like Super-Mario: Bros, Doom, or Half-Life as having no plot or no depth. They have been accustomed to prose and film, and expect the story to be told to them.

Anybody who has spent more than 15 minutes in a creative writing workshop knows full well that if you're "telling" a story instead of showing it, then you're doing it wrong. All good storytelling is immersive; a story, a show, a movie, a song, a play, a game, or whatever should immerse its audience in the world its attempting to build. If the books you read aren't doing this for you, you're reading crap books. The article dances around this topic without explicitly saying so, but boils down to how good Valve is at showing without telling, and I tend to agree.

Like a good book, every replay of HL2 (and to a lesser degree HL) reveals a world replete with subtle details (if you care to look for them) that simply make it more real, more immersive for the audience without having them shoved in your face.

That said, SMB and Doom (the original version; I haven't played the remake) are spectacularly bad examples if you want to talk about games with depth. I can't think of two more shallow games. The walls of the Mushroom Kingdom are not scrawled with graffiti about the ramifications of blue-collar plumbers climbing the social ladder. "It's-a me! Mario!" Does not make for a compelling story. Imps don't wander around complaining about the quality of cafeteria food in Hell.

I think the biggest difference in making inferences from games as opposed to other mediums:

In film, music, song and dance the spectator is bombarded with every detail. Everything would be visible upfront. Whether they miss something between the lines or don't come to a conclusion from allusion in the piece they were still presented it.

Whereas in games the player can easily speedrun through a scripted event, skip a cut-scene, or miss a certain path that holds clues.

Perhaps Super Mario Bros was not the best example. That was a remnant of the article I originally posted at, speaking of the stories we tell ourselves instead of the stories told to us. You cannot deny that we can relate to Mario. You cannot deny there is a story. However shallow or deep it is, is decided by the player.

A better example would be Shadow of the Colossus. There are gamers who claim it is absent and lacking in story or depth. It's true. You are a hero, working to save your love. You travel to place to place battling bosses.

But is there not a tale alone, within the fallen bridge stretching to the heavens supported by endless pillars? Is there not a story in the arch seemingly formed not by human hands? Is there nothing to be said about how each Colossi seemingly is one with his environment, or upon the shocking finale something to be said about who they once were?

 

[ThrashJazzAssassin]

The only problem with Half Life 2 for was that it is easy to miss its brilliance until you've played it through several times.

At the point when a player has the patience to do a little exploring instead of following the most linear paths, they notice that little stories have been implanted in the way maps have been designed. It is these Easter eggs that give the game much of its depth and excellence, and this is a good article to acknowledge that fact.

Hear that, designers? We want more Easter eggs in our games! They're always awesome. Always.

I don't know about that; I think you get a sense of the depth playing through the first time, just without necessarily being sure why. You're more likely to notice specific details on later play-throughs, but the same is true of a good book or film.

I really enjoyed reading this article. I've disagreed before with people who were getting impatient to have all the plot explained away and tied up, but Craig Owens puts his case rather more succinctly than I ever managed to.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Excellent article. I agree wholly. For me, the Half-Life series has been far more enjoyable because I've put more time into exploring, even with the level linearity.

The experience that I recall the most was coming across an abandoned-house-turned-Combine-outpost on the highway in Half-Life 2. After taking out the two measly Overwatch soldiers, I looked through their mounted telescope. At first, I thought it was just a nifty view of a rebel base, but then I realized the G-Man having a conversation with an elderly fellow. That's when everything got cool.

Left 4 Dead is also well-written. Gotta love the saferoom graffiti.

 

[Dhatz]

soo you think what differeciates HL from the other "kill aliens" games is the presence of mystery? So would you rather get short on info in next mass effect? makes no sense to me.

 

[Chasmodius]

This is an excellent narrative analysis, and a good explanation of why Valve's stories are so much more compelling than those of most other studios. It is for a similar reason that I enjoyed the beginning of the new Battlestar Galactica more than the end: so much was mysterious, and had to be pieced together in bits from subtle clues and hints dropped in, rather than being overly discussed in exposition (and I'm not sure if the commentary podcasts helped or hurt). Eventually, it became obvious that they had been making shit up as they went along, and so they had to spend a while explaining the convoluted story they were forced to make up that fit these contradictory clues (though that's just my opinion). In any case, you are absolutely right to bring up the rule of "show, don't tell" as it is the epitome of good story-telling, and yet it is so infrequently adhered to.

 

[Grayfayce]

When first played, I didn't know why HL2 had such enriching gameplay experience - I simply went along with the flow. Reading this article makes me realize just how much work was put into this amazing game from Valve, and (as was stated in the article) I believe that what was so great in both Portal and Half Life was the details, both in the environment and in the creation of the characters.

 

[boholikeu]

soo you think what differeciates HL from the other "kill aliens" games is the presence of mystery? So would you rather get short on info in next mass effect? makes no sense to me.

No, he's saying games should "show, not tell" more like Half Life 2 does.

Mass Effect definitely could've benefited from this a bit, as too many conversations were basically reduced to "exposition dump".

 

[Craig Owens]

soo you think what differeciates HL from the other "kill aliens" games is the presence of mystery? So would you rather get short on info in next mass effect? makes no sense to me.

Thing is, I don't think Half-Life holds back information to create its mystery, except for the most obvious plot threads (who is the G-Man? And so on..). What Half-Life does is sprinkle an absolutely massive amount information about its world, in a quite subtle manner.

I don't think all games should tells stories in the exact same manner. I enjoyed Mass Effect, and I like the richness of Bioware's worlds. I also completely appreciate that sometimes, when you're creating the reams of lore and history they do, that the odd chunk of text/expository dialogue is inevitable. Having said that, there are occasions when the game gets a little exposition heavy, and some of those planet descriptions left me wishing I could see them for myself, first hand.

Half-Life 2 tells a particular kind of story in a particular kind of way, and in doing so it elevates what might otherwise have been a fairly standard plot into something a thousand times more memorable. It also plays to the medium's strengths in quite interesting ways.

I'd like to see more developers try such an approach, but I don't want them all to. I hope that answers your question

 

[Craig Owens]

Also, massive thank you to everyone who posted saying they liked the article. I'm glad you all enjoyed it.

 

[Jennacide]

I honestly hope this story gets to some game designers and gets through to them. The importance of good backdrops that tell a story is so important, and such an overlooked detail. Hell, I at least hope that fan modders will read this. I love FO3 to death because of this very issue, the areas tell you a lot if you're willing to pay attention and poke around. Something that almost ever modder for FO3 completely misses on. The only two I've ever come across that understand this importance are the mods (shameless plug time!) by Puce Moose and Ogre Samanosuke. The areas they created tell you things that the story doesn't directly, and in a game all about immersion, nothing compares to the power that provides. If any of you love FO3 the way I do, give them a shot and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Awexsome]

While I think Valve's stories themselves aren't as good as others I'd get flamed for calling better they do a very good job with setting the atmosphere at certain parts. One that really sticks out for me was the zombie infested sewer part from Ep 2. As far as sewer levels go it was really immersive compared to any other similar level I've played.

So while the article is right about how Valve can "show, not tell" I wouldn't call it's story even close to the level of an RPG or even some other shooters for that matter.

 

[Xvito]

What!? Half-Life 2 had tons of fucking exposition!

Or have you people totally forgotten about those ten-minute stretches where all you do is listen (or not, because it's sooooo boring) to some random NPC that you've never met before. And they go on and on!? I can honestly not understand why anyone would praise this game for it's story (not anything else either, for that matter).

Also, the setting does get some bonus points for not taking place in America (doesn't look like it anyway), but it's still pretty dull...

 

[Jared]

While we're casting Gordon Freeman as a private eye maybe we can have him investigate where Half-Life 2: Episode 3 went.

lol, not a bad idea XD

I liked the article, it actually got me thinking alot about how Valve does it stuff