So, as you likely know, Marc Laidlaw released his take on what the plot of Half-Life 2: Episode 3 would be. Having read it, my first thought was "seriously, just call them by their actual names," and my last thought was "meh." Yeah, I wasn't too enamored. To be frank, I've never been that invested in the Half-Life universe, and as far as HL2 goes, I feel it's a case of an average plot being buoyed by interesting storytelling.
But that isn't the reason for this post, because for those who DO like Half-Life, I have a question. One I've had for awhile, and one that I've seen shared elsewhere - as we all know, "Half-Life 3 confirmed" is now a meme, and there's a strong chance that it's all it'll ever be. Given how Episode 2 ends, it's quite understandable that people would want continuation. But I'd like to ask the following...would there be the same level of desire for a Half-Life 3 if there'd been no episodes after HL2, that Half-Life 2's ending was the last we ever saw of the series bar Portal?
I ask because there is a bit of difference between the two. Episode 2 sets up plot points that are never addressed. HL2 leaves a lot unexplained, but I can't call it a cliffhanger per se, more an open ending. It's the difference between ending a story with "to be continued" and more "The End?" If this was the case, if Half-Life 2 was the ending, I could see demand for a third game, but not to the same levels. Because I'll be frank, all stories have to end at some point, and if a story goes on beyond its expiry date, it can do lots of damage to the overall series as a whole. I'm reminded of Archengeia's rumination on Half-Life 2 that he considered HL2 to be a complete story, but had barely played the episode expansions because of their comparative incomplete nature.*
So, in this hypothetical Half-Life hypothesis that's so far free of histrionics, would it be historical that if Half-Life 2 had been the end, there'd be the same level of demand for a Half-Life 3? Or would we be in some holistic holiday holiness with fans being more content with the story ending there and then?
*See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9xRq0m9oM if you want more.
But that isn't the reason for this post, because for those who DO like Half-Life, I have a question. One I've had for awhile, and one that I've seen shared elsewhere - as we all know, "Half-Life 3 confirmed" is now a meme, and there's a strong chance that it's all it'll ever be. Given how Episode 2 ends, it's quite understandable that people would want continuation. But I'd like to ask the following...would there be the same level of desire for a Half-Life 3 if there'd been no episodes after HL2, that Half-Life 2's ending was the last we ever saw of the series bar Portal?
I ask because there is a bit of difference between the two. Episode 2 sets up plot points that are never addressed. HL2 leaves a lot unexplained, but I can't call it a cliffhanger per se, more an open ending. It's the difference between ending a story with "to be continued" and more "The End?" If this was the case, if Half-Life 2 was the ending, I could see demand for a third game, but not to the same levels. Because I'll be frank, all stories have to end at some point, and if a story goes on beyond its expiry date, it can do lots of damage to the overall series as a whole. I'm reminded of Archengeia's rumination on Half-Life 2 that he considered HL2 to be a complete story, but had barely played the episode expansions because of their comparative incomplete nature.*
So, in this hypothetical Half-Life hypothesis that's so far free of histrionics, would it be historical that if Half-Life 2 had been the end, there'd be the same level of demand for a Half-Life 3? Or would we be in some holistic holiday holiness with fans being more content with the story ending there and then?
*See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9xRq0m9oM if you want more.
