I will reply to many posts in this thread, so I didn't take my time to quote each one individually. I'll address them by topics:
Half-Life: I agree with some here that the first game was truly unrivaled. HL2 and the Ep.s didn't make me think of the first game. Aside from the obvious carry-overs from HL1, like some of the monsters, Gordon+the crowbar, and the atmospheric gameplay, HL2 inherited little, for me. Perhaps that's good, because the game didn't repeat itself, but in a way the fact that it didn't made me sad. I _loved_ Half-Life, because, like the title suggests, on average my life meter was down at 50%. I ran for my life when I played the first game (and opposing force, as they weren't different at all to me). It felt way more vicious and engaging. In HL1, Gordon doesn't agree to anything. He's just plunged into situations where he has to do his best to not-die, an activity we all love to engage in. In HL2 he's part of something bigger and the game assumes Gordon would love nothing more than to enlist himself. Whatever, that didn't ruin it for me, but it was different. I felt completely helpless in HL1. In HL2 I was largely empowered. Even the claustrophobic fights seemed easy compared to the ones from HL1. If there's anything Valve knows how to do, though, is create an atmosphere, and I'm glad they remembered that, and it shows in HL2 and the Episodes. One moment you're in a tight, dark space with zombies making horrid noises and lunges at you while the next battle involves you in an open city with a company of rebels taking down gigantic robots. That's awesone, and not many games can get me into an immersive mindset as the HL series does.
I do NOT think Half-Life should die. I didn't think HL2 was everything HL1 was, but fuck it, I still enjoyed it. In fact, my expectations of HL2 weren't all that high, because I was already accustomed to disappointing sequels. So, basically, I wasn't even disappointed. HL2 has another theme to it, and while it is not my cup of tea, I can still have fun with it. Besides, who doesn't want answers to all the questions that pop up whenever you think you might get answers? Half-Life actually has a storyline that I care about knowing the ending to. So that's that.
About fantasy and LOTR (I know it's not about gaming directly but I felt like discussing this): There are two major themes that I see reproduced in fantasy games, and they are Warhammer and Dungeons and Dragons. Being a fan of PnP and tabletop gaming of both franchises, I can't help but recognise the inspiration these two universes gave to video games. Some games admit their relations to the aforementioned themes directly, such as the Baldur's Gate, Dawn of War (though this one is 40k, but let's get serious, here, because it's the same universe in a different setting) or Neverwinter Nights series, while others merely hint at it, like Warcraft, Starcraft (again, 40k) or Dragon Age (yet-unreleased game by Bioware that I think will rock the casbah). Both Warhammer and DnD sprawled from the popularity of Lord of the Rings, without question, as Tolkien brought fantasy motifs like dwarves, hobbits, gnomes, orcs, elves, dragons, demons, the undead, enchanted equipment, and magic, etc to the public more efficiently than his own inspirations, which can be found largely in European folktales and mythology. LOTR took these fantastical (mind the pun) concepts and made them shine, and from the minds of his later readers came many other books and games. DnD and WH are the most well-known. I therefore argue that most fantasy games _do_, directly or indirectly, take much from Tolkien's books. Many people draw a line between sci-fi and fantasy, but I do not, so to me games that sprawl out of WH40K also, ultimately take from LOTR, though probably in diminished amounts.
Mario and Pokemon: I played every single game in that franchise, and every time I played (ever since Paper Mario and Silver/Gold, respectively) I realized more and more how much these franchises needed to be put to sleep. You can't tell me that I didn't play them or that I wasn't a fan. I did and I was. I played Pearl/Diamond and Galaxy and hated myself for doing it. I didn't finish either game and gave them both back to the store. I figure Nintendo keeps making the same games because since we grew up from our childhood hooked on Mario, younger kids will be hooked on Paper or Galaxy. Same with Pokemon. I honestly think that after the first 150 Pokemon everything else was worthy of cold rejection, and I couldn't enjoy the games because I didn't even like the monsters I was training. Mario? I got sick of rescuing the princess. It's simple as that. Every time I see Mario I think to myself 'dump that *****, man.' When Nintendo makes a game where Mario dumps that ***** (but doesn't do something stupid like play hockey-soccer or heal patients, god these games sucked) and takes part in a clever, new storyline that isn't completely childish and colorful, I'll give them a break.
Warcraft: No. I wash my hands of it. It's not that WoW is a bad game. I really just didn't like the story after the 3rd installment. It's that simple. I don't even like MMO's, so it's a surprise I gave WoW a chance, because I usually despise blunt money-makers. WoW is the king of heroin-cashflow-MMO's, but I still gave it a go because it's Warcraft. I was surprised that the story sucked and was engineered to lead into another stupid money-making game. Guys, you're caught in the machine. Take the needles out of your arms.
GTA: Couldn't agree more. After 2, I had little appreciation for the series. I still have 2, actually, and it's still fun.
I'm going to add a new game and say that Worms has to die. Did anyone play Mayhem? I wish I hadn't. Worms has been one of the best games ever to me and up to and including Armageddon, I had nothing bad to say about it. Goddamnit, Mayhem sucked. If they ever make a 5, I suggest going back to 2d.
