And once again the He-Man Halo-Haytaz Club chimes in with their annoying yipping.
Anybody bleating about how poor, unappreciated Gordon Freeman is being horribly overshadowed by the big, mean old Master Chief can please stop. Immediately. HL2 is a good game, and as a result its sales can not by any extreme stretch of the imagination be considered woeful. (No one at Valve looks to be starving anytime soon, in any case. And yes, that is a cheap shot. Sorry if you feel that's unfair; in my defense I've just watched half-an-hour's worth of Zero Punctuation episodes.) If Half-Life 2 doesn't dominate its chosen platform as much as Halo does the Xboxen, perhaps that's because there's just a few more FPS titles for Microsoft PCs than there are for Microsoft consoles and you may take whatever pride you wish from the idea that Half-Life 2 is prominent and award-festooned despite the extra competition.
I'd also like to point out that the depth-of-story in both games is perilously similar, differing largely in that one has a vaguely-developed one-sided romantic arc in progress while the other has a vaguely-developed huge backstory instead. Otherwise they're both about a mute (or nearly-mute) guy in hyper-technoarmour with a remarkable talent for killing things going around killing things in order to save Earth. If I swing my cudgels for one instead of the other, it's because I like the backstory stuff more than the romantic arc stuff.
As to those complaining that Halo 3 wasn't as ground-breaking as Halo CE, my only answer can be, "Duh, really?" Until someone invents the Re-Virginising Ray (and, let's face it, the game industry's target market scarcely seems to need such an implement) you can't replicate newness in a series without *changing* the series. For everyone whinging now about how Halo 3 isn't "new" enough, there's at least one whinging right now that too much is different from the earlier titles. (I know this far better than you can possibly imagine.) Had there been any really ground-breaking changes, the neophiles would still be miffed at the console parvenue while the fans would be absolutely apoplectic.
Besides, even here in these rarified halls of cogitation the concept of "innovation" is some sort of vaguely-held ideal that's more fannish bullet-point than well-considered wish; for proof, note that the vast majority of those answering the Blizzard poll in the forums here are absolutely gagging for some form of retread or other and can't be bothered to click the "New IP" button even though they don't have to expend one drop of skull-sweat imagining what said "new IP" would be. Just like "Psychonauts", you say you want innovation but can't be bothered to actually go get it. (I'll skip the pen trick here; already done.) So what's the bloody point?
So, fine, you don't like the game. Big whoop; you're entitled to your opinion, good for you. Why you feel the need to declare this distaste loudly upon the least mention of said game, however, is not only pathelogical to the point that it may be included in the DSM-V prototype specifications but also chafes me like my cheap briefs.
I once again apologise for the peevishness, but after four years of the same old compost wafting about the Intertubes it's vent this in a forum post or go find a clock tower.
-- Steve
