Storytelling in Half Life 2

Recommended Videos

GrizzlerBorno

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,295
0
0
I don't like Half Life's story much either. And btw, this is someone who actually UNDERSTANDS the story, which, judging from his post, the OP does not. HL2 is just one tiny snippet of the entire story.

Playing just HL2 is like watching a single Episode of LOST out of context:
Yes it's just a bunch of people trapped on an island. Yes, there is a "Smoke monster". Yes, that IS a Pirate shipwreck next to that giant Egyptian statue. Yes, "Other Others" makes sense.....somehow. No, none of this is coherent in any way.

The reason I used the LOST example is becuase that's how I view Half-Life. Take any bit out of context, it's retarded bullshit. Take the whole thing overall, you get a more or less coherent, though still not entirely "Awesome" story. Like LOST, Half-Life is about the delivery and the Experience.

My pro-tip to the OP: Play Half-Life2: Episode 1 and 2. If you want read/watch a summary of HL1's story. Unless, you're determined not to give a fuck in which case, [shrugs]
 

Speakercone

New member
May 21, 2010
480
0
0
So you don't really care for HL2. That's fine. I had a great time with it and I'm sorry you had a less enjoyable experience. Remind me why you're so angry about this again?
 

Zannah

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,081
0
0
9_6 said:
Look, it's an old game that doesn't hold up well by todays standards, okay?
It's a game that doesn't hold up by todays standards, and I have a hard time believing it held up any better back then - point is, to this very day, people regard that game the second coming of christ, and that I have a slight problem with.

Cowabungaa said:
Of course it's my personal opinion. However I can give reasons for why I feel that way, and I'd like to hear the reasons other people have for theirs, to find out if I can share those views - and in terms of immersion, I have a hard time doing so, since while I see where they *tried* to make the game feel immersive, the linearity, the padding, and the godawful story leave me personally in a place, where I've been more immersed in turn based strategy games, then I have in this.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
9_6 said:
Well now I screwed up, I completely forgot those things.
It is however an example what a long way putting the player into an actual body can go when it comes to immersion.
You still can't even see your legs in most first person shooters today and pushing buttons happens automagically.
Sadly, Portal and Half Life is guilty of that too. I was surprised they didn't do it in Portal 2.

But you're right that it did help in Mirror's Edge (despite me hating the game), I like it a lot in the Riddick games too that I'm playing through at the moment.
GrizzlerBorno said:
Hmm, I disagree, as someone who played HL2 way before HL1. I found it quite easy to understand what happened, mainly because the story isn't that overly complicated. It helped that I payed a lot of attention to my surroundings. Certain important backstory facts were explained in newspaper clippings in Kleiner's lab.

But at least HL's story triumphs in that it's simplicity gives it an edge in terms of plotholes or vagueness. The exception being the G-Man. Dammit Valve give us some closure about that bastard.
Zannah said:
Of course it's my personal opinion. However I can give reasons for why I feel that way, and I'd like to hear the reasons other people have for theirs, to find out if I can share those views - and in terms of immersion, I have a hard time doing so, since while I see where they *tried* to make the game feel immersive, the linearity, the padding, and the godawful story leave me personally in a place, where I've been more immersed in turn based strategy games, then I have in this.
Answer my questions then. Why do those games you listed do it better? Why is HL's story so 'godawful'? Basic? Yeah. Awful? I don't see why. And what what do you mean with padding?

I've already explained my reasons. I also didn't see linearity as a bad thing. It helps the narrative which in term helps immersion.
 

Zannah

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,081
0
0
Speakercone said:
So you don't really care for HL2. That's fine. I had a great time with it and I'm sorry you had a less enjoyable experience. Remind me why you're so angry about this again?
I'm slightly annoyed, since the game is rubbed in my face in what feels like five second intervals at time, despite (imho) doing nothing to warrant such praise. I'd think it's fair to at least question that, once in a while.

And as mentioned in the OP - saying that I need to play the rest of the series, is NOT a point the games favor. If to understand a twelve hour experience, I need to buy, and play, another twenty hours of prequelage and sequalage, that's not good storytelling, that is, in terms of a fullprice game, a complete and utter failure in storytelling.
 

Zannah

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,081
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
Answer my questions then. Why do those games you listed do it better? Why is HL's story so 'godawful'? Basic? Yeah. Awful? I don't see why. And what what do you mean with padding?
HL 2's story is awful, because it has no reason to exist. The driving force of the narrative, Gordon Freemute, (oh what a subtle hint the name "freeman" is, isn't it?) is a camera with a gun attached, with zero character, zero personality, and no reason to do what he does, other then because he's told to. That (to me) ruins, what wasn't exactly top notch writing to begin with. Both Sareth and the Marshal (whose name I admittedly forgot, but it's been seven years, give me a break) have motivations that drive the through the plot, interact with their surroundings, form relationships of sort, and thus evoke emotional response from me - Gordon doesn't deem anyone of the nagging support characters worth talking to, giving me a somewhat hard time caring about them as well - I mean why should I, when the protagonist obviously doesn't.

And by padding I mean things like motorboat sections five times as long as they needed to be, with arbitrary physics puzzles blocking the way, ten striders, where fighting three would have served the purpose, stuff like that.
 

GrizzlerBorno

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,295
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
GrizzlerBorno said:
Hmm, I disagree, as someone who played HL2 way before HL1. I found it quite easy to understand what happened, mainly because the story isn't that overly complicated. It helped that I payed a lot of attention to my surroundings. Certain important backstory facts were explained in newspaper clippings in Kleiner's lab.

But at least HL's story triumphs in that it's simplicity gives it an edge in terms of plotholes or vagueness. The exception being the G-Man. Dammit Valve give us some closure about that bastard.
And I didn't play HL1. Like, at all. However I took the time to read about it in the Combine Overwiki and I watched a few LP videos and story summary videos of it, so I get the gist of the overall story.

Th OP however refuses to even Look up HL's story, so he's never going to understand it.

Zannah said:
And as mentioned in the OP - saying that I need to play the rest of the series, is NOT a point the games favor. If to understand a twelve hour experience, I need to buy, and play, another twenty hours of prequelage and sequalage, that's not good storytelling, that is, in terms of a fullprice game, a complete and utter failure in storytelling.
BUT THAT'S HOW SEQUELS WORK! Of course you need to have some knowledge of the previous entry to make Head or tails of HL2's story. It's called Half-Life TWO! As in, a continuation of the story of Half-Life ONE! How is that "a complete and utter failure in storytelling"? It's literally Rule #2 of storytelling: To understand a direct sequel you must have at least a basic understanding of the original story.

Did you expect Half-Life to be like Final Fantasy or something?

I regard Mass Effect as a great story. If I handed ME2 to a guy who doesn't know what the reapers are (on account of him not having played ME1) he's not going to like the story, since it's just about collecting a All-star team to.....do something.....Kill aliens?

Does that make Mass Effect's story bad? NO! You have to know the Original game to get the story!
 

Zannah

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,081
0
0
GrizzlerBorno said:
If the story of lotr would make no sense at all, unless you read the little hobbit, read the silmarillion, and looked up tolkiens memoirs on wikipedia, that wouldn't be a point in the books favor, it'd mean that the author failed to deliver a story that can stand up on it's own. That's ok, if it's clearly marked to be that, it's what we have addons for, however it's marketed as a stand alone game. (And for the record, ME2 was atmospheric, yes, but it's story was horrible)
 

silver wolf009

[[NULL]]
Jan 23, 2010
3,432
0
0
The thing I don't like is, from what I can gather, from HL1 to HL2 there is a massive leap that no one who dosen't know anything about the universe can branch with the combine invading. So people like me, who heard about its quality were put off by its story as well as the horrible gameplay.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Oh please, you can do that fucking plot summary to anything and make it look bad.

The devil is in the details, and the mysteries, and the emotions and actions of the other characters.

Now, if you don't care about adding anything up for yourself, and you don't find the mysteries intriguing, and you hate all the other characters, then fine. It doesn't make you more intelligent than everyone else, it just means you have a different opinion to everyone else.

HL2's story is as deep or as shallow as you want it to be.
 

repeating integers

New member
Mar 17, 2010
3,315
0
0
Oscar90 said:
It's not the story, it's the way the story is presented.

And obviously you don't care about the characters if you just met them for the first time, you gotta play half life 1 first.

And even if the story is Utter Bullshit (which it isn't), It is still the best game of all time on game play alone.
...What was so special about the gameplay? The only thing I can think of is the physics puzzles, which were diverting but not exactly important.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
So you were offended by the praise HL2 got and went on a crusade to tear it down, while playing it you took anything the game did or didn't do to further fuel your righteous undertaking...

Maybe you can spot a drop of bias in there, if not more power to you, maybe try games you don't hate next time.
 

Papadam

New member
Apr 9, 2009
108
0
0
HL2 is still one of the best games ever made with incredible storytelling.

You hated it before even playing so everything about it seemed bad. Still today there is few FPS who come close to HL2 even 6-7 years later.
 

Skorpyo

Average Person Extraordinaire!
May 2, 2010
2,284
0
0
Ripping a game with awesome gameplay and mechanics because of the story is false economy.

From your OP, I'm assuming that your game bugged out after you reach the mines in Ravenholm. It's pretty much after that particular point that the game-play starts becoming rather fantastic, and everything more-or-less starts to cement.

While I agree that it's a rather cliche'd story, it's there to get the job done. It may not do it well, but it does what it needs to do.

As for the first game and the episodes, the first Half-life was slightly cliche'd, but was still fun to play. The Episodes didn't seem all that cliche'd though, so those you may want to check out.
 

Beryl77

New member
Mar 26, 2010
1,599
0
0
You just stripped the story and the characters down to the raw frame, I could do that to any game out there and then it would sound boring or stupid as well.
Part of why many people don't often get the story, is because in most games, they just tell you everything and you don't have to think about the story but in hl2 you have to draw your own conclusions. There happens something and the game doesn't exactly tell you what/why/how etc. You have to think about it yourself and then come up with an answer that makes sense.

The narrative is just different than in most other games. A big part of the story is told through the environment. Let's take for example, the chapter "Highway 17". You drive along the coast and look at the "beautiful" scenery but what you see there is strange, a lot of stranded ships and landing stages far above the sea level. It shows that the sea level has sunk quite a lot in a very short amount of time. Thanks to that you can come to the conclusion that the Combine destroy our environment and need a lot of water, for whatever it is that they're doing (some even say that it's a warning from Valve, to look more after our environment or something like this will happen). Many don't really think about it or barely even notice it and just drive past it.
Another example from "Highway 17". A house is standing beside the road. The game lets you choose, you can just drive and leave it behind you, or you stop the car and go inside it. The house looks deserted, the windows are boarded and the front door doesn't open. On the wall there is a skull sprayed. This shows that the people try to tell others that the house is dangerous and no one should go inside, it's "infested". Upon entering, you get attacked by zombies and after getting rid of them, you look around. You see beds, cupboards, pans and other thing. Now you start to wonder, who lived here, what happened to them? Was it a family, or an outpost of the resistance? It's a perfect example of the cruel way, the Combine use to get rid of people from places, where they don't want them to be. They just shoot the headcrabs inside and then leave the rest to them. Now you're left to wonder, how many people made it out in time, if any at all.

Let's take something much more subtle and insignificant but something that I really like about the narrative. Right before you encounter the Manhacks for the first time in the sewers, you meet a man in an outpost from the resistance and then you two get attacked by the Manhacks. After fending them off, you go on and that man stays back. Shortly after that, you meet again some Manhacks. Now, after destroying every single one of them, most people move on because there is no reason to turn back. But if you do head back to that room with the rebel, a Manhack attacks you, even though you destroyed them all. It must have come through the way which you first entered the room from. Now again after blowing up the Manhack, when you look down, you see the poor guy lying dead on the ground. Most people easily overlook this and who could blame them, the game doesn't give any reason to go back to this room. But just because of that I love this scene. It just shows that you and your immediate surroundings aren't the only thing in the world, things continue to happen even if you don't witness them, they happen almost simultaneously with your actions and the game doesn't tell you at all that this occurred. It just goes unnoticed unless someone tells you about it, or you go back for no reason.

All this, combined with the personality of Gordon Freeman (won't talk about that now), leads to something else that's really good about Half-Life 2. The game is very personal. Everything that happens there, everything that you experience, is your own experience. No one else has it. Only you played the game that way and thought and looked at things that certain way.

I could now go on and on, about the atmosphere, the immersion, the characters, I could write another post with this length about the G-Man alone but I won't. I don't want to force you to like the game. I just tried to show you why I love it so much and why it got so much praise.
I think part of the problem is, that it has been praised so much, that a lot of people expect something entirely different, something like Mass Effect (not that I wish to imply that Mass Effect's Story isn't good) but then they play it for the first time and get disappointed because it wasn't what they had thought it would be.
Of course it's entirely possible that Half-Life 2's style is just not your cup of tea. There doesn't exist something that everyone likes.

ps. Didn't think that it would be such a long post in the end.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
OP, give me any story and I'll strip it to its bare bones and make it look bad. This is exactly how JRPG-haters dismiss every single JRPGs - "Same clichéd story of 10-year old crazy-haired boys saving the world with oversized weapons hurr durr".

Beryl77 said:
To add to Bery177's excellent post, there was also the beginning of the game where Breen was addressing the City 17 inhabitants on the large screen. If you wanted, you could stand there and try to understand what had happened while you were gone, or you could just walk past and they would never break your immersion by imposing arbitrary cutscenes. In similar fashion, there were also the newspaper clippings on walls of the war that raged between the humans and Combines, meaning that you were garnering information from environmental story telling, instead of some tired expository-filled dialogs. And remember how there were anti-Combine posters in Ravenholm, and head crab rockets just beside them...?

The only other game where I saw environments so richly developed was in Bioshock (my favorite was the part with all the smuggled Bibles and crucifixes).

OP was also probably a toddler back when HL2 was released, since she thinks - "It's a game that doesn't hold up by todays standards, and I have a hard time believing it held up any better back then..."

*shakes head*
 

GrizzlerBorno

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,295
0
0
Zannah said:
GrizzlerBorno said:
If the story of lotr would make no sense at all, unless you read the little hobbit, read the silmarillion, and looked up tolkiens memoirs on wikipedia, that wouldn't be a point in the books favor, it'd mean that the author failed to deliver a story that can stand up on it's own. That's ok, if it's clearly marked to be that, it's what we have addons for, however it's marketed as a stand alone game. (And for the record, ME2 was atmospheric, yes, but it's story was horrible)
The Lord of the Rings is not The Hobbit 2. The Lord of the Rings is it's own separate story. It has important plot points that carry over from Hobbit, sure. But these points are still explained anyway because it's not the same story arc. Lotr doesn't go "Frodo, your uncle has a magic ring. Go destroy it. You know where, right?" It explains all of that stuff even though all of it is said in The Hobbit (which I admittedly, never read).

And yes, on it's own Mass Effects story was kinda shallow even WITH context. But that's because it's Act 2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_%28drama%29#Act_two] of the story arc, where the "hero" must overcome obstacles and rally his allies. It's the boring middle part. There's ALWAYS a boring middle part.

That's what Half-Life 2 and it's episodes are, more or less. I personally think it's a criminal offense to judge a story simply by it's Second Act. If you agree with that, read The Half-Life (1) plot [http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Half-Life_storyline] and pick up EP1 and 2. Your choice.
 

Boxinatorizore

New member
Mar 25, 2009
442
0
0
Zannah said:
It's a game that doesn't hold up by todays standards, and I have a hard time believing it held up any better back then - point is, to this very day, people regard that game the second coming of christ, and that I have a slight problem with.
IT IS THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUUUWWAAAHH!

But no really, jut pay more attention.