I played twenty minutes of HL2 and got bored. Went back to TF2 and stayed there for three hours.
Bring it on, Valve fans.
Bring it on, Valve fans.
That Was Half-Life 2?
- Thread starter Thaius
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well for one thing, it wasn't out of the ordinary. Every game apart from Blue Shift ended on a similar note, with the G-Man fucking with you. It was sort of expected from the series, and it was an accepted part of the lore that these things tend to happen.
What it wasn't was out of the blue contradictory to everything that came before it. Unexpected? Yes, but then so was G-Man hiring you at the end of HL1.
What it wasn't was out of the blue contradictory to everything that came before it. Unexpected? Yes, but then so was G-Man hiring you at the end of HL1.
So did I, then 2 years later I started playing HL2 again, thinking that I would hate it, and raced through the whole thing in one sitting, it was great.ResonanceSD said:
A. Are you kidding? People complain about the ending all the time.
B. I actually hold the ending up as one of the best ever. I think it's fucking awesome, and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
B. I actually hold the ending up as one of the best ever. I think it's fucking awesome, and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
Taken on it's own merits, Half-life 2's ending isn't actually that terrible; it suits the "Right man in the wrong place" mentality of the G-Man perfectly, and is ultimately a solid resolution to the City 17 conflict: you won, stopped the bad guys, but were ultimately the pawn of a higher power, and are treated as such.
Unfortunately for Half-Life 2, this was also Half-Life's exact ending. And pulling the same "unanswered ending" twice is a story telling "no no" from time immoral:
Whatever was built towards must be resolutely presented, otherwise your story has no beginning, middle and end - just actions that serve no purpose.
Every time you push the "unanswered ending", you're postponing the resolution to another chapter, rising the positive emotional impact it's required to have in order to be satisfying to your audience.
In today's industry, the ambiguous ending is, unfortunately, the crutch of the terrible story teller - used to mask their inability to conclude their story - they lack the fundamental understandings over emotional resolution. It's usually the hallmark of someone attempting to appear intelligent - see: Casey Hudson - by having people ask "What does it all mean?"
The ending - the resolution of all the generated threads - is the most important part of the story as it provides the necessary closure for the audience, and generates the ultimate thematic emotion that the story is centred on. Without the appropriate ending, any journey is wasted.
Half-Life 2, ultimately, has no resolution for the most important character: the player. And, we lacked resolution from the first part - and so the journey of both now relies on the resolution for the third chapter - made up of the three Episodes. If Episode 3 fails to deliver, the entire journey is emotional waste.
The difference between the good and bad is simple: the good "ambiguous ending" provides resolution to the characters and events that the author has led the audience to become invested in, and then calls the resolution in doubt.
"Did it really happen?"
"Was it all a dream?"
"What will happen now?"
The bad "ambiguous ending" places the mere existence of the resolution for the characters and events that the author has led the audience to become invested in, in doubt - preventing the ending from having anything but a negative emotional impact.
"That's IT?"
"Wait - what happens with [Character/Event]?"
"So, we have no idea if our favourite character lives?"
Half-Life 2 made me ask: "So, wait - what happens to Gordon, Alex, the Doctors, City 17 and the Combine?". It gave me no resolution for anything, nor answered anything from the first game. This is a bad ending.
Unfortunately for Half-Life 2, this was also Half-Life's exact ending. And pulling the same "unanswered ending" twice is a story telling "no no" from time immoral:
Whatever was built towards must be resolutely presented, otherwise your story has no beginning, middle and end - just actions that serve no purpose.
Every time you push the "unanswered ending", you're postponing the resolution to another chapter, rising the positive emotional impact it's required to have in order to be satisfying to your audience.
In today's industry, the ambiguous ending is, unfortunately, the crutch of the terrible story teller - used to mask their inability to conclude their story - they lack the fundamental understandings over emotional resolution. It's usually the hallmark of someone attempting to appear intelligent - see: Casey Hudson - by having people ask "What does it all mean?"
The ending - the resolution of all the generated threads - is the most important part of the story as it provides the necessary closure for the audience, and generates the ultimate thematic emotion that the story is centred on. Without the appropriate ending, any journey is wasted.
Half-Life 2, ultimately, has no resolution for the most important character: the player. And, we lacked resolution from the first part - and so the journey of both now relies on the resolution for the third chapter - made up of the three Episodes. If Episode 3 fails to deliver, the entire journey is emotional waste.
The difference between the good and bad is simple: the good "ambiguous ending" provides resolution to the characters and events that the author has led the audience to become invested in, and then calls the resolution in doubt.
"Did it really happen?"
"Was it all a dream?"
"What will happen now?"
The bad "ambiguous ending" places the mere existence of the resolution for the characters and events that the author has led the audience to become invested in, in doubt - preventing the ending from having anything but a negative emotional impact.
"That's IT?"
"Wait - what happens with [Character/Event]?"
"So, we have no idea if our favourite character lives?"
Half-Life 2 made me ask: "So, wait - what happens to Gordon, Alex, the Doctors, City 17 and the Combine?". It gave me no resolution for anything, nor answered anything from the first game. This is a bad ending.
I'm pretty sure that was the point.Chunga the Great said:
OT: Didn't really get upset at the cliffhanger ending. Especially since I was going to play ep. 1 and 2 right after.
Pretty sure the existence of Episode 1 makes it a cliffhanger. And the non-existance of Episode 3 makes Episode 2 the worst cliffhanger imaginable.TheKasp said:
YAY FOR MEEEEEEEEE! *bangs head against table*ResonanceSD said:
Sorry, I'm reading youtube comments on a BF3 vs MW3 video as I'm browsing these forums. Most people on youtube are very blunt.
I still feel stupid
I haven't played Assassin's Creed, but here are a few points of comparison:Thaius said:
Halo 2's narrative was pretty scattered to begin with, and introduced too much too quickly. The ending was awkward because it lacked cohesive form with the previous game. That, and Halo's writing hasn't ever been more than 'novel' (in the not-a-book-definition). It's very standard Militaristic Sci-Fi with a few clever twists.
Half-Life 2: Yeah, the ending is sort of a butt-nutter, but it does maintain internal consistency. G-Man is a much, much better-developed character than most in Halo, and Valve tends to assume you played the previous game. The role of G-Man and what he gets out of messing with Gordan Freeman are ambiguous. The ambiguity creates a more introspective mood for the player (especially when combined with the mute protagonist). It's true that the end fight isn't that difficult - and I wouldn't mind a faster-paced finale, but G-Man is the well-established Deus Ex Machina of the series. They use him explicitly for better storytelling. The HL2 ending isn't often discussed because it is succeeded by the Episodes 1/2, and because it's neither end of the spectrum. It is neither particularly good (a dash of action, some hubris, a sexy chick, and an 'old friend' - that's it), nor is it particularly bad (it doesn't leave gaping plotholes or contradict themes presented earlier in the game). What it does do is bring the story to a close without leaving a lot of lose-ends. Very neat, very tidy, and that's all it needed to do since Valve was planning in Episodic content after.
In comparison to Mass Effect 3's ending, which used its Deus Ex Machina device to blunt-force-trauma the player into an awkward situation antithetical to the player's expectations, and also happens to leave enormous plotholes casually strewn about in lieu of a truncated, "artsy" ending. Whereas in Half-Life 2, G-Man's motives and abilities are vague (at best), leaving the protagonist unable to either predict or logically interpret his actions, the Catalyst's motives and capabilities are explicitly stated. Unfortunately for the Catalyst, its motives are (within the same game, mind you) proven to not be based on any easily-recognizable logic.
The endings to each simply serve a different purpose:
Halo 2 - To prepare you for Halo 3 in the manliest way possible; by showing you how big Spartan's balls are.
ME3 - To attempt to wrap up a multi-billion year storyline in the most 'Sci-Fi' way they could manage (i.e. - imitating other great works of science fiction). Retrospectively, this one had the highest chance of failure since it's damn near impossible to both appease fan questions about the origins of the Reapers AND have them remain a viable threat over billions of years of history.
HL2 - To make Gordon Freeman a neat and tidy package that could be delivered into Episode One without a lot of questions.
If you don't like cliff-hangers, though, you're going to hate Episode 2's ending.
It's funnt even if there's so much to ocmment about when the OP sais something about a part you liked in a game that's all you can think about xDZeckt said:
Then the comment is as above.
Captcha: Laser Beams... no sorry captcha, crowbar should've been the word
I loved the ending back in 2004, and love it today. It was similar to the Half-Life 1 ending so it was nice for the fans to see, and gave me many things to think about, such as the G-Man's references to time: "Time, Dr. Freeman? Is it really that time again?" "You've done a great deal in a small time... span" "ordinarily I wouldn't contemplate them, but these are extraordinary... times.. hm?" all this was not only awesome but CONVINCED me that the next story arc would involve some kind of time manipulation, at least back when I was 14 and didn't realize he was just being all chill after stopping time himself.
I didn't even know disliking it was "a thing" until this thread.
Then again, I even like the vehicle sections. Loved them back in 2004, these days they are a bit stiff, but awful? I don't get that. They are still pretty fun to me. I believe games age faster than any other medium but Half-Life 2 has aged excellently, vehicle sections included.
However,
I didn't even know disliking it was "a thing" until this thread.
Then again, I even like the vehicle sections. Loved them back in 2004, these days they are a bit stiff, but awful? I don't get that. They are still pretty fun to me. I believe games age faster than any other medium but Half-Life 2 has aged excellently, vehicle sections included.
However,
This post has some excellent points, even though I enjoyed the ending on a personal level its hard to argue with this kind of logic. But as usual on The Escapist the one valid post that isn't just opinions will get lost in the sea of... posts like mine.Zeh Don said:
I actually liked the ending a lot. There was plenty of buildup to it, and despite the deus ex machinaness of it all, it felt appropriate when you consider how the game started.
That said, I knew at least one person who actually threw their controller across the room when it happened, so you certainly aren't alone.
As someone said earlier, episode 1 was fast to come out and tie up a lot of the loose ends (flawed as it was) and episode 2 was so good that most was forgiven.
That said, I knew at least one person who actually threw their controller across the room when it happened, so you certainly aren't alone.
As someone said earlier, episode 1 was fast to come out and tie up a lot of the loose ends (flawed as it was) and episode 2 was so good that most was forgiven.