Why I Hate Halo (And Other Stories)

[Thyunda]

Now you're talking rubbish. The whole point of playing games is the fact you're PLAYING A GAME. PLAYING. Key word. I'm not saying Multiplayer should be valued over singleplayer, I'm saying a good story is all well and good, but it'll only last you the once. To me, multiplayer is far more important than singleplayer in a game. Bioshock 2, for example, has a damn good singleplayer, and multiplayer is only a feature.
The multiplayer is dead and game retailers in England are trying everything they can just to sell a few copies.

I would definitely prefer multiplayer playability to single player replayability.

allow me to provide a counter example to your point
you are saying that a good single player story only lasts you as long as it takes to finish it
so for sake of E.G. Modern Warfare lasts 5 hours, Enslaved lasts about 12 hours, and Tales of Vesperia lasts about 60 hours. (and then there are Bioware games that encourage multiple play-throughs)
so that's fine.

but how long does an online multyplayer match last?
5 minutes? 15 minutes if your playing a big team battle? 2 minutes 30 seconds if some douche gets a nuke?
and then what you're done?
then what? you play one of every type of game on every multyplayer map available? that's about 3 or 4 hours?

even if you love multyplayer how many times do you have to play Infection at Sword Base before it starts to get boring?
wouldn't you rather play a well constructed campaign than shoot the same 13 year old douche bags half a million times?

Well, given that I despise MW2, that was a bad example.
Multiplayer is fun for REPLAYABILITY. I have played every gametype on every map on Halo 3, yet I would go back to it in a heartbeat if someone wanted to play with me.
Halo: Reach, for example, my Xbox LIVE expired, so I'm working on getting it back just so I can play Halo: Reach online. I had fun in the campaign. But I couldn't go back through it.
Before you claim it's bad, I finished Bioshock recently, yet I couldn't go back through that. I tried to go back through Mass Effect months after I finished it, and just couldn't get through it.
So in truth, I would rather shoot douchebags. Also, nice stereotype. Way to help your point.

 

[Thyunda]

OT: Sorry OP but I gotta rant about Halo.

I hate Halo, there are 5 Halo FPS's and almost nothing has changed from CE to Reach, the series main charecter is a non-entity, no personality, no backstory, brick. ODST introduced a brick that wore different armor and never spoke, Reach let you decide what color your brick was and if you wanted a boy brick or a girl brick. The best Halo game was Halo 2, and only because you got to play as the Arbiter, the only charecter who seemed to care about what was going on and was even remotely interesting.

The worst part of Halo is the fanbase, when I told a friend my favorite part of Halo was playing the Arbiter he said, verbatim "Why would you want to play an alien when you are supposed to fight them?", I was unaware someone could be so short sighted. Unlike most people who play Halo I actual paid attention to the story, and there is actually an intelligent message to it, the Covenant represents an extermist religous autocricy, zealously persuing what they are told to do by the tenants of their religion, unwilling to try to understand or learn about the "heretic" humans, there's a strong message about the danger of religous extremism and apathy towards mutual understanding, and they did it on purpose! I'm not reading to much into this, I'm simply reading the writing on the wall. But how many Halo fans got that part of the game? In fact, how many people are still reading this? If you actually read this entire off topic rant I want you qoute me.

/rant

Apologies for double post, but I gotta explain something to you. Master Chief, the main character, does have a backstory. You have to do a teensy bit of digging to find it, but it's there. Would you rather have the main character come and tell everybody about his life story? The guy speaks little, he's just supposed to be an ass-kicking machine. The idea I got from Halo was a generic shooter that had to implement a storyline to keep up. Bad thing? K, but Duke Nukem was bloody brilliant, and he's less of a character than Minecraft Man.

If they released a Covenant-sided game, I'd play it. I'd be interested to see how things worked on their end of the deal.

But in short - Of course he has personality. He also had it beat out of him during the training program. Would you rather him make wisecracking one-liners with every kill?

 

[Mikeyfell]

Q. Why do developers spend so much time on multiplayer?

Answer #1. Multiplayer is more profitable than single-player. Since existing players keep their games longer, and early adopters feel pressure to get in on the ground floor with everyone else, full-price sales are higher and used sales are lower. Peer pressure helps drive sales of map packs compared to single player DLC, and multiplayer lobbies are a great place to serve ads for your DLC that the campaign can't match. (When they tried it with Dragon Age, everyone hated it.)

Answer #2. It's more efficient to make a single-player and multiplayer game at the same time than it is to make 2 separate games. You can reuse art assets, level design, and even some testing resources.

Answer #3. Long story-driven games are increasingly difficult to make. They're super expensive, they hit all the toughest competition (Blizzard, Bioware, Valve, Rockstar, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Sony), and as gamers grow older, they have less time to spend in an enormous complex narrative before they want some payoff. Few people care that Halo's missions are disjointed and the storyline an afterthought, because they only have time to play 1 or 2 missions between putting the kids to bed and the end of the night.

Answer #4. The industry's most dedicated customers - males 18-25 - are heavily into multiplayer. It's a lot easier to convince them to buy the Next Hot Shooter than it is to convince John and Jane Smith to buy another RPG.

but you see these are the worst 4 things about the gaming industry
everyone is so concerned with their wallets that they make the same old boring cookie cutter bland generic crappy game throw in some multyplayer and it sells like crack

instead of making a new interesting IP which might be good and might sell

but for point #3 I blame top tier graphics
I think it would be a great idea if new game IP's used last generation graphics
because the games would be cheaper to make so the company could spend more money on writing and voice acting. (you know the important things)
because honestly, Blade Kitten was far more fun than Halo Reach, and that game would have looked right at home on a PS2

the game industry needs new IP's and less bland generic lame homogeneous boring cookie cutter unoriginal uninspired repetitive samey dull gray first person shooters [sub]did I miss any adjectives[/sub]

 

[imnot]

snip

I dont have live and Halo is still my favourite series, because its so dam fun!
Im not to good at it though, only just beat reach on heroic...

 

[Spencer Petersen]

The biggest problem I have with multi versus single player is that even if they focus all the development time on the multiplayer the real longevity of a game comes from sustainability. Asking a console developer to keep their game updated for a long period of time will get you a guffaw then kick you out the door. With the advent of Paid DLC this has grown more malignant than ever, with the developer having to offer additions to balance, weaponry, mechanics and more types of gameplay with a price tag, which not all people are willing to pay. This encourages them to make the additions as unobtrusive as possible, making them entirely moot. Either the update must be free, which is impossible on xbox live, or they can offer it at a price, putting those who didn't pay at a disadvantage or complete segregation, or make the updates entirely superficial, such as map packs and cosmetic changes.

Now, I have to ask you, currently, what are the most long lasting and re-playable multiplayer experiences? TF2 and Counterstrike would be a contender. Why? Because the game both encourages modder support and has periodic updates which affect core gameplay without a price tag (Mann-conomy aside).

World of Warcraft might be one. Its well over 6 years old now. Why is it still replayable? Because the subscription entitles you to constant updates, tweaking and new experiences, essentailly making them universal, avoiding the player-base schism. The game also has some modder support, with a massive library of ui and interface mods. Hell, Blizzard RTS's have the benefit of constant updates as well as strong modder support in the form of custom maps.

Constant updates and modder support are the trends here people. The need to start demanding developers to make their multiplayer experiences worthwhile past launch, especially if its a major development focus. We should be encouraging developers to make multiplayer with the focus of keeping it available and fresh over time, not just launch it and hope for the best. We should not have to wait for updates every 2 years when they release a "new" game with all the same features as the last but with minor add-ons and additions that could fit in a download.

 

[imnot]

snip

Hell I though I was the only one who wanted a game where you play as a grunt!

 

[Mikeyfell]

TLR!! From what I did get, you're basically bitching because you think special work goes into multiplayer over single which it doesn't but even if it did so what? For a long single play to work in a game like CoD or Halo you need extensive levels, Big in depth story lines, a slew of other crap. To make the multiplayer work you just need a map, guns, and people, everything already taken from the single play, but adding people gives it replay value.

I just got a great idea for a game
It'll have extensive levels, a big in depth story line and a slew of other crap.
doesn't that sound better than six hours of staring at the back of a chest high wall waiting for the bullet noises to stop long enough to poke your head out form behind cover and try to head shot one of the billion identical terrorists or aliens that clog up FPS's like the toilets at an Indian restaurant?

doesn't that sound more fun than Call of Halo Reach of Honor of War 2 Theft Auto?

or is an original thought to much for you to handle?

 

[rockingnic]

Now you're talking rubbish. The whole point of playing games is the fact you're PLAYING A GAME. PLAYING. Key word. I'm not saying Multiplayer should be valued over singleplayer, I'm saying a good story is all well and good, but it'll only last you the once. To me, multiplayer is far more important than singleplayer in a game. Bioshock 2, for example, has a damn good singleplayer, and multiplayer is only a feature.
The multiplayer is dead and game retailers in England are trying everything they can just to sell a few copies.

I would definitely prefer multiplayer playability to single player replayability.

This and when you only have single player, whats to keep you to returning the game to the store for pocket change once you beat it a couple times (it DOES get boring after the 10th or so time). If that happens, people won't invest into the franchises (for developers) or accessories (for the retailers). If that happens, the service these developers and retailers spend millions on, won't be as polished or extensive... Almost all the games I OWN have some form of multiplayer and all the games I have returned were because I either got bored of it or the game was crap.

And sorry, but Halo isn't the cause of this "issue". At least it has a story behind it, sure you have to read the books to enjoy it but games are for what this person said is "playing", you don't need a story, look before Halo, at Unreal Tournament, Tribes and all those multiplayer games.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

OT: Sorry OP but I gotta rant about Halo.

I hate Halo, there are 5 Halo FPS's and almost nothing has changed from CE to Reach, the series main charecter is a non-entity, no personality, no backstory, brick. ODST introduced a brick that wore different armor and never spoke, Reach let you decide what color your brick was and if you wanted a boy brick or a girl brick. The best Halo game was Halo 2, and only because you got to play as the Arbiter, the only charecter who seemed to care about what was going on and was even remotely interesting.

The worst part of Halo is the fanbase, when I told a friend my favorite part of Halo was playing the Arbiter he said, verbatim "Why would you want to play an alien when you are supposed to fight them?", I was unaware someone could be so short sighted. Unlike most people who play Halo I actual paid attention to the story, and there is actually an intelligent message to it, the Covenant represents an extermist religous autocricy, zealously persuing what they are told to do by the tenants of their religion, unwilling to try to understand or learn about the "heretic" humans, there's a strong message about the danger of religous extremism and apathy towards mutual understanding, and they did it on purpose! I'm not reading to much into this, I'm simply reading the writing on the wall. But how many Halo fans got that part of the game? In fact, how many people are still reading this? If you actually read this entire off topic rant I want you qoute me.

/rant

Apologies for double post, but I gotta explain something to you. Master Chief, the main character, does have a backstory. You have to do a teensy bit of digging to find it, but it's there. Would you rather have the main character come and tell everybody about his life story? The guy speaks little, he's just supposed to be an ass-kicking machine. The idea I got from Halo was a generic shooter that had to implement a storyline to keep up. Bad thing? K, but Duke Nukem was bloody brilliant, and he's less of a character than Minecraft Man.

If they released a Covenant-sided game, I'd play it. I'd be interested to see how things worked on their end of the deal.

But in short - Of course he has personality. He also had it beat out of him during the training program. Would you rather him make wisecracking one-liners with every kill?

I don't mind a little digging to learn about a charecter, as long as it doesn't involve reading a novel. And "Ass-kicking MACHINE" is the problem, I want to play as a person, with emotion and motives and all that malarky, now I have to stop before I begin another rant about Duke Nukem.

 

[Thyunda]

OT: Sorry OP but I gotta rant about Halo.

I hate Halo, there are 5 Halo FPS's and almost nothing has changed from CE to Reach, the series main charecter is a non-entity, no personality, no backstory, brick. ODST introduced a brick that wore different armor and never spoke, Reach let you decide what color your brick was and if you wanted a boy brick or a girl brick. The best Halo game was Halo 2, and only because you got to play as the Arbiter, the only charecter who seemed to care about what was going on and was even remotely interesting.

The worst part of Halo is the fanbase, when I told a friend my favorite part of Halo was playing the Arbiter he said, verbatim "Why would you want to play an alien when you are supposed to fight them?", I was unaware someone could be so short sighted. Unlike most people who play Halo I actual paid attention to the story, and there is actually an intelligent message to it, the Covenant represents an extermist religous autocricy, zealously persuing what they are told to do by the tenants of their religion, unwilling to try to understand or learn about the "heretic" humans, there's a strong message about the danger of religous extremism and apathy towards mutual understanding, and they did it on purpose! I'm not reading to much into this, I'm simply reading the writing on the wall. But how many Halo fans got that part of the game? In fact, how many people are still reading this? If you actually read this entire off topic rant I want you qoute me.

/rant

Apologies for double post, but I gotta explain something to you. Master Chief, the main character, does have a backstory. You have to do a teensy bit of digging to find it, but it's there. Would you rather have the main character come and tell everybody about his life story? The guy speaks little, he's just supposed to be an ass-kicking machine. The idea I got from Halo was a generic shooter that had to implement a storyline to keep up. Bad thing? K, but Duke Nukem was bloody brilliant, and he's less of a character than Minecraft Man.

If they released a Covenant-sided game, I'd play it. I'd be interested to see how things worked on their end of the deal.

But in short - Of course he has personality. He also had it beat out of him during the training program. Would you rather him make wisecracking one-liners with every kill?

I don't mind a little digging to learn about a charecter, as long as it doesn't involve reading a novel. And "Ass-kicking MACHINE" is the problem, I want to play as a person, with emotion and motives and all that malarky, now I have to stop before I begin another rant about Duke Nukem.

Why do you want a character with emotions so badly? I mean, look at Batman! He's like...completely epic, but he doesn't really have a personality. He just hits people. Okay, his parents died. He doesn't spend a lot of time on that fact, just uses it as an excuse to hit people.
If you just read the comics, you'd get a slightly angsty ass kicker. You'd have to play Arkham Asylum to get any deeper.

Why not read a couple of Halo comics? You find out about Master Chief that way. Does every character need a whole thread of shit happening to them in their past? How many real people do you know who have that? Would you tell a soldier to quit because he isn't fighting for vengeance or something? He joined the Army because he couldn't get another job. Now he just shoots at people for a living. He doesn't burst into tears or yell WHEREZ MAI WIEF!!! He just shoots at people when on duty, and drinks on his own when off duty.
Some people simply don't have that complex emotional life that you seem to be determined for everyone to have.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Honestly this is my problem: If your studio doesn't have the unlimited resources of a studio like Bungie or Infinity Ward, then pick a focus for your game rather than try to hit every mark. If you don't have much cash then focus more on a single front, (Multiplayer or single player) rather than tac on an unwanted or needed mode.

Perfect example: The Battlefield games don't need a damn story, they have been soley about multi player for a decade, if Dice is just going to half ass it in the story then just focus on the multiplayer and remove the whole unwanted mess. I say they should turn Bad Company 3 into a multiplayer only thing just like Battlefield 1943 and the upcoming vietnam expansion.

(Mind you the first Bad Company had a realy good story, sadly the second one was so half assed it was pathetic)

 

[Mikeyfell]

the Modern warfare games are another great example of the above. Both games had excellent, well produced, action-movie like campaign modes, that were difficult, fun, varied and inventive. Admittedly, MW2 cut the length down, but they seriously upped the intensity and the action-movie feel.

These are not games that exemplify half-assed singleplayer tacked on to a fully-realized multiplayer game.

[HEADING=1]NO NO NO NO[/HEADING]

NO

you could beat both of the Modern Warfare games in less then the time it takes you to take a piss.

I played CoD 4 and If you cut out all the cheep deaths by invisible sniper and all the times the boring cover based gameplay and uninteresting story made me fall asleep I was probably playing it for 2 hours

and even though Modern Warfare 2 was more interesting I still beat it in one sitting in less than 6 hours including all the cheep deaths and power naps behind cover. 2 and a half of those hours were spent trying to beat the "Wolverines" mission

and this was on Hardcore difficulty

have you ever played a single player game?

I mean a real one, a single player game that doesn't have multyplayer.

 

[FollowUp]

This is assuming that the stories of multiplayer games are bad. I played through CoD 4 and 5, and the last four Halo games, and I had a better experience with the single player than the multiplayer in all six. I like Halo multiplayer, and really don't like Call of Duty multiplayer, but I'm not mourning the loss of single player. If you name a multiplayer focused game I can name a single player focused game. There's no shortage.

You aren't arguing the lack of single player you're arguing the overabundance of multiplayer, a myth in itself. Look at LIMBO, look at Mass Effect, Braid, Assassin's Creed II... If you want a mix go for Red Dead Redemption, which I feel could hold up on single player alone.

(Also, a short campaign does not equal a bad one.)

 

[IntangibleFate]

Now you're talking rubbish. The whole point of playing games is the fact you're PLAYING A GAME. PLAYING. Key word. I'm not saying Multiplayer should be valued over singleplayer, I'm saying a good story is all well and good, but it'll only last you the once. To me, multiplayer is far more important than singleplayer in a game. Bioshock 2, for example, has a damn good singleplayer, and multiplayer is only a feature.
The multiplayer is dead and game retailers in England are trying everything they can just to sell a few copies.

I would definitely prefer multiplayer playability to single player replayability.

allow me to provide a counter example to your point
you are saying that a good single player story only lasts you as long as it takes to finish it
so for sake of E.G. Modern Warfare lasts 5 hours, Enslaved lasts about 12 hours, and Tales of Vesperia lasts about 60 hours. (and then there are Bioware games that encourage multiple play-throughs)
so that's fine.

but how long does an online multyplayer match last?
5 minutes? 15 minutes if your playing a big team battle? 2 minutes 30 seconds if some douche gets a nuke?
and then what you're done?
then what? you play one of every type of game on every multyplayer map available? that's about 3 or 4 hours?

even if you love multyplayer how many times do you have to play Infection at Sword Base before it starts to get boring?
wouldn't you rather play a well constructed campaign than shoot the same 13 year old douche bags half a million times?

The multi-player experience in a well made game changes with different people. Something like COD4 I feel has less replay-ability then something like a halo or battlefield bad company because of the set pieces in place and the different game-types. I have played countless matches of battlefield in 2142,bc1 and bc2 and because of the design of the maps and balance of the vehicles it is very rarely played the same way each time. The ability in the bad company version of the series to destroy almost any building and cover changes how maps are played and makes it almost impossible to do the same thing from map to map. Camping spots become moot points unlike in other games because they can be blown up. This leads to less of a "going through the motions" feeling.

In single player however the experience only changes with difficulty, and that only means the amount of bullets and how much I have to pay attention. I love single player games but honestly I am bored in general of killing predictable AI, having a shared experience means so much more. And to the OP the use of halo is a horrible one, through there theater mode alone it gives the ability to share experiences and relive things not only in the multiplayer but in the campaign as well. And if you don't like shooting other people online there is always firefight and the co-op campaign that lead to experiences you can't have by yourself. You limit yourself by wanting to focus on single player, a well made multiplayer will outlast it any day. Look at the thousands if not millions that are still playing counter strike.

 

[ReaperzXIII]

Someone said "How many times can you play Infection on Sword Base until you get bored?" well the thing is at least on multiplayer you get new people with different levels of skill that you have to adapt to, single player by the 3rd playthrough you will know almost every scene off by heart, know exactly where to go, what to do etc...

Therefore the major replayability lies in multiplayer, I mean multiplayer there is so much to do like Bungie keeps updating Halo Reach every month, new maps made by players, new game modes, new ranks, new armour etc...

You can't do that to single player because if you make a new level then you need to make cutscenes for that level, a story, voice-acting etc... which costs time and money which is why most single player add-ons you need to buy. Multiplayer once you have the game modes already its just design a new map and upload it, tada new thing to keep people interested.

 

[Wintermute_]

snip

AGREED. Thank you for having a well formulated opinion with the knowledge to back it up, and not devolve into rant. I miss single player. Bioshock was an AMAZING single player experience (evening it was system shock), but I never got why they bothered making the damn multiplayer in 2. Maybe to compensate for the below average story of Bioshock 2, and your post makes me think that it might have been the multiplayer add on that made 2 suffer in the plot department. This is just an example of course, but I hope games like Okami, Bioshock,and Half-life, or other great games don't just fade away cuz multiplayer makes more money.

 

[Matt_LRR]

the Modern warfare games are another great example of the above. Both games had excellent, well produced, action-movie like campaign modes, that were difficult, fun, varied and inventive. Admittedly, MW2 cut the length down, but they seriously upped the intensity and the action-movie feel.

These are not games that exemplify half-assed singleplayer tacked on to a fully-realized multiplayer game.

[HEADING=1]NO NO NO NO[/HEADING]

NO

you could beat both of the Modern Warfare games in less then the time it takes you to take a piss.

I played CoD 4 and If you cut out all the cheep deaths by invisible sniper and all the times the boring cover based gameplay and uninteresting story made me fall asleep I was probably playing it for 2 hours

and even though Modern Warfare 2 was more interesting I still beat it in one sitting in less than 6 hours including all the cheep deaths and power naps behind cover. 2 and a half of those hours were spent trying to beat the "Wolverines" mission

and this was on Hardcore difficulty

have you ever played a single player game?

I mean a real one, a single player game that doesn't have multyplayer.

I'm thrilled you managed to breeze through them so quickly. I was of couse talking about production value, not length, but clearly your opinion is the only valid one.

-m

 

[TilMorrow]

I would like to just say this:
Halo - Was mostly Single player orientated and had a great campaign, multiplayer was just a diversion.
Halo 2 - Same as Halo,great campaign and multiplayer was improved slightly with new weps and vehicles.
Halo 3 - Epic ending to master chief's story with another great campaign, Multiplayer did get revamped and made more customisable but that wasn't the focus of the game.
Halo: Wars - Disregard that game completely wasn't made by Bungie.
Halo: ODST - A story that takes place between Halo 2 and 3 not the best story but still great all the same. Included Firefight a new multiplayer option to try out with friends but also included halo 3's multiplayer, game wasn't multiplayer Orientated.
and finally
Halo: Reach - Prequel to Halo. great ending to the series and had a throughly revamped multiplayer as well. Guess you could say it did become both single player and multiplayer orientated as marketing points but nothing more.

I would also like to say CODs lately are becoming more focused on Multiplayer and having singleplayer as something to set the background of the game. However, COD: MW2 is the sequel to COD 4 and does continue the story even though it doesn't have a story on par with Demon Souls (which you mentioned suggesting you are an RPG fan). I would like to also point out just cause you may find the games stories are not as interesting to you as other people doesn't mean that they are multiplayer orientated.

If you haven't played the games, all I can say is don't knock it till you try it.
And if you have then its your opinion.

 

[repeating integers]

Maybe you just need to, I dunno, finish the game? You're missing out on some of the best narrative-gameplay combos of modern gaming. Seriously, when I read "I've played up through the conclusion of Ravenholm", all I heard was "I'm 12 and what is this?". You're judging the game based on... half the game. And that's not including Episodes 1 and 2.

Based on your dismissal of Half-Life in general, especially after only playing HALF of it, I'd say you aren't qualified to make any kind of statement about what is and isn't a good campaign. You obviously like FPSs, but you couldn't recognize good writing if it smacked you in the face. The characters feel human, putting it head and shoulders above most FPSs right there. The setting is unique and fresh, and it has the right mixture of feeling bogged down in cannon fodder and fighting a few elite enemies. Halo 2 had a decent campaign at best. It doesn't stand up at all to HL2, though.

1) "Suggestion, opinion, insult, reference to other games indicating that the game can't stand on its own, assertion assertion assertion assertion, assertion." OK sorry, but in all honesty you're acting rather antagonistic here. (By the way I'm 15, not 12.)

2) Now, I have several comments to make in response to yours about finishing the game. First, an explanation is in order of why I am unable, at the moment to do so.

I'm playing this on the Xbox (got the Xbox version as a gift, and my computer is so shit it can't run any games other than Homeworld anyway). Now, at home, my 360 connects up to a computer monitor rather than a TV. This is fine, except Halo 2 is literally the only original Xbox game which actually works with this setup - all the others in my small library (which I also got as gifts) don't like this and don't work.

Recently though, I went on holiday to Wales. Where we stayed, there was a 360connected up to a TV. Seeing my chance, I brought along Half-Life 2 and vowed to see what the hell all this fuss was about. Unfortunately though, we were only staying from Saturday to Wednesday - so I was unable to get any further than the end of Ravenholm. We do go to Wales on holiday often, though, so I left the game there and will pick up from where I left off next time. Don't worry, I'll finish this eventually.

Second, getting this far took me a goodly while. This is quite clearly a long game, and Ravenholm was about halfway through. A game which takes almost half its levels to go from "high end of average" to "properly good" will not sit well with me. What the hell have the devs been doing when they were supposed to be making the first half of the game as awesome as the rest, or at least comparable?

Episodes 1 and 2 are different games. We're not talking about them. When I get round to playing those, then maybe we can. If those games are good, it doesn't make Half-Life 2 itself any less average. And when I hear people talk about the awesomeness of the series, I hear them refer to Half-Life 2 as much as, or even more than the episodes, so it's not like it's generally acknowledged to be the weak point or something.

Onto your second paragraph. Perhaps it is foolish of me to dismiss the whole series based on my experiences with half of one of its games - so for now, let's confine our discussion to Half-Life 2 alone, rather than the many, many other games set in its universe. I'll reserve judgement on the rest of the series.

You seem to have made the assumption that the only game I like is Halo. I like Mass Effect, a game generally agreed to have good writing. I like Homeworld, which also has good writing (and by the way, Aurora Firestorm above my post here gets huge massive gigantic kudos for being a fan of that excellent game). I happen to also read books - lots of books - which have to have good writing to succeed (and since I know you're going to make a silly connection and/or a snide comment here, I've only read one of the books set in the Halo universe and it wasn't brilliant). I read and enjoyed Lord of the Rings (a while ago now though... should probably re-read it), I love Dan Abnett's books - the later ones of which have very good military sci-fi writing - and I love classic sci-fi books like Foundation and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. On top of that, among my favourite movies are District 9 and Inception - and if movies can be said to have good "writing" (which is an academic question) then these two certainly have it in droves.

Now I can't just point out a sequence and say "that has good/bad writing", but I think I can tell when a game is well-written overall. G-man's poetic and somewhat creepy little speech in the opening (and only, so far) cutscene impressed me. Father Grigori impressed me - hell, the whole of Ravenholm impressed me, though now I'm done with it I'd rather not go within 20 miles of it again. But so far... the characters aren't really there. They're voices, with vague personalities and names. One of them's a girl who isn't just eye candy, but she doesn't have any real character yet. That white-coated scientist from the beginning gave me a hint of character in that he kept a headcrab as a pet - but really, nobody apart from Grigori is particularly interesting. Gordon himself has no character at all, he is:

a brick

You could argue he is a brick so the player can portray his own personality onto him, but then, you could make the same argument about Halo 3: ODST and Reach. Master Chief I will admit is a prop for guns, not a character (unless you read up on his backstory in a book, or Halopedia).

So, yeah. I'd disagree that they feel any more human than most games out there.

The setting? Interesting, perhaps mildly so. Unique and fresh? The day when 1984 with aliens and, for good measure, zombies is "unique and fresh" is the day toothpaste becomes sentient and launches a full-scale invasion of one of the moons of Jupiter. True, Halo's setting is just an "alien invasion", but my love of space opera means I appreciate this more than Half-Life 2's backstory - personal preference here, more than anywhere else, I guess.

So I couldn't see anything special about Half-Life 2, and to be honest I have trouble imagining it magically triples in quality in the second half of the game. There are games which get better later, but games in which the second half completely changes my opinion of the entire game? Rare, at best.

Whew. That was longer than I expected. Sorry, guys.