setting_son said:
That's not a bad synopsis of the plot but that's sort of my problem. It's as Valve wrote a synopsis instead of a game. It never gets fleshed. During the game they don't say much more than you did. It just isn't enough for me, there's no immersion just "Here's a bunch of aliens and now the world is a bit like 1984 and it just is, so get on with it... HEY LOOK SOME PHYSICS!"
A good game, novel or film will have a coherent storyline of its own and not rely on you having seen, read or watched the preceding. For those who want backstory, yeah it helps to experience the earlier work but unless you are a developer making games exclusively for fanboys there really isnt an excuse for leaving out huge chunks of plot. Which isnt to say the previous episode has to be recited ad nauseam, just that there should be some bloody context.
I never got System Shock to work, System Shock 2 still made sense because it was well written and well presented. HL 2 on the other hand...
For someone who HAS played HL1, there are too many questions left unanswered. For someone who hasn't, there isn't enough story or detail in the world to fill them in.
Well, I suppose you're right there, it's not one of the best, or the most original (I personally prefer the MGS story as one of the best), but it's compelling and I find it very immersive, the way it's told. NPCs do little in the telling of the story, the most you find in the environment, when you see a destroyed environment, it just adds to the story, you see what the Combine did to the cities, you don't listen to audio tapes about it. The other characters just mention it, and something about the seven-hour war, etc. But that's mostly all, everything else is shown throughout the gameplay. You know what happens in HL1 because you're actually
there when it happens. The difference in HL2 is that you see the aftereffects. I think HL2 is very immersive. You actually see what the Combine have done to Earth and its' cities, you see how they transformed buildings into outposts, down to the last detail. You experience their headcrab rockets, it's just a shame how they didn't put in how they get the headcrabs (there's an unfinished model in the early beta of the game of a Gonarchs' sac (the mother of all headcrabs)). There's a part in the beginning of the combine chasing down civillians and them complaining over the life. It just makes you dislike the combine in the first place, and the rest of the game you go deeper into their nest and see more and more of the Combine way of life.
Also, I strongly disagree about the fact that a good plot doesn't need a prequel. It's just not true. Some plots are told in parts, episodes. I mentioned LOTR.
What Valve did was just follow up where the story from the previous game left. There are still some old characters and old enemies, but it's mostly a continuation. System Shock 1 and 2 are more or less completely different games, but centering around the same enemy in a similar environment, but with completely different characters. System Shock 2 was a
new story, not a continuation like HL2. If I'm not mistaken, the main character from SS1 even dies at the end. But you can't really compare SS2's story and ambience with anything else, I agree it's way better than the story of HL2, but it's a different kind of story and storytelling that probably wouldn't work in HL2.
But I don't see many questions left unanswered. We all already know who everyone is and what they are doing (well actually some details are not actually mentioned in the game itself, I found them on the internet), and all that there's left is for Gordon Freeman to save the day forever. And to never find out who/what Gman is.
Sometimes, mystery is a good thing.
Wow, I should stop writing now
Overall, HL is compelling, the original was a hitter, and HL2 got awesome physics with fun, solid gameplay. And the many mods make it so much better.
