Half-Life 2: Thoughts
Sunday, November 28th, 2004Interesting couple of days. Killed time — and critters and about eighteen hours — playing Half-Life 2 over the past week. The engine suffers from major tearing without vsync, despite my upping the game refresh rate, though it runs smooth as silk while graphically maxed out on my system (minus the aforementioned vsync, though). Sound was decent, though I found myself more wowed by the way the engine presented the sounds (brief deafness, panning stereo effects, etc) than by the sounds themselves.
Difficulty was lacking and intermittent. Though I was playing on the game-professed Hard level, it was anything but for the majority of my time spent. Gameplay was set up in a frustratingly predictable obstacle-obstacle-obstacle-climax format, meaning I could play for fifty minutes without breaking a sweat, only to have to spend ten minutes of loading and re-loading to beat a two-minute ultra-hard scenario. A more balanced and consistent approach to the gameplay would have been preferred, as would having some options, such as being able to avoid a confrontation altogether through the use of stealth.
The plot was a rollercoaster, though this metaphor comes laden with both positive and negative connotations. While thrilling and exciting and (insert descriptive adjective here), the plot moved on rails. Once you’ve started the game, you are bound to a single course of action, something which is increasing obvious (and thus frustrating) as the game progresses. Deviation from the set course was impossible and reduced what was otherwise a solid game to a painfully linear experience, a carefully choreographed exercise in “here, look at this!” and “come this way!” As mentioned in the previous paragraph, some options would have been nice, serving to lengthen the game and promising more satisfactory replayability through variation and permutation based on player input.
Ironically, the lack of control and free-will experienced by the player plays into the plot itself by the end. Concluding the game is a monologue presented by a mysterious character, who serves as a convenient deus ex machina-cum-denouement. In his cryptic mutterings — which, for a denouement, leaves the player with more questions than answers about the plot of the game and thus his actions in it — this character says something very applicable to — and quite telling about — Valve’s philosophy in game-design: “Rather than offer you the illusion of free choice, I will take the liberty of choosing for you.”
Overall, even though the bulk of what’s written above seems to be negative, I enjoyed Half-Life 2. The problem is that it’s so good that the bad aspects of it strike a hideously jarring contrast with the wonders that Valve’s managed to convey. They manage to weave an intricate plot, create a hauntingly dark and disturbing future, and leave the player wondering by the end of it, doing so in style. The landscapes carved out and presented to the player are top-notch and opportunities for fun abound; I just wish that I had had more choice in my approach to the problems presented over the course of the game.