[Ziame]

The best ending ever for me is in Homeworld: Cataclysm

Spoiler:

they shall be known as Beast-Slayers

too bad it doesn't get referenced in HW2

The worst ending ever is in Fallen Haven. You win. You get a medal. OMG! The gameplay is still decent though

[Akalabeth Angel]

For those not sure about the HL story, read this site, clears up : http://members.shaw.ca/halflifestory/timeline.htm

Thanks but I shouldn't need to read a fanboy website to know the story that should've been presented to me in-game

[General Battuta]

You have to actively look to find the clues of the Half-Life story. Everything on that site is in-game.

[Sushi]

You have to actively look to find the clues of the Half-Life story. Everything on that site is in-game.

Which is part of the draw of the Half-Life method of storytelling. It's subtle, and you have to watch everything carefully to get the whole story. Some love it (me), some can't stand it (Angel).

[BloodEagle]

I'm not sure I see how length is a factor for judging the quality of a narrative, but oh well.

Oh i just menat the ending..felt too short i guess...its just me though lol

That's probably because most of the game was filler. You just weren't ready for some actual condensed plot.

Okay, I just realized something.

You're not talking about HL2. My bad.

--

You have to actively look to find the clues of the Half-Life story. Everything on that site is in-game.

Which is part of the draw of the Half-Life method of storytelling. It's subtle, and you have to watch everything carefully to get the whole story. Some love it (me), some can't stand it (Angel).

It's not just carefully watching. You have to do it quickly, as well. Particularly whenever the G-man shows up (at least a dozen times throughout the game), because, if you're not fast enough with the zoom button, you probably won't even realize that he was there.

Personally, any game that's that long really shouldn't have a subtle story. I've replayed it one time, and I made sure that I had an entire week off before even starting.

[Mongoose]

I'm currently playing through HL2 for the first time without ever having played the original game, and I've been completely engaged from the start until now, so maybe it is just a case of personal tastes.

[CP5670]

I thought HL2 was a lousy game. The "story" essentially consists of four or five cutscenes, and is simplistic and lacking in details even if you do manage to pick it up (compare it to something like FS2 or Deus Ex). As for the actual game, 90% of it involves running through a linear assault course made up of hundreds of sewers and destroyed houses. This crappy level design is my biggest problem with it, as it gives the player no incentive to explore and makes the game a chore to go through.

[Mongoose]

I thought HL2 was a lousy game. The "story" essentially consists of four or five cutscenes, and is simplistic and lacking in details even if you do manage to pick it up (compare it to something like FS2 or Deus Ex). As for the actual game, 90% of it involves running through a linear assault course made up of hundreds of sewers and destroyed houses. This crappy level design is my biggest problem with it, as it gives the player no incentive to explore and makes the game a chore to go through.

I'm of the exact opposite opinion, actually.  I find games with multiple alternate pathways to be far more of a chore than strictly linear ones, since I wind up wasting a great deal of time scouting out every single one and figuring out which way I should actually be going.  Just playing through the first several minutes' worth of Deus Ex made me feel like it's probably not something I'd enjoy all that much.  In contrast, if you give me a set path to traverse and a crap-load of enemies along it to blow through, as HL2 did, I'm as happy as a clam.

As for HL2's story, as you said, the direct narrative didn't comprise a whole lot of the playing time, but the general unfolding atmosphere and dropping of little tidbits in multiple locations was what did it for me.  I enjoyed the sensation of being cast into a world which I didn't really understand all that well until relatively late in the game, which was magnified by the fact that I'd never actually played the original Half-Life.  You gradually receive this greater and greater picture of an authoritarian dystopia run by a man who's basically lying through his teeth to the populace, and areas like Ravenholm (*shudder*) and the coast drive present an even broader picture of a world that's been shot to hell due to what happened in the original game.  And you're just one lone physicist armed with a crowbar, being bounced around from resistance cell to resistance cell, gradually realizing that you're seen as almost a messianic figure by humanity.  For me, the relative sparsity of direct narrative progression was more than made up for by the evolving worldview that the actual game environments and their details continuously built upon.  Valve really are masters at their craft.

[CP5670]

I'm of the exact opposite opinion, actually.  I find games with multiple alternate pathways to be far more of a chore than strictly linear ones, since I wind up wasting a great deal of time scouting out every single one and figuring out which way I should actually be going.

I do this too, but I love doing it. I want to feel like I can explore freely in different directions, just like real life. What I don't like is for the game world to feel like a big assault course that was set up solely for me to go through. Although even among strictly linear games, I can think of far better ones.

As for HL2's story, as you said, the direct narrative didn't comprise a whole lot of the playing time, but the general unfolding atmosphere and dropping of little tidbits in multiple locations was what did it for me.  I enjoyed the sensation of being cast into a world which I didn't really understand all that well until relatively late in the game, which was magnified by the fact that I'd never actually played the original Half-Life.  You gradually receive this greater and greater picture of an authoritarian dystopia run by a man who's basically lying through his teeth to the populace, and areas like Ravenholm (*shudder*) and the coast drive present an even broader picture of a world that's been shot to hell due to what happened in the original game.  And you're just one lone physicist armed with a crowbar, being bounced around from resistance cell to resistance cell, gradually realizing that you're seen as almost a messianic figure by humanity.  For me, the relative sparsity of direct narrative progression was more than made up for by the evolving worldview that the actual game environments and their details continuously built upon.  Valve really are masters at their craft.

I'm not sure where this "unfolding of atmosphere" comes from, given that, as I said, most of the game takes place in sewers and destroyed houses with poor level detail even for the game's time.

I figured out the main premise with the story eventually, but I didn't actually care about it by that point because the story was so sparsely detailed. It was like trying to find a story in Doom 1. You can uncover something there if you use your imagination a bit, but there is no reason to care because nothing in the story is well developed. You're the savior of humanity in half the games out there.

[Akalabeth Angel]

You have to actively look to find the clues of the Half-Life story. Everything on that site is in-game.

Which is part of the draw of the Half-Life method of storytelling. It's subtle, and you have to watch everything carefully to get the whole story. Some love it (me), some can't stand it (Angel).

Thing is, someone mentioned talking to the . . . zap guy on the boat. But why would I do that??? Don't I have **** to do? places to go?? I shouldn't have to intentionally break the flow of the game just to learn information I should already know. For example, at the start of the game, in the train station, okay people sitting around, I'll go talk to them. Later on, I'm running the gauntlet, the police are after me, there's no time for chit chat. So why as Freeman, would I take 10 minutes to talk to the guy on the boat when time is of the essence??

It's like at the end of episode 2, there's some guy giving instructions in the resistance. And it's got some pretty funny dialogue, but if I'd followed the chick's instructions and hurried to see whoever I wouldn't have ever heard that.

If the case is "okay freeman, let's rest here a while" then okay, I'll explore the place, chat up the ladies. But if it's "let's go freeman, you've got to get moving" then I shouldn't be exploring or talking to anyone I should go from A to B and that's it.

[BS403]

I'm of the exact opposite opinion, actually.  I find games with multiple alternate pathways to be far more of a chore than strictly linear ones, since I wind up wasting a great deal of time scouting out every single one and figuring out which way I should actually be going.

I do this too, but I love doing it. I want to feel like I can explore freely in different directions, just like real life. What I don't like is for the game world to feel like a big assault course that was set up solely for me to go through. Although even among strictly linear games, I can think of far better ones.

As for HL2's story, as you said, the direct narrative didn't comprise a whole lot of the playing time, but the general unfolding atmosphere and dropping of little tidbits in multiple locations was what did it for me.  I enjoyed the sensation of being cast into a world which I didn't really understand all that well until relatively late in the game, which was magnified by the fact that I'd never actually played the original Half-Life.  You gradually receive this greater and greater picture of an authoritarian dystopia run by a man who's basically lying through his teeth to the populace, and areas like Ravenholm (*shudder*) and the coast drive present an even broader picture of a world that's been shot to hell due to what happened in the original game.  And you're just one lone physicist armed with a crowbar, being bounced around from resistance cell to resistance cell, gradually realizing that you're seen as almost a messianic figure by humanity.  For me, the relative sparsity of direct narrative progression was more than made up for by the evolving worldview that the actual game environments and their details continuously built upon.  Valve really are masters at their craft.

I'm not sure where this "unfolding of atmosphere" comes from, given that, as I said, most of the game takes place in sewers and destroyed houses with poor level detail even for the game's time.

I figured out the main premise with the story eventually, but I didn't actually care about it by that point because the story was so sparsely detailed. It was like trying to find a story in Doom 1. You can uncover something there if you use your imagination a bit, but there is no reason to care because nothing in the story is well developed. You're the savior of humanity in half the games out there.

I definitely need to agree with CP here.  I found the first sewers to be very repetitive, and I never really knew what I was supposed to be doing.
Ex. Run!
... where?
...

[Colonol Dekker]

I like the three way ending choice at the end of I-War..........  COMMONWEALTH VICTORY!

[Mongoose]

I'm not sure where this "unfolding of atmosphere" comes from, given that, as I said, most of the game takes place in sewers and destroyed houses with poor level detail even for the game's time.

"Poor detail"?  Really?  I know I'm at least four or five years behind the curve technologically, but as I played through the game, a lot of what I saw was impressing me even by what I understand to be today's standards.  It's true that the Source Engine back then didn't support some of the newer, more advanced graphical effects, but I found the sheer amount of everyday physical objects scattered throughout the appropriate environments to be almost staggering at times. You'd walk into an abandoned house and see all of the little accouterments that you'd expect to. And thanks to the still-ridiculously-awesome physics implementation and the gravity gun, there was all kinds of goofy stuff you could do with them.  Not to mention the facial-expressions feature that Valve implemented, which as far as I can tell was just about unprecedented at the time.

Thing is, someone mentioned talking to the . . . zap guy on the boat. But why would I do that??? Don't I have **** to do? places to go?? I shouldn't have to intentionally break the flow of the game just to learn information I should already know. For example, at the start of the game, in the train station, okay people sitting around, I'll go talk to them. Later on, I'm running the gauntlet, the police are after me, there's no time for chit chat. So why as Freeman, would I take 10 minutes to talk to the guy on the boat when time is of the essence??

Isn't the golden rule of gaming to hit up every NPC possible, no matter what you're "supposed" to be doing at the moment?  Or is that just me?

I definitely need to agree with CP here.  I found the first sewers to be very repetitive, and I never really knew what I was supposed to be doing.
Ex. Run!
... where?
...

See, I feel like the repetition worked for those segments.  This wasn't something like the original Halo, which seemed to prescribe to the design philosophy of, "Hey, let's re-use this same room in this big alien structure twenty times, because it's alien."  Sewers are...well...sewers; they're not going to be ridiculously varied in appearance just for the hell of it.  At that point in the game, you had just been cast off on your own, forced to fight your way through to another (seemingly) safe haven.  Having to blunder your way through the sewer's twists and turns kind of reinforced that in-character emotion for me.

I do understand that the game might not have worked for some people, but it did work even better than I could have hoped for me.  And given the amount of mid-90s scores that it received at the time and the lasting praise it's garnered, it obviously worked extremely well for a whole bunch of other people too.

[Scotty]

Isn't the golden rule of gaming to hit up every NPC possible, no matter what you're "supposed" to be doing at the moment?  Or is that just me?

As long as there isn't an active time limit, yes.  And sometimes even then.  Oh, and I lump "scour every square inch of mapspace" and "hit up every NPC possible" into the "find everything everywhere" section of gaming.

[Ghostavo]

To me Half-Life 2 is kind of a comical FPS.

You are a mute PhD holder who is the messiah of the resistance, everyone assumes things for you and sends you on ridiculous assignments since you can't speak, the evil doers trip over themselves trying to stop you while everyone else sheers for you and you basically have incredible luck with the mapping of the terrain. The game even lampshades this when Dr. Breen is complaining about why his forces can't stop you!

It's like someone took Mr. Bean and made an FPS about saving the world!

[CP5670]

"Poor detail"?  Really?  I know I'm at least four or five years behind the curve technologically, but as I played through the game, a lot of what I saw was impressing me even by what I understand to be today's standards.  It's true that the Source Engine back then didn't support some of the newer, more advanced graphical effects, but I found the sheer amount of everyday physical objects scattered throughout the appropriate environments to be almost staggering at times. You'd walk into an abandoned house and see all of the little accouterments that you'd expect to. And thanks to the still-ridiculously-awesome physics implementation and the gravity gun, there was all kinds of goofy stuff you could do with them.  Not to mention the facial-expressions feature that Valve implemented, which as far as I can tell was just about unprecedented at the time.

I think you need to play more FPSs. HL2's level detail would have been good in 2000, but was very poor for 2004. There was almost nothing in most of the sewers and houses except for a couple of odd pans or planks lying around. I did like how you could pick up the objects, but there were very few of them in the first place. The textures and environments were horribly repetitive as well.

The Splinter Cell games had set the gold standard with map detail back then, and Far Cry and Doom 3 were pretty good as well. HL2 doesn't even compare, leaving aside the cutscene levels which were a lot better. Fallout 3 is a newer game, but it has a similar post-apocalyptic setting as HL2 but with much more detail.

The physics was the standard Havok engine seen in countless other games and had the same crazy glitches. DX:IW used it too, although it was buggier there. The facial expressions were indeed very good for their time though.

To me Half-Life 2 is kind of a comical FPS.

You are a mute PhD holder who is the messiah of the resistance, everyone assumes things for you and sends you on ridiculous assignments since you can't speak, the evil doers trip over themselves trying to stop you while everyone else sheers for you and you basically have incredible luck with the mapping of the terrain. The game even lampshades this when Dr. Breen is complaining about why his forces can't stop you!

It's like someone took Mr. Bean and made an FPS about saving the world!

The best aspect of HL2 was the unique jumping mechanics. This was actually my favorite part of the game. Unlike most games, you built up speed when bunny hopping and could zoom across the levels after some practice. It made no sense, but actually made running around a lot of fun (although the novelty eventually wore off).

[Akalabeth Angel]

"Poor detail"?  Really?  I know I'm at least four or five years behind the curve technologically, but as I played through the game, a lot of what I saw was impressing me even by what I understand to be today's standards.  It's true that the Source Engine back then didn't support some of the newer, more advanced graphical effects, but I found the sheer amount of everyday physical objects scattered throughout the appropriate environments to be almost staggering at times. You'd walk into an abandoned house and see all of the little accouterments that you'd expect to. And thanks to the still-ridiculously-awesome physics implementation and the gravity gun, there was all kinds of goofy stuff you could do with them.  Not to mention the facial-expressions feature that Valve implemented, which as far as I can tell was just about unprecedented at the time.

The household objects I found actually rather comical. I didn't notice them for the most part, until I got to Ravenholm. And then suddenly it's a town where every house stocks table saw blades and propane tanks. A little comical if you ask me. I suppose it's my chance to play with the gravity gun but when it's so obviously forced it takes me out of the moment.

HL2's NPC acting is the best I've seen in an FPS. I'll say that much. Though PREY had better dialogue . . .
<guy walks into a room, bunch of security robots fly up a tube to an area up ahead>
<guy enters the new room>
"More robots? God damn I hate these ****ing robots" hahahaha. Awesome. I got to play through that again.

Isn't the golden rule of gaming to hit up every NPC possible, no matter what you're "supposed" to be doing at the moment?  Or is that just me?

Hmmn, I guess I'm one who doesn't follow the golden rule. I try to play as the circumstances dictate. When I'm just walking around the town I hit everyone up, but later on when the action is fast and furious I don't have time.

[NGTM-1R]

Isn't the golden rule of gaming to hit up every NPC possible, no matter what you're "supposed" to be doing at the moment?  Or is that just me?

HL2 is not an RPG.

[Mongoose]

No one said it had to be.  I do the same thing in any game I happen to be playing through.  Hell, one of the greatest joys of Psychonauts was just standing there and listening to a few campers have a ten-minute conversation without looping.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The two endings of Max Payne 2 are pretty good in my opinion, but I find that the Dead on Arrival ending was meant to appease players in the sense of "Okay, you played this hard game on the highest difficulty, so we'll let Mona live."