Why Half Life 2 isn't the greatest game ever.

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
I'm not even going to bother. Quake... Unreal... Unreal 2... etc... Better than HL2? I guess it's your opinion and all, but... Nevermind.

I can't understand it either (and Unreal II, a game I actually liked, but come on! An ending does not make up for a subpar game!). But, they're entitled to their opinions.

Originally posted by: Jigglelicious

They're all linear, it's just how much you feel the linearity. I personally liked the linearity of Half Life 2... It was like a good action movie: you're always going somewhere new and exciting.

That was one of my major issues with HL2. I never knew where I was, where I was going, and why I was going there. Sure, most FPS's have the exact same amount of linearity as HL2. But at least they tend to have a focus, so it feels like you're doing something, going somewhere for a reason. In HL2 it was as if I was just drifting along aimlessly, following the open doors just because they were open.

It's definately true that they don't give you much (enough) background information for what makes Gordon tick, and that is probably the biggest weakness in the story, or at least in how it is presented to us in the game. They've done the whole "Gordon is an enigma" thing by making him never speak, not showing any part of his body but his hands, etc but we don't really know why this is. You can't even look in a mirror and see your reflection in this game (which is deliberate, obviously).

At the same time, I think the NPC's do a good job of fleshing out Gordon's mission. They tell him where to go, where to park his car, etc. and the game player can fill in the rest. He's obviously driven, focused and of one mind. Despite being the typical unlikely hero (at first), there's nothing reluctant about his actions in the game - he kills combine soldiers without pity or mercy, and shoots down helicopters and Striders without hesitation.

I think what annoys everyone is they want to know why Mr. Freeman does what he does. It seems that's because of who he is. He's a soldier, he's a scientist, he's a hero. He doesnt' speak because actions speak louder than words. He has no time for words, romance, or self-doubt. He can be seen as a reflection of the gamer controlling him in the game - we're not speaking while playing, we're not worrying too much about decisions we are making. We just move along from quicksave to quicksave, taking in the view along the way.

 

[everman]

Finished the game today, it goes somewhere in my top 10 list.

Graphics were great, I have a midrange system and still played at 1600x1200 on my 20" lcd, very nice. Lots of cool shader effects like the force field barracades. Fire effects were terrible though compared to Doom 3.

Gameplay:

The Havoc physics engine shined here, definitly enhanced the experiance a great deal. It made for some very entertaining moments when random events turned into cool chain reactions...

The team gameplay was ok. AI was poor. For example: Here I am needing to toss a grenade into a floor turret when my teammates decide to just stand in front and shoot at it. In many other instances they died very quickly. Luckily they are never really needed.

Sound was nice on my 4.1 setup here. Unfortunately the sound stuttering bug was absoutely horrific at times. At the very end with the Gman I didn't understand a word he said. I had to redo that very last little bit of the end game at 1024x768 & low quality sound and he worked fine. (the game ran fine at 1600x1200 otherwise).

The story...er what story? From what I understand the white haired guy is an arbiter between the humans and aliens. Throw in your rebels to fight said evil aliens. And btw the alien teleporters don't work on Earth but they're working on it. So they set up the citadel in City 17, whether it's the capitol or not, I guess so. There are a few other details, but not much.

Overall HL2 falls flat on its face in this area. They could have added so much more lore to the HL universe.

The ending was alright, nothing great. The citadel itself is cool, it's too bad they didn't elaborate on it more though. Why did it seem like it's crushing the city? Is it the only citadel, or one of many? Why keep the humans alive at all and waste resources on this police state? Oh and btw, the G-Man owns you. It looks like they just keep Gordon in a time warp of sorts so they can do sequels at any point in the future, great.


Overall it was a fun game. There was some innovation and new things done. I don't think it was revolutionary. I don't even think it's the best game of the year, though a contender. I still like Thief 3 myself, it had much more backstory which I value greatly.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: everman
Finished the game today, it goes somewhere in my top 10 list.

Graphics were great, I have a midrange system and still played at 1600x1200 on my 20" lcd, very nice. Lots of cool shader effects like the force field barracades. Fire effects were terrible though compared to Doom 3.

Gameplay:

The Havoc physics engine shined here, definitly enhanced the experiance a great deal. It made for some very entertaining moments when random events turned into cool chain reactions...

The team gameplay was ok. AI was poor. For example: Here I am needing to toss a grenade into a floor turret when my teammates decide to just stand in front and shoot at it. In many other instances they died very quickly. Luckily they are never really needed.

Sound was nice on my 4.1 setup here. Unfortunately the sound stuttering bug was absoutely horrific at times. At the very end with the Gman I didn't understand a word he said. I had to redo that very last little bit of the end game at 1024x768 & low quality sound and he worked fine. (the game ran fine at 1600x1200 otherwise).

The story...er what story? From what I understand the white haired guy is an arbiter between the humans and aliens. Throw in your rebels to fight said evil aliens. And btw the alien teleporters don't work on Earth but they're working on it. So they set up the citadel in City 17, whether it's the capitol or not, I guess so. There are a few other details, but not much.

Overall HL2 falls flat on its face in this area. They could have added so much more lore to the HL universe.

The ending was alright, nothing great. The citadel itself is cool, it's too bad they didn't elaborate on it more though. Why did it seem like it's crushing the city? Is it the only citadel, or one of many? Why keep the humans alive at all and waste resources on this police state? Oh and btw, the G-Man owns you. It looks like they just keep Gordon in a time warp of sorts so they can do sequels at any point in the future, great.


Overall it was a fun game. There was some innovation and new things done. I don't think it was revolutionary. I don't even think it's the best game of the year, though a contender. I still like Thief 3 myself, it had much more backstory which I value greatly.

You can force your buddies stay put by putting them in your reticle and useing the "use" key. It worked for me and I never lost anyone.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: warcrow

You can force your buddies stay put by putting them in your reticle and useing the "use" key. It worked for me and I never lost anyone.

Hm I never heard that in game, does remind me of the couple scenarios where you had to set up turrets though. The one with 3 turrets and you defending a room with 2 doorways was cool. I stacked up tons of barrels, desks, and boxes to barricade one door, and turrets on the other. Stuff like this would be so cool for a game like...oh I don't know....Team Fortress 2!

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: muoot
okay, EpsiIon, so you were not satisified, either.

BTW; we, by the very definition of audience (participatory or not), are not supposed to be actors. The respectable line-up of actors (voices) in HL2 were: Robert Culp, Michelle Forbes, Louis Gossett Jr., Robert Guillaume,etc. These folks were given their portion (at the least) of the script before participating. Perhaps even offered each of their character's movtivation and direction from steam/valve. We as participating audience, were not privy to these ingredients.

And, this blatant lack of even a hint of GF's purpose and motivation is just one element of why the last chapter fell flat for me. But, you don't mind don't mind waiting years for an answers and a plot. Gotcha. I guess, then, you don't have to ask why you are fired.


VIAN:

Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Agreed. and you did a far better job articulating this point than my previous posts.

First of all, please don't try to dismiss my point of view because I said I was not "satisfied" with the ending. I liked not being satisfied. I liked being stunned and frustrated, feeling what our character is feeling. I liked that Valve didn't give us the typical "hollywood ending" where everything is wrapped up.

Obviously you didn't. Ok, that's fine. But, personally, I'm honestly tired of being able to predict the ending to most movies and games.

Secondly, I simply disagree with you about actors. Shigeru Miyamoto, if I recall correctly, has stated that he thinks video games should be like "interactive movies." If this is indeed true, then what can the player be but an actor? If you read the definition to which I linked (esp 2a), we are actors by virtue of the fact that we did participate in the story. When the audience members participate, they become actors.

This is going to sound condescending, but I don't know how else to say it: I'm sorry if you have limited your conception of (the art form that is) video games so much that you can not appreciate this.

 

[MemberSince97]

Well HL2 will prolly be FPS single player game of the year. But UT2k4 is the best , bugfree and polished FPS multiplayer IMO............

 

[Smilin]

I'll agree it definately isn't the greatest game ever.

Graphics:

The graphics didn't really blow me away. The water is probably some of the best I've seen but it was really the exception for the graphics as a whole. Some of the engines new effects were kindof wasted. Headcrabs have a nifty shader on them for example but you don't really notice it during gameplay, just when you look at them close after they are dead.

Overall the graphics seemed to be quantity over quality. The levels were quite large with a lot going on so it may have not been possible to detail everything out the way it should have been. Framerate might have suffered (running smooth at 1600x1200 here so it could give a little I'm sure). There are some buildings that are litterally four sides and a triangle on top with a mediocre texture skinned over them. No real geometric detail whatsoever.

The "underwater" view seemed problematic to me.


Physics:

I was impressed here. Very much so. Some of the "leverage" puzzles may have seemed trivial but trust me, I get it. In any previous game you could stack a bunch of akward objects like a crate on top of a chair on top of a post in some cartoon fashion and it would allow you to climb right up. Not here.


Enemies:

Decent. Nothing crazy. Headcrabs are a bit annoying. It's comical to think that I can take on an entire squad of combine "marines" with only a scratch but a headcrab can do serious damage if it gets in close. Annoying. Enemy A.I. was sufficient but not spectacular.

Story Line:

The atmosphere was great. Very Orwellian, very believable. The story itself didn't really go anywhere though. I don't have that "I just read a good book" feeling like I did with the original half-life or say Alice.


My Manor gripe:

The buggy got annoying. The thing would flip over like Homer Simpsons farm tractor if you so much as looked at it funny.

My Major gripe:

Your squadmates. This wasn't even remotely fun. I just wanted to get the levels over with so I could get back to enjoying myself. If they had put these guys in a few more levels it would have ruined the game for me. Seriously.

They are idiots. I don't expect any more out of them than some efficient headcrab killing so my expectations aren't high. I would walk into a trap/ambush and go to back out. I would find curly, moe and larry piled in the doorway behind me and I would get murdered trying to get back to the safety of cover. Next I would give one of those advanced commands, "Go over there" (as opposed to "come over here"). They would wander over to where I pointed. Now with them occupied I would turn my attention back to clearing whatever trap/ambush they had gotten in the way of. Before I could get that far I would here, "Hey, let's follow freeman!" and here would come the stupid quartet again.

Man I wanted to scream. I got into the habit of just completely throwing them into harms way. They would sometimes prove usefull but usually just get killed which was my intent (this is stupid gameplay at it's finest folks). I would then do better without them. Just when the difficulty would kick up again, the level designer would spring a new squadron on me thereby doubling the difficulty and frustration.

Why did they wait until narrow cooridors to give me teammates? Why not out in the open?

My major praise:

This game was FUN. Yep. Fun. Lots of entertaining little moments liberally sprinkled around the whole game. Playing "don't touch the sand" reminded me of playing "lava" in the living room as a kid - jumping from couch to couch without "falling in". The boat was quite fun. The infantry-vs-helicopter duel revisited was as intense as the first game. I could go on but I don't think I'll be able to put my finger on any one thing that made this game so fun. It just is.

Greatest game ever? No. Great game? Most definately.

 

[muoot]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: muoot
okay, EpsiIon, so you were not satisified, either.

BTW; we, by the very definition of audience (participatory or not), are not supposed to be actors. The respectable line-up of actors (voices) in HL2 were: Robert Culp, Michelle Forbes, Louis Gossett Jr., Robert Guillaume,etc. These folks were given their portion (at the least) of the script before participating. Perhaps even offered each of their character's movtivation and direction from steam/valve. We as participating audience, were not privy to these ingredients.

And, this blatant lack of even a hint of GF's purpose and motivation is just one element of why the last chapter fell flat for me. But, you don't mind don't mind waiting years for an answers and a plot. Gotcha. I guess, then, you don't have to ask why you are fired.


VIAN:

Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Agreed. and you did a far better job articulating this point than my previous posts.

First of all, please don't try to dismiss my point of view because I said I was not "satisfied" with the ending. I liked not being satisfied. I liked being stunned and frustrated, feeling what our character is feeling. I liked that Valve didn't give us the typical "hollywood ending" where everything is wrapped up.

Obviously you didn't. Ok, that's fine. But, personally, I'm honestly tired of being able to predict the ending to most movies and games.

Secondly, I simply disagree with you about actors. Shigeru Miyamoto, if I recall correctly, has stated that he thinks video games should be like "interactive movies." If this is indeed true, then what can the player be but an actor? If you read the definition to which I linked (esp 2a), we are actors by virtue of the fact that we did participate in the story. When the audience members participate, they become actors.

This is going to sound condescending, but I don't know how else to say it: I'm sorry if you have limited your conception of (the art form that is) video games so much that you can not appreciate this.

You prefer complete unsatsifaction in a storyline. Can not discuss this point with any futher. Good for you. keep it up.

I do not accept an unreasonable and skewed view on the the concept of actor based upon the a faulty-default of what can the player be but an actor? ...As if that default is the only available designation for a VG player. I drew specific criteria for actor which the player does not meet >(script before participating, direction, and motivation revealed to the actor, etc.) and it is disregarded. eh.

oh, and 2a specifically sites a dramatic production which , HL2 is NOT . It is a GAME in which the audience may be participant>> or subjects. Additionally, one could easy watch another person play HL2 and not participate. However, the actors are in it to entertain the audience, not vice-versa.

Before I step into another off-topic bag flaming bait I will state this:
If I am incorrect, and your broad-stroked --so open-minded that your brain falls out-- "any one who participates in a video game is an actor" is accepted and no distinctions are defined,; then, I want my paycheck and residuals $$$$$, beeeeeeach!!! :Q:shocked::laugh::thumbsup:

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Sunner
I disagree.
I'm a huge fan on the Dark Tower series as well, I've been reading them(using the term rather loosely) for ~5 years now.
Looking forward to purchasing the last volumes later this year.

Another good series that I read was writted by a Swedish author, a 5 series piece, I read them over ~3 years.

Again you're trying to find some kind of deep answer when the simple explanation is that different people have different tastes.
And you seem to be trying to look intellectually superior at the same time.

It's not that I'm trying to find a deep answer in regard to different tastes, it's simply that people who have tastes different from my own are wrong.

Duh.

I thought you'd have picked up on this by now.

Nonsense, everyone knows I'm always right.

 

[DeeSlanger]

Squadmates = suxors = WTF nuff said

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: muoot

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: muoot
okay, EpsiIon, so you were not satisified, either.

BTW; we, by the very definition of audience (participatory or not), are not supposed to be actors. The respectable line-up of actors (voices) in HL2 were: Robert Culp, Michelle Forbes, Louis Gossett Jr., Robert Guillaume,etc. These folks were given their portion (at the least) of the script before participating. Perhaps even offered each of their character's movtivation and direction from steam/valve. We as participating audience, were not privy to these ingredients.

And, this blatant lack of even a hint of GF's purpose and motivation is just one element of why the last chapter fell flat for me. But, you don't mind don't mind waiting years for an answers and a plot. Gotcha. I guess, then, you don't have to ask why you are fired.


VIAN:

Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Agreed. and you did a far better job articulating this point than my previous posts.

First of all, please don't try to dismiss my point of view because I said I was not "satisfied" with the ending. I liked not being satisfied. I liked being stunned and frustrated, feeling what our character is feeling. I liked that Valve didn't give us the typical "hollywood ending" where everything is wrapped up.

Obviously you didn't. Ok, that's fine. But, personally, I'm honestly tired of being able to predict the ending to most movies and games.

Secondly, I simply disagree with you about actors. Shigeru Miyamoto, if I recall correctly, has stated that he thinks video games should be like "interactive movies." If this is indeed true, then what can the player be but an actor? If you read the definition to which I linked (esp 2a), we are actors by virtue of the fact that we did participate in the story. When the audience members participate, they become actors.

This is going to sound condescending, but I don't know how else to say it: I'm sorry if you have limited your conception of (the art form that is) video games so much that you can not appreciate this.

You prefer complete unsatsifaction in a storyline. Can not discuss this point with any futher. Good for you. keep it up.

I do not ccept a unreasonable and skewed view on the the concept of actor. I drew specific criteria (script before participating, direction, and motivation revealed to the actor, etc.) and it is disregarded. eh.

oh, and 2a specifically sites a dramatic production which , HL2 is NOT . It is a GAME in which the audience may be participant>> or subjects. Adfditionally, one could easy watch another person play HL2 and not participate. However, the actors are in it to entertain the audience, not vice-versa.

If I am incorrect, and your broad-stroked --so open-minded that your brain falls out-- "any one who participates in a video game is an actor" is accepted and no distinctions are defined,; then, I want my paycheck and residuals $$$$$, beeeeeeach!!! :Q:shocked::laugh::thumbsup:

Arrg! I am very tempted to call you many unflattering things because not only are you wrong, but you're being very rude about it.

What are you talking about!? Half-Life 2 is not a dramatic presentation!? Let's examine the phrase, shall we? If we rephrase this "dramatic presentation" term, we can call it a "presentation of drama." Now in our search for meaning, we're going to start with a simple case, found in a thesaurus. (Click here for presentation synonyms). A good one is "demonstration." Can we agree that the video game Half-Life 2 is a demontration of the Half-Life 2 story? Watch as I cleverly show you how the term "story" can be interpreted to mean "drama." I'm going to use a thesaurus again for this one. Searching for drama yields these results. If you scroll down a bit, you'll see the term "fiction" or "story." Half-Life 2 was definitely fiction. It definitely contained a story.

Taking these two pieces and fitting them together, we see how a "dramatic presentation" can mean a "story demonstration." Even simpler, we can take the synonym for "drama" (story) and simply call Half-Life 2 a "presentation of story," which is a "dramatic presentation."

Even if you can't accept this definition of "dramatic presentation," how about you go back the word actor? I'm talking about definition "3 : one that takes part in any affair". When you were controlling the actions of Gordon Freeman, you were taking part in the game! Now draw the obvious conclusion.

Another thing:
You drew specific criteria for what an actor is? Well I hate to disappoint you, but the people responsible for defining words in the English language happen to disagree with you!

In addition, your objections are doubly-offensive because I deplore the buzzword "open-minded." My point was not that you should accept everything. My point was that video games are a unique art form and if you can't appreciate the unique elements of this art form (such as allowing you to be an actor in an interactive movie), that's your loss and not mine.

Even after all this, if you disagree, I ask you this: What makes movies and video games different? There has to be a difference between an "audience member" watching a movie and an "audience member" playing a video game, or they are exactly the same. How are they different? Please explain in a calm, inoffensive manner. I did my best to remove the insults from this response and I respectfully request that you do the same in your replies.

By the way, I have a suspicion that I'm being trolled. If you continue to respond in such an offensive manner, I will consider this suspicion confirmed and ignore you. In that case, I will be disappointed only by the fact that the AnandTech Forums do not have a "Permanently Ignore These Trolls" list.

 

[muoot]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: muoot

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: muoot
okay, EpsiIon, so you were not satisified, either.

BTW; we, by the very definition of audience (participatory or not), are not supposed to be actors. The respectable line-up of actors (voices) in HL2 were: Robert Culp, Michelle Forbes, Louis Gossett Jr., Robert Guillaume,etc. These folks were given their portion (at the least) of the script before participating. Perhaps even offered each of their character's movtivation and direction from steam/valve. We as participating audience, were not privy to these ingredients.

And, this blatant lack of even a hint of GF's purpose and motivation is just one element of why the last chapter fell flat for me. But, you don't mind don't mind waiting years for an answers and a plot. Gotcha. I guess, then, you don't have to ask why you are fired.


VIAN:

Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Agreed. and you did a far better job articulating this point than my previous posts.

First of all, please don't try to dismiss my point of view because I said I was not "satisfied" with the ending. I liked not being satisfied. I liked being stunned and frustrated, feeling what our character is feeling. I liked that Valve didn't give us the typical "hollywood ending" where everything is wrapped up.

Obviously you didn't. Ok, that's fine. But, personally, I'm honestly tired of being able to predict the ending to most movies and games.

Secondly, I simply disagree with you about actors. Shigeru Miyamoto, if I recall correctly, has stated that he thinks video games should be like "interactive movies." If this is indeed true, then what can the player be but an actor? If you read the definition to which I linked (esp 2a), we are actors by virtue of the fact that we did participate in the story. When the audience members participate, they become actors.

This is going to sound condescending, but I don't know how else to say it: I'm sorry if you have limited your conception of (the art form that is) video games so much that you can not appreciate this.

You prefer complete unsatsifaction in a storyline. Can not discuss this point with any futher. Good for you. keep it up.

I do not ccept a unreasonable and skewed view on the the concept of actor. I drew specific criteria (script before participating, direction, and motivation revealed to the actor, etc.) and it is disregarded. eh.

oh, and 2a specifically sites a dramatic production which , HL2 is NOT . It is a GAME in which the audience may be participant>> or subjects. Adfditionally, one could easy watch another person play HL2 and not participate. However, the actors are in it to entertain the audience, not vice-versa.

If I am incorrect, and your broad-stroked --so open-minded that your brain falls out-- "any one who participates in a video game is an actor" is accepted and no distinctions are defined,; then, I want my paycheck and residuals $$$$$, beeeeeeach!!! :Q:shocked::laugh::thumbsup:

Arrg! I am very tempted to call you many unflattering things because not only are you wrong, but you're being very rude about it.

What are you talking about!? Half-Life 2 is not a dramatic presentation!? Let's examine the phrase, shall we? If we rephrase this "dramatic presentation" term, we can call it a "presentation of drama." Now in our search for meaning, we're going to start with a simple case, found in a thesaurus. (Click here for presentation synonyms). A good one is "demonstration." Can we agree that the video game Half-Life 2 is a demontration of the Half-Life 2 story? Watch as I cleverly show you how the term "story" can be interpreted to mean "drama." I'm going to use a thesaurus again for this one. Searching for drama yields these results. If you scroll down a bit, you'll see the term "fiction" or "story." Half-Life 2 was definitely fiction. It definitely contained a story.

Taking these two pieces and fitting them together, we see how a "dramatic presentation" can mean a "story demonstration." Even simpler, we can take the synonym for "drama" (story) and simply call Half-Life 2 a "presentation of story," which is a "dramatic presentation."

Even if you can't accept this definition of "dramatic presentation," how about you go back the word actor? I'm talking about definition "3 : one that takes part in any affair". When you were controlling the actions of Gordon Freeman, you were taking part in the game! Now draw the obvious conclusion.

Another thing:
You drew specific criteria for what an actor is? Well I hate to disappoint you, but the people responsible for defining words in the English language happen to disagree with you!

In addition, your objections are doubly-offensive because I deplore the buzzword "open-minded." My point was not that you should accept everything. My point was that video games are a unique art form and if you can't appreciate the unique elements of this art form (such as allowing you to be an actor in an interactive movie), that's your loss and not mine.

Even after all this, if you disagree, I ask you this: What makes movies and video games different? There has to be a difference between an "audience member" watching a movie and an "audience member" playing a video game, or they are exactly the same. How are they different? Please explain in a calm, inoffensive manner. I did my best to remove the insults from this response and I respectfully request that you do the same in your replies.

By the way, I have a suspicion that I'm being trolled. If you continue to respond in such an ignorant and offensive manner, I will consider this suspicion confirmed and ignore you. In that case, I will be disappointed only by the fact that the AnandTech Forums do not have a "Permanently Ignore These Trolls" list.

\

I have stated, quite clearly, the answer to most of your seemingly repetitive questions regarding the difference between and actor and an audience;and, the difference a audience participating video GAME and movie/dramatic presentation is self-apparent. It is rather sophmorphic to continue this discussion which consists mostly of the grade school "websters dictionary says:" .

Actually, you trolled me first by telling me I did not get the (lack of ) "point". So, do not attack, get pasted , then cry foul. You request a polite response Please explain in a calm, inoffensive manner, in paragraph and then in the next paragraph, hypocritically attack me with an wholy untrue and false statment of If you continue to respond in such an ignorant and offensive manner.


Good day to you.



<

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: muoot
I have stated, quite clearly, the answer to most of your seemingly repetitive questions regarding the difference between and actor and an audience;and, the difference a audience participating video GAME and movie/dramatic presentation is self-apparent. It is rather sophmorphic to continue this discussion which consists mostly of the grade school "websters dictionary says:" .

Actually, you trolled me first. So, do not attack, get pasted , then cry foul. You request a polite response Please explain in a calm, inoffensive manner, in paragraph and then in the next paragraph, hypocritically attack me with an wholy untrue and false statment of If you continue to respond in such an ignorant and offensive manner.


Good day to you.

First of all, thank you for replying as you did. I'm sorry about that line. I should have removed the ignorant remark as, in retrospect, it doesn't make much sense. [EDIT]Line removed[/EDIT] I was angry and I apologize. BTW, I never trolled you. A troll, IMO, is a post in which the poster does not believe, but posts anyway simply to make somebody else angry. I no longer believe you were trolling me.

That said, you still haven't addressed my point. I think that games ARE dramatic presentations. I gave you clear reasons why I thought this in the last post, but you refuse to address my reasons, instead saying that the differences are "self-apparent." They are not self-apparent to me, so please explain this. Why is the dictionary wrong about the meaning of words? How can you so blatantly ignore what I'm saying and still claim that you're addressing it?

 

[muoot]

Now, that that's all squared away. (slight wry wit here)

I have stated my case.
A video game is a game. It may have some similarities to a movie or other elements of dramatic presentation, but in the end, the audience particpation level is so high in VG that is surely not just a presentation/demostration. Perhaps that is the key presentation vs. participation. ? ? ? Which leads to the "interactive art" characteristic. etc, etc.

Back to the actors in VG... the audience are not actors because the actors are aware of certain elements that the audience is not privy and the actors have a goal to attempt to entertain the audience. In a effective game, the subject/mark may be lead to believe he/she is an full fledged actor in the situation. However, in the end, the mark is only being entertained.

In end of HF2, GF's motivation was left out. No direction. Under the thumb of the Gman...Does this leave the audience "wanting more"? eh. all sizzile no steak.
Unless, the release of a very enlightening storyline in HL3 is right around the corner... 'Kill Bill' anyone?.

Citing the dictionary is elemantary debait 101 . Khecking it for speeeling errrooorrs, well tat's gust plane smart.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: muoot
Now, that that's all squared away. (slight wry wit here)

I have stated my case.
A video game is a game. It may have some similarities to a movie or other elements of dramatic presentation, but in the end, the audience particpation level is so high in VG that is surely not just a presentation/demostration. Perhaps that is the key presentation vs. participation. ? ? ? Which leads to the "interactive art" characteristic. etc, etc.

Back to the actors in VG... the audience are not actors because the actors are aware of certain elements that the audience is not privy and the actors have a goal to attempt to entertain the audience. In a effective game, the subject/mark may be lead to believe he/she is an full fledged actor in the situation. However, in the end, the mark is only being entertained.


Citing the dictionary is elemantary debait 101 . Khecking it for speeeling errrooorrs, well tat's gust plane smart.

Ok, thanks for that summary. I now understand your viewpoint and, honestly, it makes a lot of sense (I'll come back to this after I clear up the "actor" issue).

I wasn't trying to "win a debate" by citing the dictionary. I was trying to help you understand how I viewed the terms. I was not willing to limit the definition of an "actor" to what I thought was too-narrowly defined. I view an actor as someone who influences events in the world. You can not be an "actor" while watching a movie because you can not "act on" the world presented there. You can, however, "act on" the world in a video game.

You said

the audience are not actors because the actors are aware of certain elements that the audience is not privy and the actors have a goal to attempt to entertain the audience

Here's an interesting question: Are improvisational actors actual "actors" by your definition? If they take on a role without knowledge of the world or the character's motives, they will NOT be privy to special information. They will, however, have the goal of entertaining an audience. But take a hypothetical example of an improvisational actor who's given a role and acts for nobody but the other actors (and his/her self). In this case, the actors become the audience members. This is how I think video games should be. As a participant within the world, you should both be influencing the world and influenced by it. To accomplish this, you must step out of your "audience member" role into something larger. If it is not the role of an "actor," I'm not sure what it could be.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a difference in our viewpoints is that you see video games as simple entertainment. Personally, I believe they can go beyond any other form of entertainment and allow you to temporarily "become" a character within a world (note: some people take this too far, as in MMORPG addictions). When you play the game as this character, you can not expect to know more than that character knows (as you were saying is the difference between characters and actors). Because I took on the role of Gordon Freeman during Half-Life 2, I am content to know just as much as he does until he learns more.

Taking what I think is your viewpoint to its logical conclusion, you view yourself as an audience member who occasionally gets to raise his hand and give some input to the actors. Since the actors did not sufficiently reward you at the end of their performance, you are unhappy. Is this correct, or am I over-simplifying?

[EDIT]
This is in response to muoot's edit which I did not catch in this original post

In end of HF2, GF's motivation was left out. No direction. Under the thumb of the Gman...Does this leave the audience "wanting more"? eh. all sizzile no steak.
Unless, the release of a very enlightening storyline in HL3 is right around the corner... 'Kill Bill' anyone?.

I know what you're saying. It seems like Valve could have very easily given us at least a few answers. I'm not sure why they chose not to.

However, I still think talking about Gordon's motivation is slightly flawed. I can't imagine a motivation other than survival. He (apparently) has no control over when or where the G-Man puts him, and that puts him solely at the G-Man's mercy. Confusing? Yes. Frustrating? Absolutely. Intriguing? I think so, and I hope we see further developments soon.

The people at Valve have created a convincing world and I hope they do not use that world to tease us game after game after game. Then I might just start to think that it's manipulation instead of storytelling.
[/EDIT]

 

[muoot]

Ever watch "Who's Line is it Anyway?" (either US or Brit version). The actors improvise. The audience participates. The MC (judge) gives the actors a criteria to perform the improv. Thus , the actors have direction/movitvation. They (the actors) also probably have a an agreement with the production studio that may entail more criteria. The studio audience participates but the actor's are there to entertain the audience (studio and home). The actors in HL2 are definitely privy to information that the subject audience (player) does not have. No matter how much a player wants to "become" GF (a character), the player is not part of the acting crew.

I know what you're saying. It seems like Valve could have very easily given us at least a few answers. I'm not sure why they chose not to.

Even the Matrix Reloaded :roll: left the audience with at least 2 scenes (Oracle &amp; Architect) in attempt to create an intriguing storyline; and, a cliff-hanger.:roll:

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Sunner
I disagree.
I'm a huge fan on the Dark Tower series as well, I've been reading them(using the term rather loosely) for ~5 years now.
Looking forward to purchasing the last volumes later this year.

Another good series that I read was writted by a Swedish author, a 5 series piece, I read them over ~3 years.

Again you're trying to find some kind of deep answer when the simple explanation is that different people have different tastes.
And you seem to be trying to look intellectually superior at the same time.

It's not that I'm trying to find a deep answer in regard to different tastes, it's simply that people who have tastes different from my own are wrong.

Duh.

I thought you'd have picked up on this by now.

Nonsense, everyone knows I'm always right.

NEVAR! I AM TEH WINNAR!

 

[ucdbiendog]

Originally posted by: Nebor
A few days have passed since I beat the game. I feel better about the story now. I realize that it's just a bridge between HL1 and whatever is to come. I'm just excited for the next installment.

I was pissed about the ending at first... But great graphics, amazing physics, cool characters, awsome atmosphere and involving gameplay made this (I'm gonna say it) the best game I've ever played.

I don't really feel the urge to play through it again though....

yah, i totally agree. i was like wtf at first. but a couple days have past, and i have grown to appreciate the ending. my favorite game of all time for sure.

 

[Farmer]

Aw.. dissappointment! The OICW is not in the game! Damn!

Also, I wonder if I ever get to kill that white lady.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: muoot

Back to the actors in VG... the audience are not actors because the actors are aware of certain elements that the audience is not privy and the actors have a goal to attempt to entertain the audience. In a effective game, the subject/mark may be lead to believe he/she is an full fledged actor in the situation. However, in the end, the mark is only being entertained.

Originally posted by: muoot
Ever watch "Who's Line is it Anyway?" (either US or Brit version). The actors improvise. The audience participates. The MC (judge) gives the actors a criteria to perform the improv. Thus , the actors have direction/movitvation. They (the actors) also probably have a an agreement with the production studio that may entail more criteria. The studio audience participates but the actor's are there to entertain the audience (studio and home). The actors in HL2 are definitely privy to information that the subject audience (player) does not have. No matter how much a player wants to "become" GF (a character), the player is not part of the acting crew.

So what are you saying about the actors in improv? In your "Who's Line is it Anyway" example, the actors aren't privy to any more information than their audience, since the audience themselves are the ones who suggest what to improvise. So where does that take your definition of an actor? (bolded above)

I think you're reaching a bit by offering such a rigid definition of actors to corroborate your explanation of why there cannot be actors in a video game.

We certainly are role players when we play character-based story driven games. Is role playing not like acting?

 

[muoot]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: muoot

Back to the actors in VG... the audience are not actors because the actors are aware of certain elements that the audience is not privy and the actors have a goal to attempt to entertain the audience. In a effective game, the subject/mark may be lead to believe he/she is an full fledged actor in the situation. However, in the end, the mark is only being entertained.

Originally posted by: muoot
Ever watch "Who's Line is it Anyway?" (either US or Brit version). The actors improvise. The audience participates. The MC (judge) gives the actors a criteria to perform the improv. Thus , the actors have direction/movitvation. They (the actors) also probably have a an agreement with the production studio that may entail more criteria. The studio audience participates but the actor's are there to entertain the audience (studio and home). The actors in HL2 are definitely privy to information that the subject audience (player) does not have. No matter how much a player wants to "become" GF (a character), the player is not part of the acting crew.

So what are you saying about the actors in improv? In your "Who's Line is it Anyway" example, the actors aren't privy to any more information than their audience, since the audience themselves are the ones who suggest what to improvise. So where does that take your definition of an actor? (bolded above)

I think you're reaching a bit by offering such a rigid definition of actors to corroborate your explanation of why there cannot be actors in a video game.

We certainly are role players when we play character-based story driven games. Is role playing not like acting?

Actors receive the direction/motivation from the MC in "Who's Line is it Anyway?" . Is so happens that the audience is privy to this information in that show. The audience, however, does not "act" upon this information. The actors entertain the participatory audience.

There are actors in a VG. In HL2, I have listed their names previously(Benson, Ensign Ro, Col. Sinclair, etc.) . The gamer player is not one of them.

Some role-playing can be acting. An actor is a role-player. A role-player is not always an actor.

Just because you have wings does not mean you can fly, ask a turkey.

Now, go eat one! Will ya?:laugh:

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: muoot

Actors receive the direction/motivation from the MC in "Who's Line is it Anyway?" . Is so happens that the audience is privy to this information in that show. The audience, however, does not "act" upon this information. The actors entertain the participatory audience.

There are actors in a VG. In HL2, I have listed their names previously(Benson, Ensign Ro, Col. Sinclair, etc.) . The gamer player is not one of them.

Some role-playing can be acting. An actor is a role-player. A role-player is not always an actor.

Just because you have wings does not mean you can fly, ask a turkey.

Now, go eat one! Will ya?:laugh:

I see your point re: being an actor vs. a participant (ie a game player). But then again you're talking about theatrical acting, whereas Epsilon later changed his tune and used the much looser meaning, "one who acts," which is not incorrect. You do act in the game, on quite a few things. But in his first post, he called us actors in comparison to audience members, implying an actor of the theatrical type. So basically, as always, this has turned into a pointless argument of semantics, in which you're both right and wrong at the same time, depending on the perspective.

Also, many wild turkeys can fly nontrivial distances . Maybe I'll eat some ostrich instead?

 

[VIAN]

You drew specific criteria for what an actor is? Well I hate to disappoint you, but the people responsible for defining words in the English language happen to disagree with you!

What do they know, they can never make up their minds anyway.

 

[muoot]

As for the both riight &amp; wrong perspective...If one is participating in a game, even for insignificant distances, one better know who the subject is and who actors are. Or, better put: If you sit down at a poker table and cannot tell who the sucker is, then...



Update:

found This link with some good HL2 storyline info.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: muoot
As for the both riight &amp; wrong perspective...If one is participating in a game, even for insignificant distances, one better know who the subject is and who actors are. Or, better put: If you sit down at a poker table and cannot tell who the sucker is, then...



Update:

found This link with some good HL2 storyline info.

Well, I'm back from Thanksgiving break. I also just ran into that storyline and am in the process of reading it. Actually, I'm trying to extract those newspaper textures from the game content so I can see if it is any more legible than it was in the game. I'm just not sure where the .wads (I'm assuming they used .wads in HL2) are.

Anyway, back to the discussion. Your specific "Who's Line" example doesn't respond to the specific question I'm asking. I'm asking: By your definition, is an improv actor without an audience and without motivation? an actor at all?

I'm asking because I think this is exactly the position we've been given in Half-Life 2. We have no character-specific motivation (other than survival°) and we have no audience other than ourselves. In my view, we are improv actors dropped into the world of Half-Life 2. Heck, most of us know more than an improv actor in Gordon's position would. If I hired a big-name actor, let him play through Half-Life 1, and then plopped him down on the set of my in-production Half-Life 2 movie and told him to act, would you say he's "not an actor?" He may have difficulty acting, but that doesn't mean he won't feel out the role. That's all we're doing in Half-Life 2 and yet you insist that we can not be actors in a video game. I just don't understand it.

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
I see your point re: being an actor vs. a participant (ie a game player). But then again you're talking about theatrical acting, whereas Epsilon later changed his tune and used the much looser meaning, "one who acts," which is not incorrect. You do act in the game, on quite a few things. But in his first post, he called us actors in comparison to audience members, implying an actor of the theatrical type. So basically, as always, this has turned into a pointless argument of semantics, in which you're both right and wrong at the same time, depending on the perspective.

Perhaps my above response to muoot's latest posts will clear up my position for you. I backed off on my original definition of actor because I wanted to step back until we could come to a common point of view (e.g. an actor is somebody who acts) and then show how that view applies to Half-Life 2 (e.g. we act in Half-Life 2, so you can't mean that we are not actors. You must mean that we're not paid actors, or something to that effect.)



FOOTNOTES:
? I only mention motivation here because I think direction is usually explicit (or obvious). For example, you could have an improv situation where you and a friend are on stage. The director points to your friend and says, "You're the son." Then he points to you and says, "You're the father." In the case, you've both been given direction, but not motivation. An example of motivation would be, "The son just crashed the car." If you disagree with these defintions of direction and motivation, please explain.

° One could also argue that we actually do have motivation in the other characters (i.e. wanting them to survive), but this is debatable.