I first got my hands on Half-Life 2 when I purchased the Orange Box last October. Lack of funds and a sufficient video card had kept me from indulging up to that point, but the promise of Team Fortress 2 beta and Portal was too tempting, so I eagerly gave in a shelled out the 45 clams for a prerelease copy on Steam. Naturally, I’ve spent a great deal of my time since then playing TF2, and with Portal being my single-player top priority, Half-Life 2 was pushed to the side and became a game I turn too when can’t connect to the internet, or I’m hanging out with my brother and we want an FPS to play together. The game is his favorite shooter, after all, and he can help me when I’m stuck—which brings me to my point: Half-Life 2, while and undeniably great game that changed what we could expect from video games back in 2004, contains some elements that just frustrate and confuse the long-time gamer in me.
Maybe I should start by confirming my credentials as a gamer to give you a sense of where I’m coming from. My first conscious memory is of myself playing Centipede at Little Caesar’s with my mom. I was pressing the button while she moved the little shooter-pod around at the bottom of the screen. These were back in the days when Little Caesar’s was dimly lit and it resembled some kind of dungeon filled with video games and pizza. It was heaven for my young imagination. I obsessively played Centipede, my sharpening dexterity eventually allowing me to graduate to solo play and expand my repertoire to include Rampage and Donkey Kong. These were days when you could still find Street Fighter in the supermarkets and such, and I would stay behind with a pocket of quarters whenever my mother did the shopping.
My first “home” video game unit was an original Gameboy, given to me by an aunt when I was five for Christmas. Up until this point, and continuing until I was ten, “TV” video games were forbidden, and the Gameboy was some kind of concession to satiate my growing desire. I begged for a Super Nintendo constantly over the years, but was always denied. Therefore, I threw myself into reading about video games: strategy guides, magazines, and reviews. I quickly learned about the games I wanted to play, and what made them good. In this time I also played extensively with friends at their houses and got way into games like Super Mario World, Sonic the Hedgehog, Earthworm Jim, Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, and Vectorman—well, as much as two hours a day three to four times a week will let you.
Eventually I won out over my parents nay saying, got an N64, and the rest has been history. I’ve been playing video games and scrutinizing them ever since—right up to now with Half-Life 2—and as I’ve gotten older, I’ve learned to keep an eye out for design elements, both good and bad, as they become apparent. Half-Life 2 itself is a masterpiece and has all the right elements where it counts. The controls feel second nature, the visuals are immersive and “real” and the plot is top notch—and delivered well to boot. It’s just the little things that get me down some times.
See, as any hardcore gamer knows, when you sit down to play a video game, you’re not fighting the enemy soldiers, or zombies, or taxpayers, you’re using the set of player-controlled elements given to you to play against the mechanics built by the game designers. You are given a set of elements you can control, and are essentially dealing with whatever the preprogrammed system throws at you and the scenario is a veil that obscures this. This is why seasoned gamers always see how far they can stretch those player-controlled elements to discover bugs, exploits, etc that either make the game easier or expose a hole in the veil. Of course, this is why realism is important: to distract and immerse the player. It’s like The Matrix: if the scenario is believable, or at least convincingly feasible, then the player is more likely to excuse the bugs or “bad design” and continue playing happily. But, if the flaws are too prevalent or the scenario can’t adequately draw the player in, then the player begins to get frustrated and loses interest. 90% of bad games are bad for this reason. Now, the more freedom you give the player the easier it is for the bad elements to become exposed, but linear games (like Half-Life 2) have an edge in that they can direct the player’s attention.
When it comes to designing a linear game, or at least the linear elements of a game (and all games have them), the challenge for the player should, in my opinion, come from what I refer to as “figuring out how to get there” as opposed to “figuring out where to go.” This means, well, basically what it sounds like. In Super Mario Bros. you know where the exit is and the challenge is getting to it, not finding it. The player should know where they’re going, and then be given the freedom to decide how they want to navigate there—it’s not just about finding the only possible solution the designers intended, which is tedious and boring at best; clever designers (like the ones who designed Super Mario Bros.) allow for multiple “solutions” by keeping the obstacles non-restrictive and allowing the player some level of leeway—basically creating a bubble of freedom within the linearity.
3-D games have improved on this concept but also made it much more complicated. It’s almost an elementary concept now, but the goal is not always on the left side of the screen anymore, and can be, in fact, anywhere, so a game successful in this respect provides direction and “signs” for the player to read that tell him or her where to go so that he or she can focus on getting there. Half-Life 2, in this case, is so immersive to the point that it’s detrimental.
Situation: I’m in Ravenholm in the large “room” where regular headcrab zombies, flingers, and monkey zombies spawn endlessly. I start at one end of the room. I recognize this situation from Resident Evil 4 and begin taking out zombies. I realize eventually, while searching for the exit, that they are, in fact, spawning endlessly, and that the exit is non-existent. The trail I’m looking for turns out to be the stack of crates I’ve run past several times in search of a spare moment to look for the exit. The issue: the color pallet blends the set pieces with the traversable terrain so well that I repeatedly run past the mound of boxes dismissing them as decoration. When it comes to actually climbing the stack, I’m immediately concerned that I’m unnecessarily exposing myself to a threat that has been established as unstoppable. Jumping up the crates forces me to stand virtually in one place while making a series of four short hops, exposed to flying crabs and god knows what else—I’m just so damn paranoid that I’m worried anything can and will go wrong for me at this point. I’m disoriented and confused—which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Case in point: Metal Gear Solid. Case in point: Eternal Darkness. Except it doesn’t seem intentional. Instead, I’m back playing Castlevania, trying for the nineteenth damn time to find the exact jumping pattern to avoid certain doom and beginning to worry that the designers intentionally designed this section poorly to increase potential play time. But I’m not, I’m playing Half-Life 2, a much better game. I like Half-Life 2!
Furthermore, once I’m atop the larger storage boxes, traversing the system of wooden planks that look too narrow to support me, I’m confronted with more zombies and learn that my previous faith in tactically dispatching them was misplaced. It appears that while applying combat strategy to this situation does nothing but waste my ammo—firing at zombies that don’t react to being shot in the leg, chest or any extremity—standing still and taking headshots proves much more effective.
Most of what I believe about good, modern game design, I learned from Valve. Their developer commentaries have introduced the world to their style of design and sheds light on how they always deliver a satisfying product: “cabal” groups that tackle problems based on who has the better solution rather than simply whose job it is to fix it, and playtesting, lots and lots of playtesting. I’m with them on both of these points—playtesting especially, since nearly all bugs, exploits, and “cracks” in the veil can be rooted out through good, extensive playtesting. What it comes down to is that they don’t skimp on the polishing, and polishing is what gives a game longevity. And that is why, given all this, I can’t believe my own complaints about Half-Life 2.
In the Portal commentaries, the Valve designers stress again and again the importance of teaching the player a new skill before asking them to implement it, and that’s one problem I seem to have with Half-Life 2: I just don’t feel like I’m being taught what I need to know. “Trial and error” gameplay is to be expected from any game—you can’t always be right the first time—but it seems like I’m having to start over A LOT in Half-Life 2, something that a long-time gamer who’s been around his fair share of first-person shooters shouldn’t have to do to such a degree. It also seems like the game punishes you for exploring, something you must do to find exits. I go off the path (when I know I’m on it) to look for ammo, health, maybe an Easter egg or two, and am usually rewarded with wasted ammo and two lost lives. I remember Half-Life 2 being criticized for being too linear, but the balance seems out of whack. Is this how they intend to guide me through the game? By mercilessly punishing me for going off the path until I do it right?
Situation: I’m driving the buggy along the coast, taking out zerglings—er, antlions with the mounted gun. I’m having a great time, until I’m confronted with a situation challenging me to get out of the buggy, climb up a ramp and activate some magnet controls while being assaulted by antlions and shot at by combine soldiers. At first, this challenge is fun, but soon becomes tiresome as I begin to realize that none of my solutions are going to work, and it simply is going to come down to perfecting the asinine process of getting out of the buggy, and fending off all the attacks on my way to the controls. Using the buggy to shoot the soldiers proves useless, since their slim profiles make horrible targets and driving the thing around in circles unable to watch the road because I’ve got to aim to the side only results in getting stuck in the pool Valve conveniently placed there to expose the player to all kinds of horrible death while he or she wastes ammo fending off antlions in order to buy time to dig him or herself out with the gravity gun. I understand wanting to impress on the player the feeling pressure to perform in intense situations but this just isn’t fun anymore after five or so tries. I eventually succeed, but only after I’ve found and perfected the one possible route that has become apparent to me through all my failures.
I want to stress once again that I’m not turned off to Half-Life 2 by any of the complaints here. When I’m doing things right, figuring out the puzzles in a reasonable amount of time, and engaging in tight fire fights with the Combine soldiers, I’m having a great time. It’s just that, between these great action sequences, there’s a lot tedious “figuring out where to go.” But maybe it’s not all bad. When I finally get it right, the sense of achievement I get is great. It’s kind of like I’m on a seesaw: I’m either really loving Half-Life 2 or hating its guts, but something tells me that will make it all the better when I finish it.