Half-Life 2

Pongky already summed up his thoughts about Half-Life 2, but having seen it myself, I’d like to add my own comments. Unfortunately I can't bring a direct comparison to bear, since I was shown a demo that was at least partially different - ours included no scene with a crane, for instance.

After the September 30th pronouncement last year, Gabe declined to give a release date this time around, though the last announcement had the game pegged for "Summer 2004". As last year, the demo was still canned and not at all interactive. It was clearly running off the actual game engine as at two points in the presentation, Gabe dropped out to the desktop and quit the game via the console.

After last year's demo and subsequent code leak, accusations sprung up from those who had played the leaked version that the demos were scripted and not snippets of gameplay as originally stated by Valve. We don't have personal experience with the leaked code, but the sheer quantity of those accusations is enough to give one pause. Valve declined to comment on the leak, and rather than respond to it with an interactive demo, they simply repeated last year's performance.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me: To say that the lack of an interactive demo is a disappointment would be an understatement. While competitors like Doom 3 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. left themselves out in the open for a more honest inspection, Valve declined to enter the arena on even footing. That's perfectly within their rights, of course, but after last year forgive us if we're more cynical this time around. At best, Valve can be said to have chosen select snippets which show the gameplay at its most impressive - ie, similar to, but clearly far better than what the real experience will be like. For example, Gordon is racing along in his buggy when he encounters a blockade of Combine soldiers. He drives his vehicle forward into one of them, smashing him and the fence behind it. Wow! Great! Destructible buildings! Or rather, a destructible fence. If Gordon had thrown his vehicle at the actual building next to the fence, he'd have bounced off or crashed to a stop, with nary a scratch visible on the shabby-yet-indestructible structure. A similar situation occurs in the strider fight - Gordon hides behind a column which just happens to be destructible, and is blown apart by the Strider's cannon. But what if he'd hidden behind a building or even a piece of glass that wasn't designed to break?

It's not that Valve has ever stated "wow, check out our destructible environments". Yet they do go out of their way to show an image of the game that is completely idealized. I suppose not much more can be expected from a game developer or publisher, but if that's true - why is E3 absolutely littered with playable games? Other companies are just like Valve - they all want their games seen in the best possible light - but unlike Valve, they're willing to risk fair, public, pre-release scrutiny of their gameplay. I admit I fell for the hype last year, but not this time around. Just as Valve isn't obligated to show off an interactive demo, I'm not obligated to drool over their selection of idealized sequences.

When I talk about S.T.A.L.K.E.R., I can honestly say: wow, that looks like a great game. I played it and experienced the surprisingly good multiplayer it offered. When I look at Half-Life 2, all that can honestly be said is that "Valve knows how to make an incredible canned demo taken from highly select gameplay sequences". Yes, you do see gameplay, in an idealized fashion. We know Half-Life 2 just about as well as we know celebrities based off their airbrushed pictures, publicist-approved interviews and sugarcoated A&E biographies.

That’s all for today, see you next time!