Only time story or characters matter is if you actually care.
Gordon "Errand Boy" Freeman.
It's rather ironic he's named 'Free man'
Anything could be further from the truth.
You know what I would like to see? Innovation.
Now hear me out. Let's say a concept that rarely works. A sidekick.
What is a sidekick?
A sidekick is there to supposedly help you, like Robin for Batman.
What happens in the end?
Robin is in the way. Robin is, most definitely going to die at the end.
But since Robin was in the way all the time, you're probably just going to hate the guy, or be annoyed.
So the ending comes along and what do you know.
It's like, Robin or the Damsel in distress!
MAKE YOUR CHOICE.
Well Robin was a pain in the ass so I'll go with the dame.
Robin dies.
Nobody cares.
Sidekicks usually aren't helpful. They're slow, they're clumsy, they're stupid.
Instead of a dramatic ending, I always wondered about one thing.
When I played Goldeneye, as old games were. Things were in levels.
Get to the end of the level and it's Mission Accomplished!
The thing I wonder about, why is it Mission Failed when you know, it didn't go as you had planned?
I mean, take Half-life 2. Just as an example.
If this would have anything 'realistic' about it. Their chances of survival, especially Alyx.
Would be very slim.
I mean she runs around in jeans and a jacket, it's not much for protection.
What? There's like aliens, those other guys with the guns, and zombies.
Let's say Alyx, you know, dies. But instead of giving you a message that's says
'Mission Failed!'
Why not just continue the game?
I mean, it's not like 'Freeman' would just fall over and die.
He would continue. He would kill off the zombies and he would go on and save the world or something.
One thing about it, they would be be vulnerable!
They could die at anytime, anywhere, by anything.
Wouldn't that make the most dramatic ending for their part?
Instead of the long drawn out ending.
I mean, how can you care about something, that can't die.
That's not human, you know. We die. We die all the time.
Vulnerable.
People might say that would take a lot of stuff to actually do that.
But I don't know.
Just something I've been thinking about.
I mean this is just one thing.
Let's take those timer stuff. If you don't get there 'in time', (Why do I have a timer anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be variable instead? Why does the world fade to black because one person died?)
the person dies. And your hear a shot, a gunshot! A BAM that echoes through the tunnel.
And then you see it, the gun, the villain, and the (dead) girl you love (I'm writing, shut up)
That, would make one hell of a villain. Now that's how villains are supposed to be.
Bad. It's like they have this set of rules for them. 'Alright guys, be evil but not TOO evil!'
You know, there is a saying that a film is only as great as the films villain.
Now, how great is the villain if you know, never really does any bad stuff.
How come?
Because the 'hero' always gets there in time.
Kind hard not to when he has a timer just the second he will blow up the bomb, or kill the girl.
I always thought it would make it much better, really.
I mean, the ending isn't dramatic.
It always happens, it's predicable. Someone dies. Always at the end.
Cry on cue.
And for the record, fuck Half-life 2.
I can't believe how many people think it's good.
It isn't. It really is, at best, average. If that.
If you would compare the two, you know, to see the difference.
It would go like this.
Half-life 1. Had like many older games, ladders, levers that need to be pulled and buttons to be pushed. Along with some simple puzzles on the way.
Half-life 2. Same thing. And the puzzles were identical. Nice...
Half-life 1. Good AI.
Half-life 2. Bad AI.
Half-life 1. Good soundtrack.
Half-life 2. Not as good. (I thought anyway)
Half-life 1. Diverse, interesting enemies.
Half-life 2. NO.
Half-life 1. You're not a freaking errand boy.
Half-life 2. You are the errand boy.
Half-life 1. Good weapons. Plenty of ammo. (In older games there weren't ammo for guns.
Just keep shooting baby! Things will die and go boom.
Half-life 2. You have a shotgun (Only thing you get ammo for) and the gravity gun. (GG the thing everyone talked about when it got out by the way. "OH, and has the GRAVITY GUN, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS AWESOME.)
Half-life 1. No sidekicks. Unless you count the guards. I liked them. You can kill them.
They die. I like that.
Half-life 2. Has sidekick. (Can Alyx even die?)
Half-life 1. Just enough difficulty. (Normal difficulty to be precise.)
Half-life 2. Very easy. Even if you play it on hard. Don't like that.
When Half-life 2 got out, people talked about two things.
The gravity gun. (Not the characters and the story)
And you can't pick up enemies with it. I know, it would really be so 'balanced'. I get that.
Obviously.
You know though... Who cares?
It's fun.
Let's use a simple formula.
Fun > Balance
And what was the other thing. Uh.
I don't know. I can't remember.
People just went on talking about how great the gravity gun is.
Uh, yeah!
Can't pick up enemies, fun fun.
Really though, why can't it do that. Even if it was those lighter enemies.
Like those spider crabs, you know. Try eating my face when I blast you to the wall.
You know what's worse than fanboys?
Nothing.
Genocide is like, pretty ok compared to fanboys.
And all those fanboys that absolutely love Half-Life 2.
Argh!
They just go and on.
Not to speak of will try to convert anyone to your faith.
Seriously, Freeman is like your Jesus, and I guess G-man is Satan.
Honestly, I'm sick of hearing how good Half-life 2.
It's been years and I still hear those assholes tell me how good it is.
Fanboys should be banned on sight, from the internet, then shot.
You don't see me go on how good Goldeneye is compared to every new game that comes out you assholes. There's a reason for that.
Nobody cares.
Now, go on with your lives.
And if someone says Half-life 2 is a good game, or even remotely close to anything good in life.
You tell them: Whatever