Aerothorn on 13/11/2009 at 19:37
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
In terms of awesome setbacks, I'd go with "this eye is completely blind".
I agree - that was one of those things that you KNEW was going to happen, yet somehow managed to be really surprising when it did.
june gloom on 13/11/2009 at 20:33
Quote Posted by nicked
I also thought it was great pacing to return the player to square 1 weapons-wise at this point. It made for a great eye-of-the-storm quiet puzzle section after the frantic action of Surface Tension but with the certain knowledge that it's not over yet...
psst
Surface Tension comes later- two whole chapters in between- and is part of the very long surface fighting towards the end. You're thinking of Apprehension.
nicked on 13/11/2009 at 21:03
Oh yeah; the chapter with the assassins anyway. Difficult fighting, then change of pace...
Sulphur on 13/11/2009 at 21:07
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Losing your weapons between Episodes 1 and 2 is a bit contrived, though, especially since Gordon's been through equally catastrophic situations without losing his weapons.
That's true. I can't fathom why they needed to do that, unless they're desperate for each episode to have the whole 'linear progression' element intact.
Even then, all they had to do was up the difficulty with more and tougher enemies, and perhaps introduce new weapons.
doctorfrog on 13/11/2009 at 21:42
Regarding the HL1 trash compactor, it was a little annoying, but I remember being fairly intrigued by it the first time I played it. What makes this little plot twist so annoying in retrospect is how so many games imitated it to the point of cliche.
Deus Ex handled the lose-your-stuff thing pretty well by placing you in an open-ended level, where you could decide where you wanted to go first. In a way, the level didn't give you back your stuff, you had to go looking for it, and only if you wanted to (though you'd be a fool if you didn't). It also gave up a bunch of extra toys for your trouble.
gunsmoke on 13/11/2009 at 21:58
Quote Posted by doctorfrog
Deus Ex handled the lose-your-stuff thing pretty well by placing you in an open-ended level, where you could decide where you wanted to go first. In a way, the level didn't give you back your stuff, you had to go looking for it, and only if you wanted to (though you'd be a fool if you didn't). It also gave up a bunch of extra toys for your trouble.
Very true. You very well could skip the entire armory. Good point. Also, it has been so goddamn long since I played Half-Life, that I don't even remember a freaking trash compactor.:sweat:
june gloom on 13/11/2009 at 22:21
Quote Posted by doctorfrog
Regarding the HL1 trash compactor, it was a little annoying, but I remember being fairly intrigued by it the first time I played it. What makes this little plot twist so annoying in retrospect is how so many games imitated it to the point of cliche.
(
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WarringWithoutWeapons) Half-Life wasn't anywhere near the first game to do this. Duke3D did it as early as E1M3, and Redneck Rampage, frustratingly enough, did it with E2M2- which would be fine, except if you start from episode one it just goes straight through to episode 2 without you having to select it so you lose everything you've gotten since the beginning of the game.
Angel Dust on 14/11/2009 at 00:32
Quote Posted by dethtoll
They were ordered to take him topside for questioning. On their way there they decide not to. They probably just threw him in the trash compactor for laughs, or because if they just gave Gordon a doubletap to the back of the head someone might come running and see they've gone against orders. At least with the trash compactor body disposal is easy.
Obviously by throwing you in the disposal they intended to kill you, and that's certainly what the exchange posted by nicked is suggesting, so it makes no sense that they didn't put a bullet in your head/break your neck etc first. Now I'm not saying that's what should have happened :p, and this kind of thing is certainly not limited to games, but it illustrates what is usually wrong with these setbacks. It's not the fact your weapons are removed but that it requires that characters behave in a way contrary to what we know of their nature/motivations.
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
In terms of awesome setbacks, I'd go with "this eye is completely blind".
Agreed. That's exactly the kind of dramatic/emotional setback I was talking about in my previous post. The gameplay hasn't been affected but the plot has taken such a disastrous, yet believable, turn for our character that we feel like we are on the back foot.
inselaffe on 14/11/2009 at 00:54
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Oh yeah, let's not forget the idiot Bioshock protagonist injecting an unknown substance into his arm and then backing himself off a balcony.
I was pissed off about this cos I remember being told before it was released that you would be able to "go through the game without using plasmids, but it would be very very difficult" but would allow you to "preserve your humanity" cos you wouldn't have to use the plasmids.
I haven't played all of the game - just up to the first "boss" on a friends pc (so not very far) but it annoyed me just having the plasmids forced onto me, especially in a game that was meant to be about player choice and how your decisions affect you as a person. :erg:
june gloom on 14/11/2009 at 02:02
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
Obviously by throwing you in the disposal they intended to kill you, and that's certainly what the exchange posted by nicked is suggesting, so it makes no sense that they didn't put a bullet in your head/break your neck etc first. Now I'm not saying that's what should have happened :p, and this kind of thing is certainly not limited to games, but it illustrates what is usually wrong with these setbacks. It's not the fact your weapons are removed but that it requires that characters behave in a way contrary to what we know of their nature/motivations.
Consider taking a reading class because this argument's already been refuted before you even posted it.
Of course they intended to kill you. They- as in those two guys- came to the decision
while they were taking you topside. One can only speculate why they didn't just shoot you, though I imagine that's because it would be harder to cover up. The point is, it's not as contrived as you're making it out to be if you just take a few things into consideration.
