I have to agree with him, honestly. HL2 was novel for its time, but if you’re playing it for the first time in 2026 then yeah, it really doesn’t hold up to modern game experiences. I also dislike games that end ambiguously or on cliffhangers, and the lack of closure provided from sequel-bait endings like HL2’s can be annoying to people who just want to play a complete story. I want to see it through to the end and get the feeling that my actions had any sort of consequence to the world, and HL2 really doesn’t provide that.
And narratively, the fact that Gordon is a silent protagonist really doesn’t make the player feel like they’re a real part of that world, and rather they’re just going along for an on-rails carnival ride. The player has no real agency to affect anything that isn’t a part of the singular route offered by the game. This would be okay if it was a role-playing game, and the player is intended to use their imagination to fill in the blanks, but HL2 is a wholly linear game where characters just bark commands at you from start to finish.
Honestly, for being a negative review, I think he was very fair about it. It’s an important part of gaming history, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into a great experience for modern players.
HL2 has a ton of story, but it isn’t spelled out in cutscenes or written down in item descriptions. It’s discussed by NPCs and inferred from the environment. You experience it all in a first person frame, without third person cutscenes or by asking someone to exposit at you. You don’t even have to go out of your way with a guide on your second monitor to unlock that info, it’s right there with you, you just have to pay attention.
You’re a person in the world and nobody will be the explaining the concept of lightbulbs or the where the combine came from or how the city was built. But you can absolutely find out more about that in the game.
I have to agree with him, honestly. HL2 was novel for its time, but if you’re playing it for the first time in 2026 then yeah, it really doesn’t hold up to modern game experiences. I also dislike games that end ambiguously or on cliffhangers, and the lack of closure provided from sequel-bait endings like HL2’s can be annoying to people who just want to play a complete story. I want to see it through to the end and get the feeling that my actions had any sort of consequence to the world, and HL2 really doesn’t provide that.
And narratively, the fact that Gordon is a silent protagonist really doesn’t make the player feel like they’re a real part of that world, and rather they’re just going along for an on-rails carnival ride. The player has no real agency to affect anything that isn’t a part of the singular route offered by the game. This would be okay if it was a role-playing game, and the player is intended to use their imagination to fill in the blanks, but HL2 is a wholly linear game where characters just bark commands at you from start to finish.
Honestly, for being a negative review, I think he was very fair about it. It’s an important part of gaming history, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into a great experience for modern players.
HL2 has a ton of story, but it isn’t spelled out in cutscenes or written down in item descriptions. It’s discussed by NPCs and inferred from the environment. You experience it all in a first person frame, without third person cutscenes or by asking someone to exposit at you. You don’t even have to go out of your way with a guide on your second monitor to unlock that info, it’s right there with you, you just have to pay attention.
You’re a person in the world and nobody will be the explaining the concept of lightbulbs or the where the combine came from or how the city was built. But you can absolutely find out more about that in the game.
But yes, we all hate the cliffhanger.
Yeah I played it for the first time last year and I couldn’t really get into it. Gave up a few hours in.