Gordon Freeman's character devlopment

[The A]

A long time ago a friend and I were talking about Half-Life 2 and he was saying that he liked such and such game better then Half-Life because Half-Life had no character development. I had to admit I couldn't come up with a good counter argument other then Dr. Mossmen (this is excluding the episodes).

Then I recently watched an old review of Half-Life 2 by GooseGoose and it got me thinking. He mentioned how the player's relationship with Alyx changed over the course of the game and it made me realize: What if Gordon Freeman is the one who's character develops? What if the game is the player's development as a hero?

You kind of see this in the first Half-Life Game. I played Half-Life 2 first, but from what I hear the beginning was pretty scary and players might possibly have even ran from some combat encounters (the headcrab lift being a possible example). I never played Half-Life when it first came out, but I do know that by the end of the game you're charging into the Nihalith's chamber guns blazing, no longer a scared scientist.

I did play Half-Life 2, however, without knowing anything before hand. Thought out "Route Kanal" and through out the coast the player is essentially running from the combine. For example, having enemies shoot at you in the distance and in an elevated position, leaving railroad members behind, escaping Black Mesa East, and losing your buggy. But at Nova Prospect this changes, NOW you're attacking the combine at one of their main bases of operation. This location is also where your relationship with Alyx develops. As GooseGoose points out, before Nova Prospect Alyx is impersonally leading you and giving aid to help you reach your next goal, but now she's fighting alongside you.

Everyone remembers the over-enthusiastic resistance members in "Follow Freeman!", but does anyone remember before then? When travelling through the canals most people regard you as "just another guy" (despite wearing a bright orange suit). By the time you meet resistance bases along the coast you're respected, but no one is worshiping you. The citizens become an interesting reflection of the player's development (despite player's not always thinking they deserve such praise) .

By the end of the game you're no longer a fugitive on the run, terrified of fast zombies and scared of man-hacks.
By the end of the game you're off to save Alyx, blasting you're way through the citadel ready to confront the leader of the combine on earth.


I'm interested in what you guys think of these musings: bad, good, or insane. I'm also interested if you guys have any similar thoughts about the episodes.

[nub]

That's actually a very good theory. Valve has always aimed for putting the player in Gordon's shoes, rather than giving Gordon a mind of his own. That's why I always disagree with the argument that he should have a voice and talk at his own will. When you assume total control as a player, you essentially become Gordon and everything he does is of your will rather than that of the writer's or Gordon's will. I think the end result of your actions as the player are reflected in the world itself, just as you described. Alyx and, I guess, Gman are the only two characters aside from Gordon that really develop, and it's not by a whole lot. I will agree that this is one weak point with the story, as well as odd pacing. But as a whole I find Half Life as an FPS game to have the most engaging story. I don't think anything has come close, aside from the original Bioshock. Infinite was good too, but not as good as the original.

Anyway, cool theory. I'm sure plenty of other 'lopers have some input on it.

[SmileTime]

I think your really right about that. If you play HL1 you can see the beginning of the transformation. In the beginning he is just a new young scientist, late to work, overqualified with a PHd whoose only job is to push a button. He is just a random cog in a giant corporate military industrial complex. Early on survival is difficult and the challenge builds from climbing an elevator shaft (think of all TV shows were people kept stuck in an elevator and are helpless, not GF) all the way to the final boss fight and your new start working with the G-Men.

It's sort of a very nerdy escapist fantasy, hell the whole thing could have been in his head. His character goes from random science slog to hero of the world.

It is pretty awesome how they tell that story, that archetype, without ever telling it. That's the kind of stuff that gets Valve accolades for their story telling. HL1 was critically acclaimed for many reasons, and a big one was advancing the way story telling is done in an FPS.

[zombie@computer]

I think your really right about that. If you play HL1 you can see the beginning of the transformation. In the beginning he is just a new young scientist, late to work, overqualified with a PHd whoose only job is to push a button. He is just a random cog in a giant corporate military industrial complex. Early on survival is difficult and the challenge builds from climbing an elevator shaft (think of all TV shows were people kept stuck in an elevator and are helpless, not GF) all the way to the final boss fight and your new start working with the G-Men.

If this is character development even counterstrike has character development.

[Major Banter]

If this is character development even counterstrike has character development.

That's a very dismissive attitude to take. Unless the player is actually experiencing the development personally, it carries no impact. That's what makes playing meathead soldiers extremely dull in terms of story - there's no development to take part in, just the gameplay itself.

Half-Life 1 does this extremely well. You develop as a player, and develop as a character. You're not informed of your development, you're not told that you're improving, becoming a threat to the military or becoming the one badass that'll save Earth from the Xen invasion - you do it, you experience it, and only when you think about it do you realise how much you have improved over the course of the game.

This pervades through everything you do; giving the player epic shit to immediately do (i.e. Call of Duty) gives the game nowhere to go. It's a repetitive crescendo, and flat. There has to be a development curve, no matter how mundane it may start. Small victories give way to greater ones - dodging some easy to avoid lasers leads into moving around a warehouse full of laser mines and a nuclear warhead. Jumping through a warehouse of boxes leads into darting around an alien world with a jetpack.

This is clever stuff, and dismissing character development's link to player experience is a huge mistake to make.

[Jangalomph]

Speaking of Gordon being quiet, and letting him develop on his own. I thoroughly enjoyed it and cant wait to see what happens next. As an example of a game i truly hate, far cry 3. I only got 1/4 into the game and quit, because the guy was such a pussy i couldn't bear it any longer. His voice got on my ever lasting nerves. His remarks of killing some one like oh my god oh my god i cant believe this, after the past 40 hours i've been killing camps just gets to me.

[zombie@computer]

If this is character development even counterstrike has character development.

That's a very dismissive attitude to take. Unless the player is actually experiencing the development personally, it carries no impact. That's what makes playing meathead soldiers extremely dull in terms of story - there's no development to take part in, just the gameplay itself.

Not really. SmileTime simply described a game becoming increasingly difficult. I know very little games that aren't. There are other aspects in hl1 that meant so much more as character development, but just the 'first you can only do jump puzzles, then you fight increasingly difficult enemies' isnt character development.

[The A]

If this is character development even counterstrike has character development.

Well, in counter-strike as you progress through the game you get better skilled. Couldn't skill
be considered a character trait? Perhaps subconsciously, playing counter-strike has changed you as a person. If Gordon Freeman and the Player are synonymous, wouldn't Gordon have developed too?

Actually, Now that I think about it: all games have a similar learning curve - even before Half-Life. Perhaps Half - Life just contextualizes it. Instead of just getting better at the game, Half-Life makes it where you're getting better in the world.

So this sort of thing might have happened before, we just never labeled it "Character Development".
Then again, in what other games are the game's character's name the player's name (If you catch my meaning)?

[Stormy]

I think this is a good concept, but I don't think HL2 does it particularly well, or that valve set out to do it at any point. I think it is better evidenced in Halo, believe it or not. In the first game you're going around blasting shit up and it's great. In Halo 2 the grunts and elites call you 'the demon' and are actually scared of master chief in particular. I think this more accurately showcases what you're talking about. I think bungie did a good job of displaying this form of character development in that the world reacts to the threat of the character more as the players apparent skill level goes up. This really helps tie the player to the character, and increases immersion.

Having that reaction directly tie into how well the player is doing would be a much more effective way of doing this though. For instance if the player is blasting through the game then the AI could call up reinforcements (and make sure the player knows that this is because they are doing well) or be more cautious/scared/hide more the better the player does. If the player is doing badly then the AI could be really nonchalant about tackling them in battle. This could have the convenient side effect of adjusting the difficulty based on the players apparent skill level.

Actually, that is some bioshock-level player interaction. That could be a really amazing feature to have in a game.

[The A]

Actually, that is some bioshock-level player interaction. That could be a really amazing feature to have in a game.

I think that's a pretty interesting idea. I wish Dishonored had implemented something like that. I know allies treat you differently, but as far as I can tell you seem to have the same reputation among your enemies. It might be kind of hard to measure stuff like level of cowardliness or bravery when there's several ways to approach combat like in Dishonored, but it's still plausible.

Halo was a nice call, but couldn't the citizens be considered an example of what your talking about with the grunts and elites?