Sometimes a game IS worth the hype but the hype causes a little harsher critique than is really warranted. So, are the other reviewers just falling for the hype and heaping on the expected praise or is this one review kind of a minor backlash? Personally, my expectations are still pretty damned high and I believe they will be met.

I am trying to not read the reviews. I appreciate the scores, but I am purposefully skimming over the posts (including the one that started this thread). Am I the only one doing this?

I''d like to be a bit surprised by the game itself.

The first Half-Life had a good plot, unmatched presentation and great AI, but it was a ""mindless shooter"". Not a single puzzle asside from the jumping puzzles at the end, just good old move from point A to point B and kill everything in the middle gameplay. It''s all about the way it''s presented.

Seriously. I do NOT understand why anyone credits Half-Life''s ""story"" as anything special.

HL was a great game. Took the regular FPS gameplay and dropped it into a great environment and all, with cool scripted sequences, but the plot was nothing worthy of note.

Compared to System Shock 2, Half-Life had almost no story.

That doesn''t mean it wasn''t a great game or that it was missing something that it desperately needed. But when people praise the game''s ""story"" and ""plot"", I wonder if they really know WTF they''re talking about.

Ahh... wow... Do we have to take his gamer badge? I mean, he player Half Life, but not Counterstrike? I didn''t know it was physically possible.

Isn''t that the whole point anyway? Or is it just me that thinks that way?

You know, I find it very strange that the reviewer knocks Half-Life 2 for using the presentation techniques and methods that made Half-Life the success it was.

I don''t recall HL2 being ""the next generic game by Valve"" but rather being Half-Life 2. How strange is it to expect a sequel to try and follow up on the successes of the original? Or did I miss something soemwhere along the way? Did people tell Einstein that his theory of relativity is not so creative because it follows the line of reasoning of the special theory of relativity?

Aren''t we getting a bit jaded here? I mean c''mon! Valve aren''t gods! They are just a bunch of engineers and artists that improved upon their art. That doesn''t mean they need to reinvent their genre every single time they ""speak.""

Wow. That''s harsh. First, its a shooter, so the whole point is to get in there and shoot things. Plot almost seems like an afterthought to me.

I''m starting Doom III again (never finished anything past the first few levels) with the sound and flashlight mods, so now I really am starting to see where all the superlatives were coming from. Solid level design, great atmospherics, plenty of things to shoot.

Painkiller is another good ""pretty but dumb"" game. The plot is almost irrelevant, but who cares? Blasting skeletons in a cemetary with a shotgun is fun. Esepcially when you put it to metal.

The keys I''ll be looking for are:
Does the gameplay suck me in?

Does the game put up a reasonable fight?

Does the game give me a sufficient variety of situations or enemies to keep it interesting?

Notice I didn''t say a thing about plot.

It''s like dating a stripper: It''s nice if you find that she''s a med student and plans on being a neurosurgeon, but it isn''t exactly the reason you asked her out in the first place.

SIG!

The first quote says that HL2 sticks to the basic conventions of Half-Life - certainly not a flaw necessarily - but it does tell you not to expect a revolutionary step forward there. Fine. No points lost, no points gained.

The second quote says the game''s story is surprisingly not that hot. Now the surprise there may come in part from the reviewer having read another Gamespot article on HL2 (The Final Hours of Half-Life 2 @ http://www.gamespot.com/features/6112889/index.html) that mentions how much work was put into the story in the original Half-Life the story was credited for a significant aspect of the game''s success.

Perhaps ''plot'' wasn''t the ideal word for the job - storytelling is a bit better. The plot/storyline can certainly be fairly conventional and not exceedingly deep. But ideally something gives the act of wondering around a 3d represented landscape and shooting at things a sense of significant context. At least for me its ideal. Maybe 10 years ago it wasn''t - but alas I''m not as easily amused as I used to be. For example I used to think Knight Rider was a good tv show.

Ok, storytelling not so good and not as good as the original; another point against.

The last quote says the AI is worse than the original. Another point against - and this affects how much fun running around and shooting things will be.

All said, I think those are some pretty valid points against. I think those of you who argue story doesn''t matter to you - are failing to give credit where credit is due. I will admit though a shiny game with great action can satisfy despite good storytelling. I quite enjoyed FarCry - but the game''s story was a disappointment, which was both shallow and juvenile and did detract from the overall enjoyment. I could never tell if it was meant to be campy or if the German developers were just trying to appeal to Americans.

Destructible environments lend a lot to the immersion factor, I loved Max Payne 2 largely because of its simplistic but interactive environment - but it also had an intriguing (or just convoluted) story and style. I expect Half Life 2 will have stunning interactive environments and judging by the reviews given – this factor, among others, easily outweighs the lacking storytelling and AI over the original.

Do some of you guys really take reviews as gospel? Scary.

The review came out before the game did. Yes reviews are very handy when it comes to evaluating what games you want. They can also help you cut through the bullsh*t hype.

Gamespot''s reviews are most of the time right on the ball. If you read the text. It''s the scores that lately started being a problem. Seems as if they are unable to give a sub 9.x score to a high-ticket game anymore. But they do go ahead and blast it in the review itself.

So? That''s besides the pt. The pt is there is a conflict of interest among nearly every review site out there. Developers fly people out to review their games and wine them and dine them. And if they want the same treatment next time they gotta say nice things.

And my other pt was that it''s scary some folks seem to very quickly form an opinion on a game based on 1 review.

Couldn''t disagree more. Having worked in the industry for almost 4 years (1997-2001 Computer Games Magazine) and still keeping close ties with folks I know in it, REviews are not hype, they are opinions. PREviews can be hype, but quite often they are based on little information. Why are they done that way, because readers want any little snippet of information they can get, regardless of how far out the release date is. And that is also why people talk about games based on other folks opinions. This is our hobby and we like talking about our hobby! Whether it''s our opinion or someone else''s.