Self-nomination and also
re-nom. Originally submitted by me back in June of this year, the article has come a long way, and many changes have been made to fix it up. A very interesting and notable computer game.
Thunderbrand02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, although I have made considerable contributions to this article, I do feel the article is comprehensive and a good all-around article. For whatever it is worth.
K1Bond00706:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually the first three are discussed, the last one isn't though (at least specifically, it is in a section talking about the character - allies & enemies in the game. I think that's fair enough) Definitely not overuse and the screenshots add greatly to the article.
K1Bond00719:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid I disagree, yet again. It is an important moment in the game and is illustrated in the plot summary. There's absolutely no reason to remove it.
K1Bond00721:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Object—No mention of platforms: Mac and Windows, when/if? No mention of releases in countries other than what I presume is the US, as though that's the only country in the world. Prose not 'compeling, even brilliant'. Things like:
'1998's'
'leaked TO the internet'? This is not the right preposition. Upper-case I for Internet, still.
'advancements'—hello?
'during the course of conducting an experiment'—which four words are redundant here?
dot after 'Dr' is now very old-fashioned.
'Two distinctive elements from the original Half-Life are preserved:
Freeman is a silent protagonist
The entire game is viewed through Freeman's eyes (i.e. there are no cut scenes)'—comma after 'e,g.', and format this as the single sentence that you apparently intended it to be.
1998s doesn't need an apostrophe and advancements is a confused word that means the same as the more simple - advances (grammatically it doesn't seem correct, but I can't work out why). In general the text has improved since my last read though, but it feels odd being dropped straight into the plot, neutral.--
nixie23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Object First there are several minor issues, the Plot gets way too detailed in some places (ex: there is no reason to mention a detail like "breifly transporting Gordon to the office of Doctor Breen twice"). Also in Narration the use of "it" when describing speculation is inappropriate, and should be rewritten. (Ex. "In Half-Life it could be said" What is "it"?, who is saying "it"?) The article is also missing a Reception and awards section. Except for a brief mention in the intro, the article does not describe how the game was recieved and if the game won any awards. (Didn't Half-Life 2 win a Game Developer's Choice Award?)
MechBrowman03:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)reply
It doesn't get that detailed, and when it does, it is necessary. When Gordon gets transported to Dr. Breen's office in the beginning, it basically sets off the whole game. The Combine, and even Breen, don't even know of his existence in the city up until that point, hence it is a major part of the story, which is why the screenshot is included.
Thunderbrand17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Except that isn't necessary at all to the summary. Of course that is important to make the story make sense, but only when your playing it. When you are summarizing the game keep it simple. Remove some of the detail and just say something similar to "Alerted to Gordan's presence, Breen sends the combine after him."
MechBrowman18:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Object There's no information about the leak at all. Nothing about the hacker who stole the entire source code then released it on the net. There's nothing about the extended release dates, the stories cooked up by Valve or any of the actual interesting prose regarding its development at all. Nothing about its fan support either.
James Pinnell09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)reply