I just finished Half-Life. It’s a slow start if you don’t like FPSes, but once you get going, it acquires a momentum of its own. Nonetheless, the game is very linear and it reminded me oddly of ICO, probably because I played a lot of ICO over Christmas to show off its genius to my sister. I found Half-Life’s combat to be about as annoying as ICO, which is to say that I would probably miss it if it were gone entirely, because it adds the proper sort of tension to each game. But I am not very good at either (and I don’t think anybody can be good at ICO’s combat*).

I only want to talk about one thing in Half-Life. (For now.) I’m sure most people have played it, so I won’t add much except for my weird coincidence of having played it right after ICO. ICO, along with all the other environmental things that it does right, makes you feel like you know the castle by the end. You know, like you were actually there, and if you were dropped in a random corner of it, you would be able to point out where all the important places are.

You hardly ever revisit an area, but there are several situations where you revisit the same ’screen’ much later and several hundred feet higher, on the way to a different place entirely. Occasionally you’re at the place you wanted to go in the first place; sometimes you’re standing on something that appeared to be just scenery the first time through. The result is that, by the end of the game, you can tell more or less where you’re headed based on your surroundings. In contrast, the beginning of the game is a confusing linear succession of rooms. A little after half way through, the architecture of the castle just falls into place and you suddenly know where you are. You can still only go to The Next Place, but you know why you’re going there.

The same thing happened in Half-Life. Almost. I was never quite sure if I revisited the exact same place. I thought I recognised a lot of the scenery I saw on the tram ride in, and I’m pretty sure I retraced my steps through the underground entrance where I got off the tram. At least, there were definitely environments which were inaccessible at first but showed up much later because I took the long way round or detoured to get a neat gun. In any event, it’s not such an important part of the game as it was for ICO–as Barney says, “this place is a lot bigger than I thought it was.'’ In other words, the sense of being marooned isn’t as important in Half-Life. The list of things Half-Life does right is quite different because it’s a different type of game. But sense of place is on both lists, and maybe should be for any strictly linear game.

Compare this to two other games: Trace Memory and the Zelda series. Trace Memory is a linear adventure game, but it doesn’t do any foreshadowing or backtracking like ICO or Half-Life. The excellent writing may creep you out, but you don’t feel like you really know the island by the end of the game. It’s just a series of linear rooms that lead deeper and deeper into the centre of the island.

In contrast, Zelda benefits from a sense of place in a different way because it’s not strictly linear: in a linear game, a sense of place helps you believe that you’re not just walking through a Hollywood set that exists solely for your entertainment. In something less linear, a sense of place just helps you remember where that intriguing nook/cranny was when you passed it earlier but didn’t have a hookshot to reach it.

In conclusion, if you haven’t played ICO, you should (though it may be expensive by now). If you’ve played ICO and haven’t read Gormenghast, you should do that instead. Oh, and maybe Half-Life too.

*Note on combat: I think ICO’s combat is bad because it was only important as a device to make you worry about leaving Yorda alone, and its appearance even when you’re with her is too common. I think
Half-Life’s combat is bad because I don’t like the mouse+keyboard combo. That’s a personal problem, though; as far as I know (and I don’t appreciate FPSes) the combat is the best ever, or at least the best of its time.