RandomGuy

I know, I thought that the original RBA vests weren't designed to hold two plates. Apparently they were, but some troops just wouldn't get back plates. Sorry, I was talking about the RBA. Huh. I guess that'd firmly establish them as a good bit inferior. Were those newer plates the ones used in 2005-ish, or the updated ones used after 2007? And do you have any estimate for how the older plates would hold up to 7.62x39 and 5.56, or is that just impossible to guess without actually seeing a test? Okay, that makes sense. So the armored plates used in rifle-resistant body armor weren't really updated up until 2003, when the standard body armor of the US military was swapped? Huh... if it was III-A, then why is it remembered as being so lousy? So, superior the last stock/RBA plates? Alright. Were rifle-proof plates standard for every troop deployed in combat, then, even before the 2003, e.g. in Afghanistan? Did the military have that much? I remember reading about a type of hard armor that would only stop one or two rifle shots. I thought it was the IBA, but I guess it must have been the RBA. Yeah, that's true. Humans tend to keep going on for a while before they keel over and die. But eh, better than nothing. Okay, so HK53 + many of them getting relatively second rate armor + some of them just choosing to not wear plates + abdomen shots + other lucky shots + landing more hits than he technically is in-game. Things make sense!... kinda. I know, I was wondering if anyone had done a test proving that result, or if one person just happened to shoot someone with a .50 BMG weapon in a recent conflict involving body armor.

Well, given that episode 61 has apparently been taking over two weeks to edit, and Ross's estimate for the next Game Dungeon episode was off by over a week, the odds of him following through on his claim/promise aren't very good. I guess you CAN stop the Freeman...

I really, really hope he doesn't just immediately shoot them. But unfortunately, going by Ross's comments about how Freeman is basically thinking what Ross himself was thinking when he played the first Half-Life game, he probably will. One of them helps against an Antlion Guard. I think that's about it.

Well, to give an abridged version of this discussion... they can die against certain weapons. III-A soft armor on its own is highly resistant to 9mm and buckshot, while hard armor (III and IV) is basically immune to it. I already knew that prior to this discussion, I was just surprised by the difference in power between 5.56 and 7.62, as I thought it would only take a few shots from the former to take down an armored soldier, when it's really more like a dozen. With the HD pack, it makes more sense, as the MP5 becomes an M4, and it takes 10-15 bullets to take down a soldier depending on difficulty. That's fairly plausible assuming the soldiers have the level III armor that would be common in the early to mid 2000s, but even still, they die too quickly (though that's a game mechanic thing rather than an armor durability thing). In the context of Freeman's Mind, well, I have a lot of theories attempting to make some sense of how Freeman takes down the soldiers here. Including the HK53 theory, head shots, abdomen shots, just shooting the soldiers a lot (including times where he's technically missing in-game), and the soldiers not having the absolute best armor they can have. But the issue of him taking down soldiers with shotguns when they're clearly hit in the armor, as well as the soldiers just dying too quickly, still stand. A. Oh, I know that, I was saying that the M4 was more sensible since the marines and Freeman actually take damage from it. That still wouldn't explain the pistol and shotgun B. Again, I just see that as a game mechanic thing, as the weapon is clearly not chambered in 9mm, as shown both by the weapon model and the shells it ejects. The PS2 version doesn't have this error anyway. But again, to each their own, I can see how this would just annoy someone too much. That's weird, some of the sources I've read seem to imply that they just didn't have back armor. Such as this one: http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/nov27/default27.asp Then again, the source mentions earlier that one of the men took out his back plate, so I guess the guy at the end did the same. Still... pictures like this (http://i47.servimg.com/u/f47/13/87/79/34/captur37.jpg) gave me the impression that they just didn't have back plates initially. Unless they're just complete hogwash, of course. So the plates used in 1993 were inferior to the ones used later? By how much (e.g. how many 5.56/7.62x39 rounds could they take compared to 2003-era plates)? And were the plates used for the RBA still used at all past 1993, or were they all immediately discarded? Wait, it was originally issued with plates? What kind of plates? I thought that they just issued the vest and helmet itself for most troops up to 2003, making it II-A/II. So, rifle-proof plates were standard and common for the PASGT in the late 90s and early 2000s? On Google Books, there is a document called "Protection Equipment and Counter Measure Devices: Congressional Hearing". Dated 1999, it states that up to '96, the standard armor of the US military was only meant to protect against fragmentation, and that the military had procured 4,000 ISAPOs for the PASGT armor to be distributed as needed to American forces before the introduction of Interceptor armor. The same information is parroted on various websites. That's probably what I was referring to. Were standard rifle-proof plates deployed before that, and were they closer to the old ranger plates or the Iraq-era plates in quality? I'm again racking my head trying to make sense of some things that shouldn't really have to make sense, but do you think it might be plausible that many of the soldiers in Freeman's Mind (not HL, as they all have the same health and are supposed to be top quality) just weren't wearing rifle-proof plates? That would go with Freeman's comment about the soldiers at Black Mesa being "what's left" after the deployments overseas, anyway... Sorry, I was talking about 7.62x39mm, just about the most likely small arms threat the average soldier would be facing in Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And half a dozen? For standard Interceptor armor? Damn. I was thinking it would take 4. Blunt force trauma wouldn't significantly effect them at all then? What about the enhanced plates in the IOTV, how many hits could they take? Strange, all the pictures I've seen of it has it with side plates (e.g.http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2013/04/01/1375808_02__body_armor_iotv_with_esapi_es_640.jpg). I guess those aren't designed to stop rifle rounds? So, according to you, a .50 BMG (assuming it's just a normal ol' .50 BMG, not armor piercing) hitting a soldier wearing modern body armor would shatter the plate, but still "only" take the wearer out of combat and significantly wound them, possibly killing them but also possibly letting them live with quick medical attention? I don't DISbelieve that, but... I'd just like a source that shows that happening.

There hasn't even been one? Keep in mind that I was combining this with my other theories in the context of justifying the events of Freeman's Mind (an HK53 would have no trouble going through III-A armor). As for Half-Life itself, as I said, I like to assume that the HD pack was "canon", both because it looks better (aside from the shotgun and pistol) and because a few small things make more sense (more sensible main weapon for the marines, bullsquids get spikes on their tails, Grunts seem to have a bit more armor). I suppose that's true. I always thought it was weird that only half of them wore gas masks. Not that gas masks alone would be much of a help in some cases. There was something wrong with the plates the soldiers in Somalia were issued? I thought the problem was the fact that the hard armor only covered the chest, while leaving the back and abdomen exposed? Okay, I'm just going recall everything I know about the general trends of US body armor from the PASGT to the IOTV, from the various books and articles I've read, and TV shows and videos I've watched. Correct me if I'm wrong or miss something important. Considering the book where I got most of the pre-2003 information was from... 2000, I think, I probably am. -The soldiers deployed to Mogadishu wore Ranger Body Armor, a III-A vest turned into level III armor with the plate. However, it only covered the chest, so more soldiers died than needed to. From here they started issuing back plates too. This body armor was usually only used by special units. It was used in Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Iraq (for a short time). -Throughout the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, the standard issue body armor was the kevlar PASGT. The vest on its own was designed to stop fragmentation, even though from the tests I've seen it can also stop pistol bullets that would put up it to par with certified II-A or II standard vests (depending on the source). It provided no protection against rifles. -In 1996, a small number (4,000) of rifle-proof plates compatible with the PASGT vest were produced as an interim product for the armor switch. They were issued to US troops in Yugoslavia in limited numbers. They covered the chest and back. -Around late 2003, the PASGT was replaced by the Interceptor body armor, specifically the OTV model, which on its own (i.e. just the vest) was III-A, a huge improvement over the last armor, and with the relevant ceramic plates was III. It could stop a few 7.62 rounds and about a dozen 5.56 (depending on range, of course). -In late 2007/early 2008, the OTV was phased out in favor of the level IV IOTV, which not only covered more of the body (most of the abdomen + the sides), but featured new and improved plates. I can believe that (the tests I've seen where it just blasted through the plate was with level III armor), but still, this is a lot to swallow considering it's an anti-materiel cartridge. A big one. As I said, even if the plate somehow managed to stop the bullet itself, would the person wearing it really not get their bones cracked and internal organs turned into jelly from the pure kinetic energy of the impact, even if it wasn't specifically an AP round? The way you make it sound, it's survivable, with the wearer only getting incapacitated, being put in need of immediate medical attention, and being rendered combat incapable for a while. ...plus, the people in the video you posted used two plates.

But not even one game design team has ever had a competent consultant who could let them in on something like this? Thanks for the response. Also: abdomen shots. ANOTHER way I can mentally make myself somewhat comfortable with Freeman killing armored American soldiers. That makes sense. What I said: "Oh, I'm aware of that. But the chances of surviving, to say nothing of continuing to fight, after getting shot in the head, especially with a rifle, are quite low." "Cool. If I pair that with the HK53 + lucky shots + overkill theory, then things actually start making a bit of sense. Not much, granted, as everyone still dies/gets incapacitated too quickly (except in cases where they're shot in the head or hit in the chest a LOT) rather than running on adrenaline and bleeding out, but still. " I never said that a head shot would always incapacitate anyone, just that it most likely would, especially if someone got shot in that area multiple times. I meant 100 + 50% / 100 x 1.5 = 150 While that is usually true, presumably the HECU medics would be fully equipped just because of the nature of their unit. Plus, doesn't Black Mesa depict all soldiers wearing the same armor in-game? Well, that would explain the officers more, at least... On the PASGT: was the vest and helmet + rifle-proof plates common? As I said, everything I've read indicates that the plates for the PASGT were produced in very limited numbers, and that usually soldiers would get just get the vest with no rifle protection before the switch to Interceptor armor. They could all be wrong, though. Okay, that sounds pretty challenging. So the OSIPR would take 15 shots to down an Overwatch soldier? Scaled for damage, wouldn't that make it weaker than the 5.56 M249 from Opposing Force? Do you actually think it is or is that just for gameplay reasons? Wait, really!? I was always under the impression that the .50 BMG, an anti-materiel rifle cartridge, was just too powerful for any man-portable armor to stop (or at least so powerful that no man could survive getting by it even if his armor was somehow able to stop it due to the kinetic energy). That's the impression I got from various testing videos and articles. You got any sources for the claim that standard armor today would both stop it and let the wearer survive a hit from that? I mean, I know it would technically be possible to survive (the human body can survive a lot of things, and some people actually have survived it), but it actually being likely thanks to armor?

Thanks for the link. So HL1 took place in 2000-2009, while HL2 took place in 2020-2029. Okay, that makes more sense. Still, that's durable as hell. I wonder why all the self-proclaimed super-realistic video games still have everyone fold in only a few shots. Surely, if having a soldier take ten rifle shots to the chest before going down (as is usually the case in more "unrealistic" games) and be almost completely immune to pistols, SMGs, and shotguns (which no game that I know of does) was way more realistic, at least one "simulation" style game by now would have done it? So, what would your estimate be for how much shots an American soldier could take wearing armor standard in the early to mid 2000s from a 5.56 rifle, at the very short ranges Half-Life's combat typically take place at? Not just from the armor breaking, but also from the kinetic energy? That would be level-4 with the rest of the armor system, right? Huh. Any particular reason the armor didn't cover half of the torso prior to the IOTV? Budget issues? I was aware of the Simo Hayha story. Not the other ones, though. As I said, I know it's possible to survive getting shot in the head, and even still function after, I just said that the odds of it happening were low. Hah, I guess that explains it. Do you hate medics, too? I don't think them only wearing a partial helm would justify giving them 50% less health either... Would you mind posting the health values for the enemies somewhere? Eh... while that enhances the difficulty, having them take a hundred bullets to kill yet do pitiful damage seems like it would be more boring and repetitive than challenging. Yeah, I agree that the Black Mesa Alien Grunts are beasts. Yet every enemy was buffed in that game. Especially the marines and houndeyes. 1. Oh, okay. 2. How many rocket launcher hits does the LAV-25 take anyway? It should go down pretty quickly to an anti-tank weapon. 3. I think I misunderstood the HL2 damage values. How much health are the Overwatch troopers supposed to have? I think I should have been clearer... by "gib", I don't mean literally make explode into a thousand pieces, I mean more like ripping off body parts and taking out huge chunks of the body, which as far as I know that weapon can do. You think it's plausible that Freeman's HEV suit could let him survive it? They looked pretty similar to me, aside from one having pouches on it, but I'll take your word for it.

Well, to each their own. Laidlaw said that? Where? From what I read, the ISAPO plate inserts were only produced in limited numbers (4,000 specifically) in preparation for the switch to Interceptor armor. And that's only supposed to be level III? It's pretty shocking that, going by this video, the average American soldier would be almost completely immune to the standard issue rifle in the US military (unless they take significant damage from kinetic energy transfer?). Anyway, didn't you say it could take "only" about a dozen earlier? Do you have any examples of a manufacturer saying "our armor is guaranteed to stop X amount of 5.56 bullets"? So, a soldier could still get wounded by gunshots to the torso even if the armor holds? Where specifically is he unarmored besides the sides? In the PS2 version, the scientists and medical machines seem to be directly injecting it into Freeman's bloodstream with needles. Oh, I'm aware of that. But the chances of surviving, to say nothing of continuing to fight, after getting shot in the head, especially with a rifle, are quite low. I remember reading a world record about a man who lived many years with a bullet lodged in his skull. Sounds about right. B. Does the Commanders not wearing helmets really justify them getting HALF as much health as a grunt? Also, those damage values are for Hard difficulty, right? C. Obviously living tanks stomp foot soldiers, but what about other alien infantry in base Half-Life? Like I said, I don't agree with the Grunts doing so little damage. It seems to devalue them and basically miss the point of their existence. It sounds like the Vortigaunts are better fighters in this mod, since they do so how much damage and fire really quickly on Hard mode. D. So 10 rifle bullets to take down a standard grunt with just torso shots? Seems about right. I think the .357 is too powerful, but that's kind of necessary just for game balance, or else it would just be worthless. In base Black Mesa, don't the autocannons that the LAV-25s tote do like 5 damage? The HL2 Pulse Rifle should also do more damage. Off-topic, but I loved how Black Mesa depicted the M2 Browning. Usually in video games, including base Half-Life, this weapon would be given similar damage to the rifle or even pistol for game balance. Not here. It may not take everything out in one hit ("realistically" it would one-shot any infantry in the game, including Gordon), but it comes pretty close, and it doesn't really matter due to how fast it is. It friggin GIBS enemies, like it does in real life. That hold the line sequence at the end of Power-Up made it feel like you were John Rambo. I haven't seen many games that give this weapon the power it deserves. I'm pretty sure it's the same in-game model. That's my theory, though. Good to hear.

That's your preference then. I on the other hand like to use the HD pack because it makes more sense and looks nicer (though I actually think the default pistol and shotgun look better with 1998 graphics), as well as a custom M4 skin for Black Mesa. Wait, there's an official timeline? Where? In the early 2000s, when the standard vest was still the PASGT? From what I've read, it was rare for PASGT-wearing troops to get the rifle-proof plates, as only a few thousand were made, and they only became standard with the introduction of the Interceptor body armor system in late 2003. Are the sources I read BS or what? Huh. That's pretty interesting. Wouldn't that make things worse if the chainmail gets shattered? By the by, do you have any sources for the claim that standard body armor can take a ten or more 5.56 rifle shots before folding? Again, I don't disbelieve you, but that sounds pretty extreme and I'd like to know where I can learn more about it. It covers pretty much the entire torso, right? Normally I would agree, but Freeman's Mind already changes so much about the game mechanics (the HEV suit isn't powered by batteries, Freeman can't drink green crap to regenerate, Freeman can do pull-ups, he doesn't have a helmet, anything smaller than .50 BMG bounces off the suit with sniper rifles leaving welts and most guns doing nothing, etc.) that I'm more concerned with just trying to have it make sense itself. So, I assume that. He doesn't even use the sights! Cool. If I pair that with the HK53 + lucky shots + overkill theory, then things actually start making a bit of sense. Not much, granted, as everyone still dies/gets incapacitated too quickly (except in cases where they're shot in the head or hit in the chest a LOT) rather than running on adrenaline and bleeding out, but still. It's as close as I'm gonna get, and it allows me to watch the series without a tiny annoyance eating away at me. Yep. Though it depends on some things. Heh, maybe Freeman didn't kill that Barney after all, and he just got back up a minute after Freeman left, clenching his stomach and calling Gordon a prick. I'm aware of that advice, but in some cases, I'd rather not take it. I mean, if I did that, then I wouldn't be on half the forums I'm on. I'd still be on this one, though. Sounds frustrating, yet satisfying to get through. 1. That's good. 2. So, aside from using explosives, what's the best way to take out marines? Aim for the head? 'Cause going by the x3 damage multiplier, it'd still take 17 shots (!) in your mod to kill a soldier like that (as you said it would take the entire 50-round mag to kill one shooting him in the torso, though that doesn't seem to match the MP5 doing 10 damage, as marines have 50 health... or did you change that too?). Also, the magnum doing 40 damage vs the M249's 20 damage doesn't seem very realistic. Or was that solely for balance? And are the marines drastically buffed compared to the aliens, to the point where their scripted fights are ridiculously one-sided? 3. I'll try that, then. At least for a bit; it sounds like it's too hard to always have on. That's true. Hence the if. I'm just going to use the above theories and assume they are wearing Interceptor body armor. But the PASGT was standard issue up to 2003, and was the Interceptor even a thing when Half-Life was made? If we go by Opposing Force, then the marines are using a fantasy power armor that can take autocannon fire but still fall to enough pistol bullets. Or maybe that's just a few specific guys (my theory right now, as it would explain why Shepherd's so much durable than a standard marine). Either way, it doesn't seem like FM follows that. Sounds about right. Basically, the statement was "yeah, and the pistol does more damage than the heavy machine gun, it's pretty silly". It wasn't my main point, it was just an offhand acknowledgement of the fact that the game wasn't realistic, and a sign that I wasn't arguing that it was. I just enjoy trying to speculate and fix 'holes' in any series I watch/play/read, even if I have to reach. I dunno, it's just fun to me. Thanks for all the responses, by the way. Sorry if I'm boring you by now.

That's just a game play induced plot hole. The model for both the weapon and the ammo pick-ups clearly shows it to be a 5.56 rifle (also, it doesn't share ammo with the pistol in the PS2 version). A game manual says it. What else does? Other manuals? Because they quite clearly contradict the game in certain places. I thought that hard armor capable of withstanding rifle shots was only standardized around the beginning of the Iraq War? I'm probably wrong about this, but wasn't the standard armor right before the war the PASGT vest, which is unofficially a IIA-II vest (because it was never officially rated as it was only designed to stop fragmentation, even if it can also stop pistol rounds), while only a few of them got the rifle-"proof" plates? Wait, chainmail? So the standard rifle used by the United States military, and the caliber used by both it and many other weapons, is completely useless against modern hard body armor, to the extent that they'd have to shoot someone like ten times to really hurt them? That sounds weird, yet interesting. Do you have any sources on this for further reading? I always thought that modern ceramic body armor was specifically designed to shatter after a few shots. I'm not, I'm just concerned with the whole thing making a little bit of sense. The HK53 + lucky shots with pistol and shotgun theory does that, as even though the soldiers still go down way too quickly (like pretty much every video game, since most don't have a wound system and just work on hit points), it's still a huge step-up from shooting them with a weapon they should be nigh-immune to. We can also assume that shots that are technically missing in-game are actually supposed to be hitting the target in FM, just because we can't explicitly see them miss (that seemed to be the intention with the shotgun in episode 14, at the very least), though I admit that's a big stretch. We see him hit enemies in the head a lot (I can't see tracers, in the game or the series, but I do see blood "puffs" coming out of the head area), but we also occasionally see him take down soldiers with shotgun blasts to the torso, when even the Barneys should be able to survive that. He also keeps filling up the soldiers with bullets even after the game technically registers them as "dead", so we can also assume that him shooting them that many times plays a part in killing them, though that only explains so much given that he doesn't do that all the time, and sometimes even when he does it wouldn't be enough bullets. So it's a mixed bag. I dunno, you and others can go ahead and not care, but I just like trying to fix things in my mind, even if I have to reach sometimes. On your mod: it mostly looks good, though I haven't tried it yet. I'm actually a bit scared to due to what looks like a huge difficulty spike. The only thing I disagree on is the Grunts doing so little damage, as they were the elite soldiers of the Xenian army, and it makes no sense for their weapons to deal "pitiful damage". There's a lot of ways that "thornets" could be damaging weapons, as has been pointed out. It's a video game. Also, if the aim is to make it more realistic (I'd play it with the HD pack, so at least the MP5 would be less of a problem), then why do the shotgun and pistol even work on the human soldiers at all? Actually, one of the reasons I made this topic was because I was bothered by Ross's comments in an old podcast five years ago- he said that he found it really unrealistic and immersion-breaking when he had to shoot the soldiers ten times to bring them down. He also said that even if someone is wearing body armor, he finds it really implausible if one shotgun blast doesn't take them down, even if they are wearing body armor. I actually heard him say something very recently about it; something like "While body armor can make 9mm rounds nonlethal, I don't know of many people who are going to be STANDING after being shot 3 times, let alone fully combat effective." I don't pretend to be a military expert, but even I know that the unrealistic part was that pistol bullets were bringing them down at all. I mean, a few MP5 shots would probably be enough to take them down (if not that quickly) if they were just wearing PASGT vests, but otherwise... That, and I wanted to hear what other people thought about Freeman's durability in this series, and what the limits of his HEV suit were. At the very least it seems clear that .50 BMG = dead Freeman, going both by Freeman's statements and some of Ross's posts here. Also, explosives (grenades, mines, rockets, etc.), autocannons (e.g. the one used by the Bradley), super strong aliens (zombies, Grunts), super big aliens (Gargantuas, Tentacles), barnacles, etc. I'm not arguing that the game or series are realistic, just that some things might not be quite as implausible as they look.

Do regular US Marines have shitty armor? No? Then where did you get that? I personally believe in the HK53 theory. I mean, there isn't any other logical explanation for why a US Marine wearing modern body armor would die after getting shot only a few times. Except: 1. The HK53 theory is clearly bullshit since the pistol and MP5 share ammo. 2. Even if it wasn't bullshit, the HK53 is a 5.56 and still couldn't defeat modern armour in a few shots because there is no way it could get through the trauma plates and everywhere there's not a trauma plate you can't stop somebody with it without shooting them quite a bit. 3. The number of shots the marines take still wouldn't be incapacitating with an HK53 even if they weren't wearing armour. 4. This theory doesn't explain how Freeman's pistol and shotgun can hurt the marines even though they would both be completely useless. 1. In HL. In FM, we don't know. This wouldn't be the first change. As for HL itself, the HD pack changes it to a rifle anyway (which still takes ten shots to down a soldier on normal) and the ammo pick ups clearly are not for an MP5, so whatever. 2. It would still be able to defeat it after some shots. Also, you haven't answered my question. Would every single soldier be wearing something that tough in the late 90s/early 2000s? Also, unrelated, but is 5.56 really that weak? Because standard US military body armor is designed to shatter after a couple rifle hits IIRC. Not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious. 3. True. People don't go down quickly in real life unless you hit the head or something. But that was necessary for the game and unchangeable in the series. 4. Lucky shots. As I said, I don't see these tracers you're talking about, at least not with any regularity or precision. On the other hand, I do see blood "spray" coming from the soldiers' heads a lot. As for the game... yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Even high quality soft body armor would render them extremely resistant. But eh, this is the same game where the revolver does more damage than the .50 machine gun.

You should give credit to Daria for that one.

Wasn't that only stated in the PS2 game manual? Regardless, we don't know when in the 2000s. I guess you're right. But keep in mind that this wouldn't be the only physically impossible thing we've seen from aliens in this series. By that do you mean that their body will shatter before it damages the armor in any way? Because the thornet doesn't have to survive the hit (and it doesn't). In Black Mess, it explodes upon hitting the enemy, and does damage presumably via Xenomorph style acid "blood". That's been my head canon for how they work in HL for a while now. It is, because you keep insisting that the thornets have to be hitting a certain spot. The fact that it kills the soldiers contradicts your logic that they impact the armor and don't do anything. I don't like to assume something as non canon if it doesn't contradict anything, especially when the Vorts' lines in HL2 support their attacks working like that. By your logic then, nothing we saw happen actually happened. Even if they're impossible, scripted sequences are not game play, they can't be so easily dismissed, graphical limitations aside. Their claws are rather large in the first Half-Life. I'd file the Grunts' cartoonish proportions under "graphical limitations". In-universe, the scripted sequences, as well as their melee damage in-game compared to other weapons, shows them to be much stronger than you seem to think. They don't just have magic-looking powers, they continually do things that should be outright impossible.

Armor that could let the user take a dozen rifle bullets before folding was standard in the US military in the late 90s? I was under the impression that such armor being standardized happened around 2004. I know that. But the aliens aren't of this world, and we don't know what they have. The time it takes for soldiers to die is abridged for gameplay convenience. Same thing with bullets. They DO die after impacting their target... That was just me pointing out that what happens in the game world isn't necessarily the same thing that happens in gameplay. In gameplay. Antlion extract and magic? I know that. But I don't see why this particular unrealistic aspect is excused while thornets appearing to hit the torso most of the time in-game absolutely has to be the case. I was. I was counting the expansions, where we get other scenes of this happening, like Vorts destroying a concrete wall in Opposing Force, or Grunts smashing more crap like that in Decay. I was thinking that the Vorts with their super strength and claws could actually decapitate people, while the Grunts could "only" kill or cripple people in a single hit. They're ridiculously, almost cartoonishly strong. Also note that, if anything in Black Mesa is built to last, it's the walls/doors. There might be some magic involved here, at least with the Vorts, due to the weird powers they often show. Though the more likely explanation is that no one was thinking of this and just thought it would be cool to have the Vortigaunt smash through a steel door to introduce himself. The Grunts are about seven feet tall and really broad. That wouldn't let them punch through concrete, but combined with their physiology it would still make them pretty strong. Actually, looking back, I don't see any tracers being fired out of the pistol or shotgun at all. Or at least not ones that are easily visible, in these videos OR in the game. So yep, I'm still assuming he gets lucky and hits the face or other unarmored part.

I know that such armor exists, I was just under the impression that not every soldier would be wearing that much. Anyway, how many bullets would you say it would take for a 5.56 rifle to "get through" standard military body armor whenever HL is set, around late 90s/early 2000s? I never recall that being enough for me to see exactly where the bullet hit, especially at long (for the game) range. They could also use acid. Keep in mind that their speed is likely just a gameplay convenience, like HL2's powerful but unrealistically slow crossbow. Also note how the soldiers in Half-Life fold to about ten 9mm or 5.56 rounds, yet can also take several shots from an M2 Browning or even autocannon before going down. Most of the time, yeah, but it's plausible that in-universe they could be hitting other spots. They have actually demonstrated supernatural powers, so it's not just their religion. I also don't know that the explanation you proposed would heal them from bullet wounds, like their attacks are shown to do in Decay, but to each their own. So why is them gibbing enemies just excused as a gameplay mechanic while thronets mostly hitting the torso isn't? Freeman himself can only gib with the experimental weapons and explosives. That's a rather weak excuse considering they are consistently shown to be that strong (e.g. a Grunt opens a set of heavy blasts doors with his bare hands). I highly doubt the human neck is more durable than the steel and concrete barriers that the aliens repeatedly and effortlessly smash through.

They're still rifle rounds, and can kill with repeated hits, rather than just doing nothing like pistol bullets. It's not exactly realistic for soldiers to drop that quickly, but more so than soldiers in full body armor getting taken down by an MP5. Plus, he typically shoots his enemies a lot, and isn't most hard body armor only designed to stop a few hits? Sometimes, but not always. Half-Life doesn't render specifically where the bullet hit, so for all we know Freeman can be getting some lucky hits in the FM-verse. Why? They're alien hornets. We don't know how they work. They don't specifically home in one the chest IIRC, they just home in anywhere. They might just home in on the arms or neck or legs. Also, even if they do that in-game, there's no guarantee that they always have to home in on the chest in-universe. I know that the game classifies it as electrical damage, I'm just saying that in light of later games, it may have been retconned into something else. Their tail strike is pretty disproportionately powerful as well. It can launch and gib people in game, so I guess bullsquids are really, really strong. I'll never know how the ones in On A Rail managed to slaughter so many troops alone though. It should also be pointed out that it has more health than an Abrams tank in game... I think it's very plausible that the thornets could do what they're shown to do when you take into account that we know so little about them. They're probably super durable and super poisonous. Not exactly an ideal weapon, but effective enough here. Grunts and Vorts are also shown punching right through steel doors and concrete, so I have no doubt they could decapitate a human with a strike. Interesting. I'll check it out. But again, I think you might be underestimating the thornets a bit in terms of pure damage.

Really, really old, I know, but... I've found it easier to just assume that, in the "Freeman's Mind universe", the "MP5s" are actually HK53s, and Freeman just never noticed the difference since they look similar and he knows nothing about guns. That fixes the "why do the soldiers fold after only a few shots?" plot hole nicely enough. As for them being taken down by 9mm pistols and buckshot spewing shotguns... I dunno. I'll assume he's usually lucky enough to hit the face. Are you saying you think the soldiers should be immune to the alien weaponry as well? Or at least Vortigaunt attacks? At least the thornets can possibly penetrate their armor or just poison them via their unarmored parts. The Vortigaunts may not even be throwing electricity at all now that I think about it. It's green, and Vorts in HL2 yell "Empower us!" or "Give us your essence!" in Half-Life 2, and the playable Vorts in Decay can heal themselves by damaging others. It might just be some pseudo-magical life draining beam that the HEV suit was specifically designed to protect against...

So, something I just thought of: Freeman has been doing heavy physical activity for well over a day without drinking any water. It's a small thing, but since this series strives to be less "video game-y" and mock common video games tropes, it seems weird that Freeman would go on for so long without drinking anything, especially when there have been multiple chances to explain that by having him drink from water fountains or vending machines.

I just realized something while playing Half-Life today- the very next episode should have Freeman going to Xen. I'm really excited for that; I want to see why he ends up going to the alien planet when all he wants to do is leave, go home, get drunk, shower, and sleep. My current prediction: that big teleporter at the end of the episode (which takes him back to where he started in the game, with the high tech carousel) will take him to Xen. I really hope that I'm wrong, though.

I LOVED this episode. It was even better than the last few, despite its relatively short length. Favorite bits: "I didn't even want to kill that guy... but they LITERALLY forced my hand." "Am I working for Microsoft?" "Oh piss off, I can teleport too! [downs Vortigaunt with a few bullets; another one teleports behind him] Ugh, now what? [turns around and mows it down] You're not special anymore!" I'm glad to hear that 61 will be out soon. I'm really looking forward to these next few episodes- we all know why. Was your comment on wanting to get the video done by the end of September referring to episode 61, the Game Dungeon episode, or both?

Well that was... unique.

I still think it ranges from anarchy to developing nations at best. All the power in the Fallout world feels fragile and has many exceptions beyond its influence. This isn't really the sign of a developed society. I say anarchy because in real anarchy, you DO have pockets of organization with different idealogies, because anarchy in itself is a temporary state. Like in Fallout 1. The ghouls are a giant cult, there are large groups of wandering bandits, you have small farming villages, you have small closed-knit communities like Junktown, you have a small theocracy with the brotherhood of steel, you have merchants doing whatever in the hub. Everybody is doing their own thing, that's anarchy. In later games, some larger groups emerging, but they're warring and their hold isn't secure at all, nobody has obvious overall control, that may not be anarchy, but it's not really society either. It's more like warring tribes with more technology. As for the water thing, in addition to no almost no area in any of the games looking like it has remotely enough food and water to last for more than a few weeks, in Fallout 3 they say the water is radioactive and plant life basically can't grow, yet somehow this has lasted hundreds of years without everyone dead. To me that's just lazy writing. Anyway, I don't really want to go further into a Fallout debate, but I'll say that Fallout feels squarely post apocalyptic, rather than dystopian. Strife to me feels dystopian. Post apocalyptic to me is Fallout, The Road, Road Warrior, Book of Eli, Walking Dead. Civilization has collapsed and hasn't really rebuilt yet. Dystopian is 1984, Brave New World, Soylent Green, Equilibrium, Hunger Games. Established society exists, but has clear oppression and / or very hollow or twisted values along with it. Are you saying that because no one has obvious control over everything? The NCR has basically renovated the entire west coast, and has a very strong grasp on their territory, to the point where they're basically a modern nation, having their own industry, professional army, government, and even currency. Other clearly established societies exist, even if they tend to be small scale, like Vault City in Fallout 2 (seems pretty dystopian and is very high tech, well established, sell sufficient, and can swallow up surrounding territory) and the Legion (though, they may fall in to the "very weak grasp on power" category given that they basically disband after their leader's death). I just don't agree with the idea that Fallout is really post-apocalyptic, at least not as of Fallout: New Vegas, due to organizations like the NCR, and the overall feeling of the world. Civilization HAS rebuilt, and the Mojave region doesn't seem any less civilized than the old west of the 1800s. The southwest and east haven't been seen for a while, but were well on the path to reconstruction last time we did see them. The west coast is entirely rebuilt to nearly modern levels. The Arizona/New Mexico/etc. area has been unified under a brutal, militaristic empire that, for the most part, is extremely low tech, but has random bits of modern technology dispersed throughout. The Mojave is the new frontier, and while there's no main government to it at the time, there will by the end of the game. The Utah region seems to be the only place we know of that still seems somewhat anarchic, being dotted with civilized city-states, such as New Canaan, but mostly inhabited my independent stone-age societies that just so happen to have found modern weapons. Well, Fallout 3 is... Fallout 3. Kinda the black sheep of the series, and by far the least logical.

No, I consider Fallout a little different. Fallout is a state of anarchy, not a stabilized feudal societal. Also, I am overthinking this, but I always thought of Fallout as a totally implausible scenario even with mutants and robots, etc. (except maybe the first) because everything is so dry it's just not sustainable for anything more than a short period of time. Food production just doesn't work for that in the long term. I mean hell, everyone living in the southwest is only doing that because diverting water flow from the colorado river. You need SOME pockets of real agrarian development in order for people to live out in the desert. I played the original up through that point, you can BARELY make out the pixels of SOMETHING that is there looking up, it wasn't obvious to me what it was at all. Anarchy? There are several functioning nations (most are city-states), including the NCR, a fully industrialized republic controlling all of California, plus parts of Baja California, Oregon, and Nevada, and the Legion, a feudalistic barbarian horde that controls most of Arizona and Utah. The NCR produces it's own food and other goods, as do many towns (not all of them are self-sustaining, though). What are you referring to with this comment? The east coast? The entire west coast? The Mojave? The world in general?

When you said that there so few games that had a mixture of primitive and future tech, were you including the Fallout series? It has, among other things, laser-toting mutants setting up shop in a Gothic cathedral, stone age tribals with machine guns, and a high tech pseudo-modern Vegas with an army of robots inside surrounded by a low-tech slum, which itself is surrounded by an old west style wasteland. I also like that style, because it creates scenarios that can't ever exist in the real world [bar an apocalypse, of course]. Having all of this great technology in small amounts and having to be stone age for the rest is just extremely interesting. I particularly like the effect it has on battles. In Fallout: New Vegas, the average NCR soldier carries a semi-automatic rifle- which the nation is industrialized enough to produce- but lacks artillery, tanks, fleets of aircraft, and other things abundant in modern warfare. They do have things like helicopters, power armor, and robots also, but in very small amounts. Their enemies carry an assortment of weapons including homemade melee weapons, primitive late 1800s firearms, modern weaponry, and even occasionally a power fist or laser machine gun.

I've managed to get lost in relatively simple games like Half-Life 2, so I imagine that I'd have NO hope in this one.