RE: What order should I play the Half-life series in?

The above question was closed as 'primarily opinion-based'. I believe OP was asking about how the different Half-Life games fit into the overall Half-Life storyline, to better understand it (an answer could include explaining how the games are ordered chronologically, and/or which games are important or not, to understanding the main story). I don't think that's primarily opinion-based at all. If it is, it isn't "bad subjective". I think that it's akin to this question: What games and order should I play the Metal Gear series games to better understand the story?

Should it be reopened or should it remain closed?

  • 25
    It should never have been closed. – LessPop_MoreFizz Jul 22 '15 at 11:34
  • 1
    @LessPop_MoreFizz I, and four others, did. And then at least two others thought so, too, when it was nominated for reopening. Mod or not, overriding community decisions is not what you're here for. – Frank Jul 22 '15 at 12:01
  • Seems like it has been opened. From what I have seen, already, it might be worth restricting its comments to prevent discussion. It seems all the comments (atleast on the question and top answer) are leaning towards discussion on "are the episodes good games" – user106385 Jul 23 '15 at 0:23
  • @Robotnik After further consideration, I don't think we can count those that voted to leave open; the question was closed for over a week, and they had ample opportunity to cast their vote. None cared enough to do so. So I'm going to continue to view this as seven against three. – Frank Jul 23 '15 at 0:51
  • 1
    @Frank - As someone who regularly checks the review queues, I can't say I've seen this question in either review queue over this past week - close or reopen. Indeed this meta q is the first I've heard of any controversy over the question at all. I don't think it's right to arbitrarily discount votes based on "they should've voted to reopen then!" because there's >50k questions on Arqade. Without a prompt to the user telling them a question they'd previously "Left Open" has been closed, I doubt they go searching for it again. – Robotnik Mod Jul 23 '15 at 1:12
  • 2
    In either case that's not really the problem here - we really shouldn't be cherry-picking based on what a small subset of people did over a small space of time at all - "The question should remain closed because 5 people got to it before any reopen voters went back" does not make a solid argument. Do I agree that LessPop_MoreFizz should've only cast a vote when there was already 4 reopen votes (so as not to override consensus)? Probably yes. Do I think that the question would've reached 5 reopen votes given enough time anyway? Yes. And judging from this meta q, it seems the community agrees. – Robotnik Mod Jul 23 '15 at 1:14
  • @Robotnik To be clear, my issue isn't with the question itself; I even agree with the logic. My main beef is the way it was handled by the mod. I am very much a fan of community moderation, and I really don't like the big brother attitude that went on with this one. If the voters who had wanted to leave it open actually voted to reopen, we wouldn't be having this conversation. – Frank Jul 23 '15 at 1:17
  • @Frank - Like I mentioned, there's >50k questions to look after, I don't blame the 'Leave Open' reviewers for only giving it the 2 minutes of their time. I also tend to follow up on the ones I wasn't sure of, but you and I tend to be more 'power user' and less 'user' - as raised in another recent meta, a lot of users never even visit the meta site - it's possible people are reviewing simply for the internet points and badges - that was half the point of SE gamifying the process in the first place. – Robotnik Mod Jul 23 '15 at 1:25
  • 1
    (cont.) and if this is the case, then perhaps it's worth raising with the SE team that there needs to be more emphasis on followup after a review? A notification that "Hey, a question you reviewed and 'Left Open' has been closed, do you want to see if it can be improved?" would be nice – Robotnik Mod Jul 23 '15 at 1:25
  • 1
    @Robotnik The review queue actually dumps previous voters further down the priority chain, to get fresher eyes on the question. It only comes to people who've seen it after...a day? Or so. Somewhere around there. I think the prevailing theory is those that really care will argue about it on meta, to gather the necessary attention. – Frank Jul 23 '15 at 1:31
  • @Frank - well in that case, <argues profusely on meta> :P – Robotnik Mod Jul 23 '15 at 1:38
  • 2
    @Robotnik Darn, you've completely countered my argument. You win. THIS time, Gadget. :P – Frank Jul 23 '15 at 1:44

Reading order questions are very common for longer series of books or complex cases like Terry Pratchett's Discworld. And for game series the same issues apply as with books.

While the answers can be very subjective, there is very often a large amount of pretty objective data in them as well. Chronology of the plot between games is objective, and how much the newer games rely on knowing the plot of the previous ones is also not entirely subjective. A good answer doesn't tell you to play the games exactly in order XYZ, but provides information so that the asker can make an informed decision.

The title of the question looks a bit too subjective, but that could be handled by an edit and does not mean the question has to be closed.

I think this entire category of questions is on-topic here and not too subjective for the site.

  • 2
    Based on the entirely positive response this meta question (and answer) is gathering, I've edited and voted to reopen this one about Borderlands – Robotnik Mod Jul 23 '15 at 4:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .