It would also be a fucking predictable cop out.
:retard:
I dunno, I’ve always felt that the hero always surviving despite impossible odds is kind of a Hollywood cliche also (but I like it better than the heroic sacrifice). That said, after everything Gordon has already been through, what really COULD kill him? Besides, a hero’s death works best when you actually KNOW what the character was like. Take Boromir’s death in Fellowship of the Ring, for instance. Would it have been nearly as powerful if he hadn’t been struggling with his desire for power? But with Gordon, he’s silent, so you have no idea if he’s doing what he’s doing because he’s a courageous hero, or just because he intends to survive no matter what. It’s up to the player really. And in the end, if you die, it may or may not feel right depending on how you viewed Gordon.
Say you felt Gordon was a survive-at-all-costs-a-la-Shane-Walsh character. If the game forces you to sacrifice yourself to save others, you have no choice but to accept that Gordon had a last-minute change of heart and decided to do the right thing, even if you’d rather that he continue to be selfish. Now if you viewed Gordon as a no-man-left-behind-a-la-Rick-Grimes character, to sacrifice himself may be in his character. But you also might feel that after everything he already did, it was unfair to kill him off. Now imagine Gordon survives. There is no conflict, and everyone can have their own version of Gordon and be happy. Everyone wins. Valve would be stupid to not realize that killing off Gordon is a bad idea.
Thank you. I couldn’t have said it any better myself. 
I don’t think Valve would kill its central money and attraction machine, naming Gordon. They would put him somewhere else so they can make games (edit: one game) with him in the next 100 years.
Isn’t this next game supposed to tie up Gordon’s story?
Who says that?
I don’t WANT Gordon to die. I was just saying I’m not totally against the self sacrifice cliche.
Don’t quote me on this but I feel as if i’ve read an interview where someone from valve said that they planned to make more than just 3. But I’m not sure.
Loved your walking dead analogy Orpheon.
Not to mention how Gabe managed to work the phrase “the ongoing adventures of Gordon Freeman” into the commentary of both Episode 1 & 2.
If anyone’s sacrificing their life, it’s Alyx.
So long as it’s not Gordon, I can even settle with the whole world collapsing. And as for the interview thingy da doo, it’s from 2007. Since then, Gabe decided to stay away from episodic concept.
I’m content with whatever Valve decides to do, provided it doesn’t totally suck. If it’s done right, I won’t think twice about Gordon living or dying.
Valve has stated that the next Half-Life release will not be the end of the adventures of Dr. Gordon Freeman. I see Half-Life as a typical 3-act story structure. As such, there are three components:
Half-Life 1-- Main enemy are Xenians, setting up the story universe and introducing the main characters
Half-Life 2-- Main enemy are the Combine, the conflict portion of the story. Half-Life 2: Episode 3 will probably wrap up the Combine’s story arc, leading to:
Half-Life 3-- Main enemy are the G-man’s eeeehhhhhmployers. In my speculation, once the story arc of Half-Life 3 is over, so are Gordon’s adventures. They’ll wrap everything up and Gordon will be the savior of at least the Earth if not the vort’s homeworld and possibly even the Combine’s homeworld.
But that’s all my speculation.
I’d replace the main enemys in Half Life 3/Episode 3 with the real combine, the fat maggots called Advisors.