Valve's Making Up Half-Life Along the Way
Half-Life's story has evolved slowly over time.
Read Full Article
Half-Life's story has evolved slowly over time.
Read Full Article
Valve's Making Up Half-Life Along the Way
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
You know, I've kinda got a theory about half life 3. I'm pretty sure the reason valve're taking forever is just that they can't think of a decent (and I mean decent by valve's very high standards) way to tie up all these different plot threads and ambiguities.
That or they just can't be arsed to finish it when they make so much money off of steam and TF2 hats.
That or they just can't be arsed to finish it when they make so much money off of steam and TF2 hats.
I still say they're going to do what Leisure Suit Larry did and just release Half Life 4. I really need to get around to finishing Half Life 2 at some point, I tried before but shooters aren't really my thing and the game doesn't help my opinion by throwing those sentient flying chainsaw pricks at you ten at once.
I think one of Yahtzee's early reviews discusses the dangers of removing the mystery from something-Condemned 2.
Not every story needs to be told, and neither does every past event. That's not to say that that it should never be done (see: MSG 3), just that you always risk spoiling what you've created by adding on too much.
Not every story needs to be told, and neither does every past event. That's not to say that that it should never be done (see: MSG 3), just that you always risk spoiling what you've created by adding on too much.
Oh good lord, that would be amazing. My ideal ending: the G-man reveals that he's Gray Mann (and that the Announcer is GLaDOS), but does so in such a way that implies he's just making up bullshit. Except you can't be 100% sure that he's not telling the truth.DVS BSTrD said:
That was always my theory. I've never read Half-Life: Raising the Bar (and probably never will if Valve can't be assed to republish it), so I'll probably never know for sure, but it sure seems like they started out making a generic one-man-resistance-movement game and turned it into a Half-Life sequel halfway through. A lot of things can change over the course of developing a game.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Never gonna happen. They look nothing alike.DVS BSTrD said:
I donno, in Half Life, I figured that the G Man was a government employee dealing with government contracts that Black Mesa had, but he came to work with the government via a somewhat benevolent interdimentional group that opposed some large, hinted at invasion force that would end up being the combine. I mean, much of the points here still stand, and the G-Man certainly has plenty of mysteries left, but it does clear up the ambiguities.
you know i don't even care about HL3. the ending of HL2 ep2 was tragic and left so much open that i kind of finished in my mind. although i would like to see what valve would come up with.
G-man... don't know. i'd watched a friend play HL2 and explain some stuff to me before i played halflife. one of those was the g-man. so no mystery for me.
i jumped the HL train late, so don't have like a decade long fandom and investment in it. Still, HL was great HL2 and it's episodes were great look forward to seeing what vlave does next.
G-man... don't know. i'd watched a friend play HL2 and explain some stuff to me before i played halflife. one of those was the g-man. so no mystery for me.
i jumped the HL train late, so don't have like a decade long fandom and investment in it. Still, HL was great HL2 and it's episodes were great look forward to seeing what vlave does next.
I sort of want the next game to be "Half-Life 3 / Portal 3". As one single game that ties them together.
After Portal 2,
so they can focus on Gordon Freeman.
I am now phantasising about GlaDOS reluctantly working together with Black Mesa scientists to stop the Combine -- and an epic battle consisting of revolutionary humans and Aperture turrets and Aperture bots against Combine soldiers ensues. And then it turns out that Aperture Science was what Eli Vance meant when he said he
and GlaDOS helps them defeat the G-Man and his agency...now I just need to think about what role the Borealis plays exactly.
Edit: Okay, I'm not sure about the last part with GlaDOS fighting him in any way, but something needs to happen. Hmm. G-Man being held imprisoned by GlaDOS? As a new test subject? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Anyway, the crossover game would of course include Gordon Freeman having to use the Portal gun oftentimes.
After Portal 2,
Chell is out of the picture anyway after having been released,
I am now phantasising about GlaDOS reluctantly working together with Black Mesa scientists to stop the Combine -- and an epic battle consisting of revolutionary humans and Aperture turrets and Aperture bots against Combine soldiers ensues. And then it turns out that Aperture Science was what Eli Vance meant when he said he
found a possible way of escaping the G-Man's range of control,
Edit: Okay, I'm not sure about the last part with GlaDOS fighting him in any way, but something needs to happen. Hmm. G-Man being held imprisoned by GlaDOS? As a new test subject? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Anyway, the crossover game would of course include Gordon Freeman having to use the Portal gun oftentimes.
Well, first things first, HL3 will be Half Life 2: Episode 3, not Half Life 3. It is in their interest to do it this way, as it lets them finish off the Half Life 2 story arc, whilst leaving them free to persue any new story in any new setting for the real Half Life 3. Think about how different the first and second games are; one is a science lab that's gone ape shit, the other is a battle to save earth from alien tyrants. The third will need to find a totally different direction.
"That struck me as odd, too. You want to tie two game universes together when one is infinitely more comedic and outlandish in tone?"
They've always been a single universe, there were references to Black Mesa as a competitor of Aperture Science in the form of a few conference room bar graphs in the first Portal.
They've always been a single universe, there were references to Black Mesa as a competitor of Aperture Science in the form of a few conference room bar graphs in the first Portal.
Yes, there was a minor reference to Black Mesa in Portal. More than that, what Yahtzee fails to realize is that Portal -and most of what he described in the article- can be referred to as a type of "minimalism." Though, what he gets wrong is that "minimalism" is not an excuse to make things up as you go, but rather the conscious act of showing the audience only a portion of the world and characters you have created, then allowing their own imagination to fill in the blanks.
At its heart, true minimalism always respects the intelligence of the audience. However, it can lead to people who do not understand the concept attempting to emulate it and producing truly shallow works, which is exactly what I fear will happen with gaming. Valve might be talented enough to avoid doing this, but can we say the same for EA? Capcom? Activision?
Minimalism's other major drawback is its lack of ability to communicate more complex philosophies and ideals. There is a reason that Kierkegaard, Kant, Goethe, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, etc. where not minimalists. Sometimes things need be said, and sometimes these things require lines like Dickens' "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death? The last, much the easiest to bestow, O, guillotine!" So, in my opinion, he is making a mistake by not acknowledging other types of writing philosophy that do not meet his own aesthetics so closely.
At its heart, true minimalism always respects the intelligence of the audience. However, it can lead to people who do not understand the concept attempting to emulate it and producing truly shallow works, which is exactly what I fear will happen with gaming. Valve might be talented enough to avoid doing this, but can we say the same for EA? Capcom? Activision?
Minimalism's other major drawback is its lack of ability to communicate more complex philosophies and ideals. There is a reason that Kierkegaard, Kant, Goethe, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, etc. where not minimalists. Sometimes things need be said, and sometimes these things require lines like Dickens' "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death? The last, much the easiest to bestow, O, guillotine!" So, in my opinion, he is making a mistake by not acknowledging other types of writing philosophy that do not meet his own aesthetics so closely.