Are Valve even AWARE of how badly they're screwing up?

[Vivi22]

And then, worst of all, it'll reach the stage where no-one cares any more. And then, no matter how good the game ends up, it'll be dooming itself to become the next Duke Nukem Forever, completely crushed under the weight of its own expectations.

These statements are contradictory. If no one cares then a game can't fail under the weight of expectations.

You also seem to be unaware that DNF didn't fail because of people's expectations when it was finally released. It failed because it was a really shitty game and was rightfully panned for it.

Anyway, I'd say you're wrong about everything here. Valve has gone silent because they're not making Episode 3 anymore, and when the next Half-Life comes, they likely won't release a single thing until it's almost done. That's essentially what they've been doing for years now: say nothing until things are almost done. For some reason, a hell of a lot of people seem to forget that before HL2 came out, it was delayed a year at the last minute and it caused a huge stink. And TF2 was announced years before it came out and was a completely different game from the one they originally intended. So instead of getting peoples hopes up only to miss release dates or scrap entire projects and start over because what they have finished isn't any good, they simply avoid saying anything now until the release is basically a sure thing.

Because let's not forget for one moment that above anything else, Valve is quite the stickler for quality. With the original Half-Life they delayed it a year and rebuilt many of the levels from scratch because Newell felt it wasn't fun and he was willing to pay out of his own pocket for a year to redo it and make it something worth playing. Similar things have happened with a lot of their games, and that dedication to quality is what's made them successful ever since. Not hitting arbitrary release dates that they weren't prepared to reach. Frankly, more companies should learn from their example, particularly yearly franchises since most simply aren't worth the disc they're printed on.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

its valve, perfection (or as close as it gets) takes time

The same valve who allow broken ass games on their storefront? Mr Perfect they are not, more of a Curtis Axel.

its still the best digital distribution store out there

so its as close as perfection as it gets

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

its valve, perfection (or as close as it gets) takes time

Have you played ANYTHING by Valve recently? Perfection is the last thing on their mind, if I had a nickel for every patch that breaks more than it fixes...

TF2, HL2, Portal 2, L4D2...

i cant really complain much about any of them, the first 2 are easily in my ton 10 games ever

 

[TrevHead]

They simply don't need to is the likely answer.

Valve is a good example why a monopoly is bad for gamers, this past 3 or so years they've become lazy and slow to fix problems with their store and releasing their own titles. If Valve had a direct competitor with a larger market share to keep them on their toes you can bet your arse we would be playing HL3 or atleast ep 3 or a spin off by now.

I wish console gamers fanboys would remember that when wishing for the death of their competitors

Hopefully when Valve release their new control pad and if Gabe decides to fight seriously for the living room we might see them promote or release some new games exclusive to PC/Steam.

 

[MHR]

OP needs to chill. I'm waiting for HL3 too, I've replayed again and again and again the previous games, and Black mesa. Half-Life 3 and maybe some future all-immersive virtual-reality MMO are the only things I'm ever actively wanting out of future releases.

Valve has been working on HL3 this whole time, it's just they've scrapped a lot and had to try again. From what clues we've been given over the years, my understanding is that they've been surprised about what has worked and what hasn't worked regarding the game, and they've had to scrap and redo a lot.

Why? Just imagine. Valve tries to make only the very best. You try thinking of something groundbreaking from a linear campaign FPS. The market shits linear FPS campaigns. One report hinted they were trying some sort of open-world free-roam game model to shake it up a bit, with RPG-like aspects and inventory management. How does that sound similar to other games you've played? How disappointed would people have been if what Valve squatted out after years of waiting was Fallout3-Half-Life2, radioactive boogaloo? I'd scrap that too and try again.

Remember the development cycle of TF2? How it originally would have been by today's standards the stereotypical realistic military shooter with team combat? How it also was to have a commander system with a player trying to dictate tactics and plans and airdrops and crap? They made it and knew that was shit, so they had to scrap things a few times and they eventually found the TF2 comic artstyle that nobody else had done yet and released it after 7 years of development.

I for one understand these years and years of delays. However, I'm optimistic we'll actually be getting HL3 soon. We just won't be hearing anything about it until it's already being shipped to stores because they're keeping that tight a lid on it.

 

[Vigormortis]

The average is actually lower, 37% of all owned games are unplayed, 13% more are played for less than an hour [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/], but there's variation depending on how the games are acquired. Games bought in sales are bundled are much less likely to be downloaded and played.

But, when considered over a lengthy period of time, many of those statistics lose meaning.

For example: I've got around 14 unplayed games in my Steam library right now. And maybe a quarter as many with less than an hour logged in them.

However, this doesn't mean they'll stay unplayed or with limited hours. It just means I haven't gotten around to them yet. Or, for some games on my list, I played them extensively years ago but don't feel a need to return to them for any significant amount of time nowadays.

Also, ArsTechnica admit their data doesn't go back past 2009, which is likely why titles like Half-Life 2: Deathmatch and Day of Defeat show so many unplayed instances compared to owned units. And really, when you think on it further, how many boxed titles do gamers have sitting on their shelves that haven't been played in years? Or ever, even?

Regardless, the article is an interesting read, if nothing else, and offers some interesting insights into player data and Steam software usage.

 

[Bifford]

Maybe Valve just doesn't care so much about Half-Life. Half-Life is just an FPS. Valve is now doing bigger things. Steam has brought Valve more money and influence than the Half-Life series ever did. They're about to launch a console now, which means they're ready to take on the big boys like Sony and Microsoft. Half-Life put Valve's name on the map, but Steam has made it an industry titan. As for Half-Life, I think it's a little overrated. It's a good FPS, but it's not really God's gift to gamers, and I Valve will have a hard time distinguishing itself with a third instalment when the market has so many other fine FPSs like Bioshock and Far Cry and Titanfall. The HL2 Episodes got a meh reaction from me. Valve did much better by making the Portal games, truly revolutionary games which introduced a game mechanic that nobody ever saw before and blew everyone away. In fact, I think Portal was a historically more important game than Half-Life 1 was.

 

[Battenberg]

And then, worst of all, it'll reach the stage where no-one cares any more.

I'm pretty sure that stage has been and gone for a lot of people.

Besides there's no way HL3 could be good enough to justify this long a wait, maybe it's best of it doesn't happen.

 

[Bifford]

I don't care about Half-Life 3. There are so many great FPSs out there, and here we are demanding something on par with the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

snip

snip

snip

I hear this a lot, and it always surprises me that those saying it never realize the contradiction.

How can something "not be cared about" and yet be doomed to "never live up to expectations"?

Someone either doesn't care about it and therefore has no expectations, or does care about it and therefore has expectations. You don't get to mix and match. That's just illogical.

Come on, people. Pick one combination or the other. Either you think people still care about the game and have expectations of it's quality (that you believe it can't possibly live up to), or you think people no longer care and thus expect nothing from the game's release.

 

[ILikeEggs]

Half Life 3 is dead you say?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-10-02-well-timed-valve-leak-reveals-half-life-3-development-teams

Whether or not it will be good, a number of recent leaks(Source 2, Left 4 Dead 3, etc) are good indicators that the game is still in development. Also the fact that Gabe Newell has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Yes, we're working on Source 2 but are waiting for a game with which to release it" when asked about the Source 2 engine.

If the past is any indicator, they may well end up putting HL3 out with the first set of commercially available Steam boxes, much like Half Life 2 was released alongside Steam.

 

[Vigormortis]

The point is that Half Life 2's expansions were supposed to be episodic. The developer commentary in episodes 1 and 2 touted the episodic formula in between self-back-patting over their supposed "amazing techniques of storytelling." The Source 2 engine hadn't been announced, and nothing had changed the perception that Episode 3 not coming out on schedule was an increasingly blatant breach of verbal contract to many players. They were promised something, and never got so much as an apology or a "don't worry, we're just off-schedule."

Except that that's not true at all. They said, on several occasions after Episode 2's release, that they'd moved away from the episodic release model and were moving towards a combination of a standalone, major release schedule and a "games as a service" platform.

This idea that they said, "We're totally making Episode 3!" and have said nothing else since is ridiculous.

I'll even repost something I posted earlier in this thread:

Spoiler: Let's clear this up a bit...

- http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/23/gabe-on-ricochet-2-delay-but-he-doesnt-mean-ricochet/

- http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/23/half-life-3-being-worked-on-says-counter-strike-creator

- http://www.valvetime.net/threads/exclusive-half-life-2-episode-3-concept-art.206815/

- http://www.valvetime.net/threads/up...h-more-found-on-valve-project-tracker.243580/

- http://www.computerandvideogames.com/431918/half-life-3-development-team-revealed-via-network-leak/

- http://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/2cv5os/



You can argue all day that Half-Life 3 might end up being cancelled at some point, and any rational person would agree, but to say it's not in active development, or never was, is just demonstrably wrong.

There is other info out there on Half-Life 3's development, but I really just don't feel like wasting more time looking it up. I've lost count on how many times I've tried to show this info to people. If others want to see it they can look it up themselves.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Crown Jewel? Failing before they ain't giving you what you want? What is this?

Valve have moved on from that gimmick and are very much successful. This is like wanting Undertaker to go back to his cult leader or Biker gimmick, yeah it was fun for a bit but its done now.
Additionally due to this massive expectation of people (crown jewel really?) it means they'd rather not release something and than get attacked for it when its not as rose coloured as people thought.

I agree, its like wanting the Attitude Era back but knowing deep down that it won't really work out or live up to the expectations.

I look to the future for inspiration, like watching NXT. New ventures are good and sometimes closing out a trilogy can have mass(effect)ive repercussions.

 

[Battenberg]

snip

snip

snip

snip

I hear this a lot, and it always surprises me that those saying it never realize the contradiction.

How can something "not be cared about" and yet be doomed to "never live up to expectations"?

Someone either doesn't care about it and therefore has no expectations, or does care about it and therefore has expectations. You don't get to mix and match. That's just illogical. It's the very essence of cognitive dissonance, or perhaps even intellectual dishonesty in some case.

Come on, people. Pick one combination or the other. Either you think people still care about the game and have expectations of it's quality (that you believe it can't possibly live up to), or you think people no longer care and thus expect nothing from the game's release.

Did I say that? Maybe re-read what I actually wrote paying extra attention to the words I chose this time.

 

[sXeth]

So I didn't play much of Half Life 2, not really enjoying it, and finding the first "Ehhhh. alright I guess".

I've always been curious though, did it drop off at some weird awkward point that indicated a sequel? Or are people just constantly begging for a sequel to a properly ended series?

 

[wulf3n]

I've always been curious though, did it drop off at some weird awkward point that indicated a sequel?

It did leave on a pretty big cliff-hanger... which was then resolved by the HL: Episodes... which also stopped at 2 and left on a pretty big cliff-hanger.

 

[omega 616]

There's a Dorkly article this thread reminds me of a lot: http://www.dorkly.com/post/54448/a-message-from-gabe-newell

I also agree with the people saying that HL3 would only damage the company. If it were to be released, people would have the same conclusion they had for Duke Nukem Forever; overhyped and not worth the many years of waiting.

I agree with what you're saying but DNF had really obvious glaring flaws, many of which probably come from too many chefs spoiling the broth.

HL3 is made by one house, while agree the hype for it is almost palpable and no game could ever touch them expectations ... if it is a sound game, I can't see how it can be poorly received.

I think destiny is another example, people were so hyped for it and while some claim to be enjoying it, I know I am not and I wasn't hyped at all for it. I think it is utterly generic, guns feel like COD guns (with one exception), the missions are boring typical MMO ones, the RPG mechanics are pretty token etc etc etc but if they polished that up, by adding weird guns, add WAY more mission variety, add actual skill trees, make the ships mean something, remove some of those unnecessary screens (such as when I select a mission, why do I need another screen where I have to click launch?) and stop making us hold buttons it would be a much better game.

Hype doesn't really ruin games, bad design makes bad games.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

10 (7) on, and people might start getting angry, then not caring?
if certain people still care after this length of time, they aint gonna stop caring now.

 

[Vigormortis]

Did I say that? Maybe re-read what I actually wrote paying extra attention to the words I chose this time.

In response to Arcane's post, "And then, worst of all, it'll reach the stage where no-one cares any more." you said, "I'm pretty sure that stage has been and gone for a lot of people."

Denoting that most people don't care about the game anymore.

Then, you followed it up with: "Besides there's no way HL3 could be good enough to justify this long a wait, maybe it's best of it doesn't happen."

Specifying that it won't live up to expectations.

Not entirely sure how I misinterpreted that. Perhaps you can clarify? If I have misinterpreted then I do sincerely apologize and retract the quotation and question.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

What about for someone like me that only played all the Half Life games recently and would be able to give a relatively fair review since I don't have a decade of difference in for it?

People like you are most likely the minority I'm afraid. Not that that's a bad thing, given that I'm in that group too.

Hype doesn't really ruin games, bad design makes bad games.

I agree that it can't ruin a game, but it can certainly hamper the player's experience if they're disappointed by what they've been waiting for. And individual experience is the main reason why we play games in the first place.

Though I will give you the point about DNF being a bad example; it was simply the first thing that came to mind while thinking of games that took a long time in production.