Is Half-Life 3 really that anticipated?

[JCAll]

I never cared about Half-Life 3. I cared about Half-Life 2: Episode 3. There's a difference.

 

[Vigormortis]

What hype would that be? I assume you're talking about player-generated hype, not advertising hype since Valve haven't said a word beyond the occasional "No, really, we're totally still working on it, now stop asking."

Actually, they have actively denied that anyone is working on it several times. But that was a while ago, that might not be the case anymore.

Actually, he's right. They've only ever said that "we're working on it" or "we're not talking about it." They've never said, "we're not working on it."

Some occasions where this happened -
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/23/gabe-on-ricochet-2-delay-but-he-doesnt-mean-ricochet/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-10-02-well-timed-valve-leak-reveals-half-life-3-development-teams

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

My best advice to Valve is to live with the shame rather than try get HL3 past this point. It could never live up to years of hype.

HL2 was released 6 years after HL1, was better than the original in every single way

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

HL3 can't be further tromping around city 17 and the countryside fighting the Combine, even given a new engine and assets. In order to succeed HL3 would need to leave the Combine invasion behind for bigger, fresher things, just as HL2 left the black Mesa incident behind.

You mean looking for the Borealis in the Arctic like they mentioned near the end of Episode 2?

Remember Eli's dying words?

Not really. I mean, I like the idea of the arctic and/or a ship (out in the ocean, not in dock) as a setting. It would definitely be a visual departure, and I have an affinity for such settings.

But the problem is larger. The Combine invasion itself, like the Black mesa incident before it, now suffers from the Seinfeld Is Unfunny [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny] problem. Half life 3 would need more than a setting change to feel fresh: it would need a scenario/premise change. The series would need to move outward from the Combine invasion story just as it did from Xen invasion.

With eps 1 & 2 in mind it's still an unfinished arc, which would put things in a pickle in regards to a fresh start as such. This is why I said it'd be better IMO to just retcon out the eps entirely, and start clean off the end of HL2, which while it has loose ends of it's own, could at least be treated as an end to the Combine arc.

i actually felt this when i played HL1 for the first time, i played it, WELL after it was released, at a time when most of the industry had taken notes of it's once revolutionary storytelling, so the game overall felt ok-ish, the boring grey and brown environments didnt help

HL2 tough, wow, that game holds up, again, played it well after it was released, but is still the best FPS ever released

 

[Sarge034]

It's gone past being anticipated. Now it's more of a myth that nobody believes exists.

If for whatever reason we were unable to replay the previous games then I think we would start to question whether the Half life series ever actually existed at all.

That's just, like, your opinion man!

But seriously, I jumped on the HL train wayyyyyy late so I don't have the nostalgia goggles on. I didn't find the series all that interesting. It had adequate handling, alright graphics, and the story was compelling enough to make me want to see what was going on but overall it was another shooter. HL3 really just serves as a beacon as to why I despise Valve. The way they treated their fans, the lies they told, and the way they handle themselves just angers me to no end.

 

[shrekfan246]

I've even heard it argued that it's responsible for many of the negative trends we see in video games with cutscenes taking increasing precedence over gameplay.

Do these people arguing have any idea what a cutscene actually is, or have any experience playing a game with cutscenes? Cos uh... what HL2 had wasn't cutscenes. There literally wasn't a single one. It had an intro and an outro and the entire middle section was all player-controlled, complete with being able to miss key points of discussion if you wandered off or looked away from the NPC talking. It was very immersive, which is exactly the opposite of what cutscenes are (and why cutscene-plagued games get a lot of hate when they pretend to be immersive yet string you along with minutes-long mini-movies, often including dialog or fight scenes, during which you contribute nothing at all).

Actually, since your progress through the game is still being arbitrarily halted by the game's storyline and exposition, it's most certainly still a cutscene. No amount of being able to walk around and bonk NPCs in the face with physics objects will change that.

OT: Yes and no. But yes, the longer they wait to give any hard information on whether it exists or not, the less people are going to care.

 

[Nazulu]

What is the big deal!? Both Half Life 1 & 2 are considered to be some of the greatest games ever made. So it's understandable that fans believe the 3rd should be great as well, that's why they still want it. I'm not as optimistic as them though. Great quality games doesn't just grow on tree's. It's not like graphics instantly improve on every thing. I prefer HL1 over 2 so I don't agree at all.

Also, I can't see how it is responsible for the extended cut-scene trend when they didn't have any real cut-scenes. And while there are story parts that drag for a bit in HL2, they were really well made, so Valve shouldn't be blamed when other developers poorly execute the same idea.

 

[Vigormortis]

Yep. There's absolutely no anticipation for Half-Life 3. None at all. Nobody cares about it in the slightest. Hence why nobody ever talks about it.

That's not stealthy irony you're picking up on, though - that's people being pissed off, of being exasperated by Valve's eternally frustrating behaviour, as Kajin outlined. People are inclined to say they 'don't care anymore' because of how weary they are of the whole thing.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's a declaration of apathy. A declaration being made passionately and repeatedly.

So, depending on ones stance from the start, it's either irony or hypocrisy.

I'm not saying they aren't allowed to be pissed off. God knows I can fully appreciate the sentiment. But declaring their ire to be apathy is just ridiculous. As is taking the time to state as much in any and every thread on the topic.

 

[shrekfan246]

I've even heard it argued that it's responsible for many of the negative trends we see in video games with cutscenes taking increasing precedence over gameplay.

Do these people arguing have any idea what a cutscene actually is, or have any experience playing a game with cutscenes? Cos uh... what HL2 had wasn't cutscenes. There literally wasn't a single one. It had an intro and an outro and the entire middle section was all player-controlled, complete with being able to miss key points of discussion if you wandered off or looked away from the NPC talking. It was very immersive, which is exactly the opposite of what cutscenes are (and why cutscene-plagued games get a lot of hate when they pretend to be immersive yet string you along with minutes-long mini-movies, often including dialog or fight scenes, during which you contribute nothing at all).

Actually, since your progress through the game is still being arbitrarily halted by the game's storyline and exposition, it's most certainly still a cutscene. No amount of being able to walk around and bonk NPCs in the face with physics objects will change that.

OT: Yes and no. But yes, the longer they wait to give any hard information on whether it exists or not, the less people are going to care.

The whole thing about cutscenes is more about having a seamless experience than anything else. Everything's presented through the same perspective, never taking you out of the character and damaging immersion.

I understand that, but calling it not a cutscene is being disingenuous, if you ask me.

Most of Half-Life 2's narrative is still delivered via characters expositing in your face in areas which are gated off both the way you came and the way you need to go until such a time as they're done talking.

Mind, that's not said as an attack on the game. In fact, I often don't understand why people have such seething hatred for the highly scripted style of cutscenes games like Uncharted adopt. They're just another tool to be used by the developer, and like anything they can be implemented well or poorly. But when it's boiled down, it's all still a cutscene. Even Bioshock had a few cutscenes.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

My best advice to Valve is to live with the shame rather than try get HL3 past this point. It could never live up to years of hype.

HL2 was released 6 years after HL1, was better than the original in every single way

I don't think it was, but that's beside the point.

Half-Life 2 was released 6 years after the first game, but only one year after being announced on May 2003. Nobody expected it or saw it coming. It was all rather sudden. On the other hand, it has been 10 (i.e. > 6) years since Half-Life 2, and in that period of time there have been more rumors and slain deadlines than those that separated HL1 from HL2. While the first game ended on a cliffhanger, how many games end on cliffhangers purely for the sake of cliffhangers? When HL2 did it, it wasn't a cursory decision - it was a downright promise of a third game and an epic conclusion to an escalating trilogy. Which never happened. Ten years and all we've got are two expansion episodes that satisfied nobody. In short, HL2 never attracted the hype nor did it take so long to finish as HL3, which after so many hoaxes and close calls it has become the subject of parody and ridicule of an entire community, much like the "latest" Duke Nukem or The Last Guardian if you've been following that. It carries the additional weight of being the belated conclusion to the series everybody wanted and nobody got.

 

[RedDeadFred]

As someone who finds the whole series to be fairly overrated (not bad mind you, just not amazing), no, I'm not really hyped for HL3 at all. I'm kind of doubting that they'll ever actually make it to be honest. It's been so long that I think they'd be scared of pulling of Duke Nukem Forever. After this long, can it really live up to diehard fans' expectations? I doubt it.

 

[DirgeNovak]

After all these years I'm no longer anticipating it. When/if they announce it, however, I will most likely come in my pants.
HL 1 and 2 (and pretty much every other Valve release I've played) were such classics I couldn't not be excited for the sequel.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

My best advice to Valve is to live with the shame rather than try get HL3 past this point. It could never live up to years of hype.

HL2 was released 6 years after HL1, was better than the original in every single way

I don't think it was, but that's beside the point.

Half-Life 2 was released 6 years after the first game, but only one year after being announced on May 2003. Nobody expected it or saw it coming. It was all rather sudden. On the other hand, it has been 10 (i.e. > 6) years since Half-Life 2, and in that period of time there have been more rumors and slain deadlines than those that separated HL1 from HL2. While the first game ended on a cliffhanger, how many games end on cliffhangers purely for the sake of cliffhangers? When HL2 did it, it wasn't a cursory decision - it was a downright promise of a third game and an epic conclusion to an escalating trilogy. Which never happened. Ten years and all we've got are two expansion episodes that satisfied nobody. In short, HL2 never attracted the hype nor did it take so long to finish as HL3, which after so many hoaxes and close calls it has become the subject of parody and ridicule of an entire community, much like the "latest" Duke Nukem or The Last Guardian if you've been following that. It carries the additional weight of being the belated conclusion to the series everybody wanted and nobody got.

Y-Yeah!?, well you, i, ermmm, you see...


actually you make a good point, i could argue its only been 7 years since episode 2 was released but... then my previous statement would be rendered null, since HL1 also had expansions

i still believe that if Valve were to release the game soon, theyd deliver, call me optimistic, those guys have made some of my favorite games ever

 

[Eddie the head]

I never had any to begin with. To be honest I could never get into it. I found it kind of boring. 6/10 It's alright I guess and I can see why others might like it. I don't.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

My best advice to Valve is to live with the shame rather than try get HL3 past this point. It could never live up to years of hype.

HL2 was released 6 years after HL1, was better than the original in every single way

I don't think it was, but that's beside the point.

Half-Life 2 was released 6 years after the first game, but only one year after being announced on May 2003. Nobody expected it or saw it coming. It was all rather sudden. On the other hand, it has been 10 (i.e. > 6) years since Half-Life 2, and in that period of time there have been more rumors and slain deadlines than those that separated HL1 from HL2. While the first game ended on a cliffhanger, how many games end on cliffhangers purely for the sake of cliffhangers? When HL2 did it, it wasn't a cursory decision - it was a downright promise of a third game and an epic conclusion to an escalating trilogy. Which never happened. Ten years and all we've got are two expansion episodes that satisfied nobody. In short, HL2 never attracted the hype nor did it take so long to finish as HL3, which after so many hoaxes and close calls it has become the subject of parody and ridicule of an entire community, much like the "latest" Duke Nukem or The Last Guardian if you've been following that. It carries the additional weight of being the belated conclusion to the series everybody wanted and nobody got.

Y-Yeah!?, well you, i, ermmm, you see...


actually you make a good point, i could argue its only been 7 years since episode 2 was released but... then my previous statement would be rendered null, since HL1 also had expansions

i still believe that if Valve were to release the game soon, theyd deliver, call me optimistic, those guys have made some of my favorite games ever

Mind you I would LOVE to see a new Half-Life that stirred at least half as much amazement as either of the first two did, I just think at this point it would probably get a rather cynical and particularly testy reception.

 

[verdant monkai]

I dont want it.

And anyone who does will probably be disappointed if they get it. Just like Duke Nukem forever....

 

[Blitsie]

I see a lot of people saying this is going to turn out like Duke Nukem Forever because the huge amount of hype and sky high expectations surrounding it will basically crush it. Mind if I quickly challenge that view?

Duke Nukem Forever's development was an utter nightmare, with way too many engine changes and way too much bad crap happening behind closed doors at 3D Realms. The end result was an objectively bad game and that's what sunk it, the hype and whatnot just blew it up into a huge disaster, I bet if you took away all those sky high expectations and made it release within two years it still would've been a disaster, just a much smaller one.

With Half Life on the other hand, by the sounds of it, they're just sitting on it. Valve sounds like a very chilled company to work at so from here on out its just assumption: The game is not stuck in some legal limbo or being mangled and thrown to other companies, its most probably just being worked on when they have a good idea going for it or left for when Source 2 gets established. Regardless, I believe the end result will either be a magnificent game that somehow lives up the hype or a game that fails to live up the hype, but at the very least ends up being very good, leaving most fans more than happy with it.

The point I'm trying to make is, sky high expectations, hype, anticipation and all that jazz isn't the only thing that destroyed Forever and while it certainly may pose a problem for Valve when Half Life 3 becomes a thing, its certainly not some inescapable doom that's going to destroy it and all of Valve when it gets released.

 

[Phlogiston]

It's already been said a few times

DN:F was a bad game that was overhyped and took a long time to arrive.

I expect HL3 will be a good game just like all the rest of Valve's games - but was still overhyped and took a long time to arrive.

 

[Vigormortis]

Mind you I would LOVE to see a new Half-Life that stirred at least half as much amazement as either of the first two did, I just think at this point it would probably get a rather cynical and particularly testy reception.

While I agree this will likely be the case amongst critics, if the game manages to be even half as "bar raising" as it's predecessors I feel that quite a lot of that cynicism will melt away.

This, of course, assumes it will be that revolutionary, evolutionary, or that high in quality. Something the minds at Valve are certainly capable of but aren't necessarily guaranteed to achieve.

 

[Blitsie]

It's already been said a few times

DN:F was a bad game that was overhyped and took a long time to arrive.

I expect HL3 will be a good game just like all the rest of Valve's games - but was still overhyped and took a long time to arrive.

Ah! I will be sure to read more thoroughly next time

Speaking of Half Life, what's the situation with Source 2 so far anyway? I feel the closer we get to that the bigger the chances are we'll start seeing some Half Life related news, hell it would be pretty cool if it's actually the first game to use that engine. Alas a man can dream.