Newell: Specialization in Gaming is "The Enemy of the Future"

[Therumancer]

It sounds all nice when Gabe puts it like that, and Valve's corporate structure definitely has led to some good things happening, but I think it deserves mention that a lot of Valve's biggest problems come from not wanting to have people in dedicated positions.

For example, I would argue that one of Valve's biggest problems is communication with their fans, or lack thereof. The whole Diretide fiasco could have been easily avoided if they just had a couple of dedicated PR people that could give the community some idea of what Valve's plans were, and gauge interest in the event. And don't even get me started on all of the communication issues regarding Half-Life 3.

This corporate structure also seems to be the reason why there isn't better customer support for Steam, which is something they need to fix if they intend on selling hardware. Of course, Valve's corporate structure could have nothing to do with their customer support, but in either case it's something that clearly doesn't have a high priority within the company.

Also:

you want them to recognize that being really good at Half-Life level design is not as nearly as valued as thinking of how to design social multiplayer experiences.

Maybe if they valued Half-Life level design more, they would have actually released a sequel by now.

See, this is more or less what I was going to write (and it was the first post). A big part of Valve's problem is in being too forward thinking and not dedicated enough to their fans and what they already started working on. While Gabe is chasing his new ideas, and taking pretty much everyone with him, it leaves people waiting with a bunch of unfinished works like "Half-Life". Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that Valve has gotten so wrapped up in the business and technology innovation thing it's largely forgotten how to be a game company, develop and maintain IPs, and deliver to the fans. As every year goes by that fans of Half-Life do not see the third part and the (presumed) resolution it's kind of showing where Gabe's philosophy fails. He very much SHOULD have a dedicated team of people working on his games and IPs.

This is coming from someone who isn't really a Half-Life fan. I can feel the pain, but I suppose you don't have it as bad as me, I'm someone whose been waiting like what... 17, 18 years now for "Heralds Of The Winged Exemplar", it was supposed to be out mid-way through last year, but now we're pushing through 2014 and despite my donation (and presumably that of others) it's still not out yet and might very well turn to vapourware again... they did do some Demos though. Of course to be fair, that IS a one man project, Gabe doesn't have the excuses Cleve does.

Ahhh well, at least "Wasteland 2" will hopefully be out soon, I've been "drooling in anticipation" for it ever since I saw the blurb for it decades ago in Faran Brygo's hideout. They put up an early access version, but that doesn't help those of us who kickstarted and didn't get early access in our package (I do however have two digital copies coming to me, one for me, one for my dad, when they finally get around to a release for us poor plebes).

 

[black_knight1337]

Except it's not just a port. Valve didn't "somehow" break through copyright laws, Blizzard claimed ownership over something they had nothing to do with and both companies came to a mutual agreement. Additionally, copyright laws are hugely vague and dont actually utilize precedents, so it's not like there was anything stopping them from necessarily winning the case aside from the power of the legal team.

It's still (at least as of a couple of months ago) being used as a testing ground for the stand-alone. The vast majority of the characters in it are straight ports from the mod. The only significant changes were in the change of engine which gave him a bit more flexibility. And that whole thing is a grey area. The thing was whether or not the term "DotA" infringes on the already existing "DotA-Allstars" which is owned by Blizzard. I've got no idea how the courts ever ruled in favour of Valve on that one.

And I'm pointing out two things
1. It's a product that only exists because of modding
2. Your overall attempts to discredit the titles Valve has released leaves several very broad definitions. Whether you're considering something a "mod" or "port" (the latter pertaining even to games whose features ended up being wildly different from the original product) or some other thing, your definitions for what "counts" and what doesn't seem conveniently tailored to your opinion of Valve, and not the other way around

That doesn't inherently make it a mod of another game though. The only point I've had for discrediting Valve game development wise is in their idea generating. The only IPs that was created in-house was Half-Life and Ricochet, the rest are from buying developers with already fleshed out and proven concepts. Which is why I've argued that they should just do it like everyone else and be a publisher for them rather than buying them outright. Only difference it would make is in who gets credited for it.

Valve has mentioned Half Life 3 multiple times, and you can get an announcement out of some guy coming up onto stage and saying "We're releasing X" with a related song (even if it's well-known outside of the context of promotion for the title) or semi-related image

Source? I don't think I've ever heard them say 3 let alone Half-Life 3. And yes, the latter is a game announcement because they are actually revealing the title. The closest I've ever seen to announcement for Half-Life 3 is a bunch of vague statements which amount to "we're working on a game", which is common knowledge anyway because game developers almost always are working on a game, whether it be a full release or an expansion.

So wait... out of 7 franchises you've already admitted that nearly half of them could be non-rehashes? What are we comparing Valve to in terms of game development wherein not only having 50% of your products be new is common, but also where we're immediately discounting rather large differences between products (portal 1 and portal 2) in determining what is a rehash?

I presume you're counting Ricochet as a franchise in that. So that actually makes it 10 franchises, going by the standard of Ricochet being one. Only 2 of them are just straight new ideas with another 1 being debatable (L4D, reasons I stated before). Of the other 7, 1 is a clone, 5 were originally mods and the other is a spiritual successor to a game made by students. If you weren't counting Ricochet then it's 7 franchises, 1 new, 1 that's debatable, 4 that were mods and 1 spiritual successor to an student project. So again, how are Valve's titles "original"?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. There's more to game design than just the core concept of a new title, and it could very well be that they're just trying to find ideas that work (you know, like everyone else in the industry). The thing is though, instead of creating another modernbattleduty shooter, they'll pick up small mod teams and game devs and collaborate with them on a project. Because Valve isn't big on expanding like a standard corporation would, they choose to invite employees from those teams to work with them in Seattle, and the unstructured work culture they strive for means that they wont put much emphasis on creating or assigning teams.

Maybe, although all that was is an inference based off of your statement. The thing is though that as designers, their job is to generate ideas. Whether they be new games entirely or just additions/changes to existing ones. Over the last 6 years they've only done one of the former (which is their unnamed title). But as for the latter, yeah they are doing it but, at least from the outside, it looks like they are only taking a sort of 'mentor' role in that regard. They just seem to sort of let the new guys design it however they want but guide them in a 'better' direction, not unlike what you'd see at other AAA devs that have multiple teams. Which then poses the question, 'what else are those designers doing?'. Which is a question only Valve can answer because beyond an unnamed project we've got nothing.

Also, the fact that you appear to consider Blood Dragon to be a more distinct product than Portal 2 is hilarious. Please tell me I'm mistaken

Never even said that at all, nor was it even inferable. I don't think I've even mentioned Portal 2 at all, at least in regards to that line.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

It's still (at least as of a couple of months ago) being used as a testing ground for the stand-alone. The vast majority of the characters in it are straight ports from the mod. The only significant changes were in the change of engine which gave him a bit more flexibility. And that whole thing is a grey area. The thing was whether or not the term "DotA" infringes on the already existing "DotA-Allstars" which is owned by Blizzard. I've got no idea how the courts ever ruled in favour of Valve on that one.

Vast majority, but not all
Not to mention ranking systems and all sorts of other infrastructual improvements
And again, copyright law is intentionally grey, and you don't get to use things like precedent either. Stuff like that is purely based on the strength of your legal team

That doesn't inherently make it a mod of another game though. The only point I've had for discrediting Valve game development wise is in their idea generating. The only IPs that was created in-house was Half-Life and Ricochet, the rest are from buying developers with already fleshed out and proven concepts. Which is why I've argued that they should just do it like everyone else and be a publisher for them rather than buying them outright. Only difference it would make is in who gets credited for it.

Except that's misleading. Valve takes part in the development process and actively adds features to the game. Portal would have been very different had it simply been a source engine port of narbacular drop

Source? I don't think I've ever heard them say 3 let alone Half-Life 3. And yes, the latter is a game announcement because they are actually revealing the title. The closest I've ever seen to announcement for Half-Life 3 is a bunch of vague statements which amount to "we're working on a game", which is common knowledge anyway because game developers almost always are working on a game, whether it be a full release or an expansion.

Except often those titles end up being vapourware anyway. The reason why Valve hasn't done a huge press release concerning HL3 is because they're still going to take awhile on it. Your implication that it's simply "we're working on a game" feels like it ignores a lot of the context in which these statements are made.

I presume you're counting Ricochet as a franchise in that. So that actually makes it 10 franchises, going by the standard of Ricochet being one. Only 2 of them are just straight new ideas with another 1 being debatable (L4D, reasons I stated before). Of the other 7, 1 is a clone, 5 were originally mods and the other is a spiritual successor to a game made by students. If you weren't counting Ricochet then it's 7 franchises, 1 new, 1 that's debatable, 4 that were mods and 1 spiritual successor to an student project. So again, how are Valve's titles "original"?

How are you getting 10 franchises? Even counting Alien Swarm (which many people don't) the most I can get is 9
And "spiritual successor" != rehash
Event then, going by percents, what companies do you know that produce 30-40 percent of their content as new IP's and sequels that aren't basically retextured versions of the last game?

They just seem to sort of let the new guys design it however they want but guide them in a 'better' direction, not unlike what you'd see at other AAA devs that have multiple teams.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Never even said that at all, nor was it even inferable. I don't think I've even mentioned Portal 2 at all, at least in regards to that line.

Portal 2 was not in your "not a rehash" list. Blood Dragon WAS in your "not a rehash" list
If Portal 2 is not a rehash, and Portal 1/HL/Ricochet/L4D are not rehashes, then the portal shares space with HL/Ricochet/L4D on the not-rehashes list.

 

[black_knight1337]

Vast majority, but not all
Not to mention ranking systems and all sorts of other infrastructual improvements
And again, copyright law is intentionally grey, and you don't get to use things like precedent either. Stuff like that is purely based on the strength of your legal team

Eh, the only real change was the networking kind of stuff which was just something that had to be done. And I know, something like that case seems pretty clear cut though.

Except often those titles end up being vapourware anyway. The reason why Valve hasn't done a huge press release concerning HL3 is because they're still going to take awhile on it. Your implication that it's simply "we're working on a game" feels like it ignores a lot of the context in which these statements are made.

Idk, they could confirm that it's in production? They could show off some screenshots of it? Possibly even do a bit of a gameplay trailer with "THIS IS AN ALPHA VERSION" pasted all over it. It's been over 6 years now, they should be able to do at least the first two things even if the mechanics and story are STILL fluctuating greatly.

How are you getting 10 franchises? Even counting Alien Swarm (which many people don't) the most I can get is 9
And "spiritual successor" != rehash
Event then, going by percents, what companies do you know that produce 30-40 percent of their content as new IP's and sequels that aren't basically retextured versions of the last game?

If you were counting Ricochet, then you'd have to count all of their 'smaller' games as well. By "original" I mean either new mechanics entirely or using old mechanics in a new way. Portal's core mechanics are only a slight tweak of Narbacular Drop's. And it's at best 30%, although after doing some research I've found other linear co-op shooters with a variety of enemies. So including that it'd only be 15-20%. And there's many other developers that have 'original' titles. There's Blizzard with Diablo or RPM Racing/Rock n' Roll Racing, Maxis with The Sims or Spore, Rockstar with GTA etc.

[CITATION NEEDED]

The former or the latter? For the former see DotA 2. The team credited contains 1 designer, 2 writers, 5 programmers, 7 artists, 4 sound designers and a bunch of voice actors. That designer is IceFrog. I've got no doubt that some of their other designers gave him a hand but they were never credited. As for the latter, there's loads of interviews with developers talking about cross-team influences.

Portal 2 was not in your "not a rehash" list. Blood Dragon WAS in your "not a rehash" list
If Portal 2 is not a rehash, and Portal 1/HL/Ricochet/L4D are not rehashes, then the portal shares space with HL/Ricochet/L4D on the not-rehashes list.

You said how 'original' Valve's titles were. I said that they aren't and put them as 'original' as games like Blood Dragon and Hearthstone. It's some new and different for the developer and could generally be considered a 'risk' but they're far from being 'original' in the industry as a whole.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Eh, the only real change was the networking kind of stuff which was just something that had to be done. And I know, something like that case seems pretty clear cut though.

1. Dota and Dota2 being identical is actually pretty extensively debated
2. You forgot matchmaking

Idk, they could confirm that it's in production? They could show off some screenshots of it? Possibly even do a bit of a gameplay trailer with "THIS IS AN ALPHA VERSION" pasted all over it. It's been over 6 years now, they should be able to do at least the first two things even if the mechanics and story are STILL fluctuating greatly.

They HAVE confirmed it's in production, it's just that it's not very far along. There's ultimately no need to prematurely toss out pictures and the like. Valve understands how their hype train works and will plan that bit out adequately

If you were counting Ricochet, then you'd have to count all of their 'smaller' games as well. By "original" I mean either new mechanics entirely or using old mechanics in a new way. Portal's core mechanics are only a slight tweak of Narbacular Drop's. And it's at best 30%, although after doing some research I've found other linear co-op shooters with a variety of enemies. So including that it'd only be 15-20%. And there's many other developers that have 'original' titles. There's Blizzard with Diablo or RPM Racing/Rock n' Roll Racing, Maxis with The Sims or Spore, Rockstar with GTA etc.

You're going to have to explain what counts as "in a new way", because plenty of games had straightforward point and click hack and slash gameplay before Diablo, and I have a very hard time believing that nobody had ever done a racing game that was functionally similar to Rock n' Roll Racing
In fact, that's pretty much going to be debatable for any Blizzard title

The former or the latter? For the former see DotA 2. The team credited contains 1 designer, 2 writers, 5 programmers, 7 artists, 4 sound designers and a bunch of voice actors. That designer is IceFrog. I've got no doubt that some of their other designers gave him a hand but they were never credited. As for the latter, there's loads of interviews with developers talking about cross-team influences.

For the former
Not credited != didn't contribute. Didn't you take issue before with Valve releasing everything under the same name?
Ultimately you don't know what Valve's internal workings look like, but you sure seem comfortable criticizing them for imagined slights

You said how 'original' Valve's titles were. I said that they aren't and put them as 'original' as games like Blood Dragon and Hearthstone. It's some new and different for the developer and could generally be considered a 'risk' but they're far from being 'original' in the industry as a whole.

Except Blood Dragon is an absolute rehash, and isn't even remotely in the same category as most of what Valve does (not going to defend L4D2 or anything like that )

 

[black_knight1337]

1. Dota and Dota2 being identical is actually pretty extensively debated
2. You forgot matchmaking

Yep, but I think the map still being a testing ground for the full release speaks volumes of how close they are. And no I didn't, matchmaking falls under networking.

They HAVE confirmed it's in production, it's just that it's not very far along. There's ultimately no need to prematurely toss out pictures and the like. Valve understands how their hype train works and will plan that bit out adequately

Source? I've never seen anywhere that Gabe nor any other representative of Valve has said that they are working on Half-Life 3. And yes, they have to specifically state Half-Life 3, not "Ricochet 2". Because while the safe bet would be Half-Life 3, it doesn't mean it's the only option. And it's "not very far along"? After 6 years of development? Not sure why you'd actually believe they were that incompetent. And I really don't think that 6 years in is premature for them to show off some pictures every now and then.

You're going to have to explain what counts as "in a new way", because plenty of games had straightforward point and click hack and slash gameplay before Diablo, and I have a very hard time believing that nobody had ever done a racing game that was functionally similar to Rock n' Roll Racing
In fact, that's pretty much going to be debatable for any Blizzard title

"In a new way" as in hybrids. An example would be games like those fps/td hybrids. Each part on it's own is stuff we've seen before but blending them together makes for a new experience entirely. And there was a loot driven isometric arpg before 1996 when Diablo founded it's own genre? And there was an isometric combat racing game before 1991? If you've got examples then fine but otherwise it's the whole 'burden of proof' thing.

For the former
Not credited != didn't contribute. Didn't you take issue before with Valve releasing everything under the same name?
Ultimately you don't know what Valve's internal workings look like, but you sure seem comfortable criticizing them for imagined slights

No point arguing this at all. It's just like your argument with modding, you're taking it right back to it's most vague form. Using that you could say that people that offered some advice "contributed" to the game.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Source? I've never seen anywhere that Gabe nor any other representative of Valve has said that they are working on Half-Life 3. And yes, they have to specifically state Half-Life 3, not "Ricochet 2". Because while the safe bet would be Half-Life 3, it doesn't mean it's the only option. And it's "not very far along"? After 6 years of development? Not sure why you'd actually believe they were that incompetent. And I really don't think that 6 years in is premature for them to show off some pictures every now and then.

It's not a matter of incompetence, it's a matter of direction and scale. They've probably gone through several versions of Half Life 3 and then axed it. Heck, I've watched brand new IPs go through similar processes. For a highly anticipated third instalment in a series like Half Life? It's pretty much expected

"In a new way" as in hybrids. An example would be games like those fps/td hybrids. Each part on it's own is stuff we've seen before but blending them together makes for a new experience entirely. And there was a loot driven isometric arpg before 1996 when Diablo founded it's own genre? And there was an isometric combat racing game before 1991? If you've got examples then fine but otherwise it's the whole 'burden of proof' thing.

Define loot-driven. Most RPGs are "loot driven" as gear is a notable part of progression. Isometric is simply a method of showing gameplay. Does the existence of Gate of Doom make Diablo less special because it shares the same camera angle? Or is it less special because the Ultima series was already doing much more with stories dependent on point and click RPG combat?

No point arguing this at all. It's just like your argument with modding, you're taking it right back to it's most vague form. Using that you could say that people that offered some advice "contributed" to the game.

OR you could say that in an unstructured environment with no hierarchies, it's entirely possible that other people contributed, or are still contributing, to the overall development of a project outside of just following a designer's orders. Wouldn't it be convenient if that was exactly how Valve insists it handles projects?

 

[black_knight1337]

It's not a matter of incompetence, it's a matter of direction and scale. They've probably gone through several versions of Half Life 3 and then axed it. Heck, I've watched brand new IPs go through similar processes. For a highly anticipated third instalment in a series like Half Life? It's pretty much expected

Yes it's an iterative process but it's not that iterative. Unless they've been changing genres and drastically changing it's visual design they should have something done. I haven't seen another game that's had it's fundamental design still changing 6 years in. They should have that stuff done by now and the only excuses for it is either drastic shifts in genre or style or that they're just incompetent. And really, with a game like Half-Life, you'll be hard pressed to argue that the former could be a good thing.

Define loot-driven. Most RPGs are "loot driven" as gear is a notable part of progression. Isometric is simply a method of showing gameplay. Does the existence of Gate of Doom make Diablo less special because it shares the same camera angle? Or is it less special because the Ultima series was already doing much more with stories dependent on point and click RPG combat?

loot-driven, as in loot is the key mechanic of the game. It drives the majority of your progression and getting better loot is almost always your goal (the exception is if you manage to hit the cap). Most RPGs aren't loot driven. Simply having loot doesn't make it loot driven. You're the first person I've seen compare Ultima to Diablo in that way, and there's good reason why people don't.

OR you could say that in an unstructured environment with no hierarchies, it's entirely possible that other people contributed, or are still contributing, to the overall development of a project outside of just following a designer's orders. Wouldn't it be convenient if that was exactly how Valve insists it handles projects?

What's your definition of "contributed"? Is advice included in that? So a AAA developer (can't remember his name) should be credited in Vlambeer's Super Crate Box because he gave a piece of advice about 'game feel'? (Source: Vlambeer's "The art of screenshake" presentation) Or is it that they have to contribute assets? So writing some code, doing some art, making sounds etc. If it's the former, then sure, it'd just mean that countless people haven't been credited for "contributing" across the board. If it's the latter, then they would be in the credits, if they aren't it's just a dick move from the rest of the devs.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Yes it's an iterative process but it's not that iterative. Unless they've been changing genres and drastically changing it's visual design they should have something done. I haven't seen another game that's had it's fundamental design still changing 6 years in. They should have that stuff done by now and the only excuses for it is either drastic shifts in genre or style or that they're just incompetent. And really, with a game like Half-Life, you'll be hard pressed to argue that the former could be a good thing.

Considering the fact that it was originally going to be the next episode and that was cancelled, considering the time delay between HL1 and HL2, and considering the fact that they're likely using their new engine/technology to create it, I don't see how it's unusual for them to not be at the point where they'd want to start hyping the game up

loot-driven, as in loot is the key mechanic of the game. It drives the majority of your progression and getting better loot is almost always your goal (the exception is if you manage to hit the cap). Most RPGs aren't loot driven. Simply having loot doesn't make it loot driven. You're the first person I've seen compare Ultima to Diablo in that way, and there's good reason why people don't.

Except again, loot in just about any RPG is a major part of progression. Are you defining loot-driven by what it lacks (IE other forms of progression, focus outside of progression etc.)?

What's your definition of "contributed"? Is advice included in that? So a AAA developer (can't remember his name) should be credited in Vlambeer's Super Crate Box because he gave a piece of advice about 'game feel'? (Source: Vlambeer's "The art of screenshake" presentation) Or is it that they have to contribute assets? So writing some code, doing some art, making sounds etc. If it's the former, then sure, it'd just mean that countless people haven't been credited for "contributing" across the board. If it's the latter, then they would be in the credits, if they aren't it's just a dick move from the rest of the devs.

You're the one accusing Valve of not contributing to these projects in any meaningful way, why not define it yourself?
And like I said before, Valve doesn't use hierarchies, it's entirely possible that their method for choosing who the "designer" is is not the standard.

 

[black_knight1337]

Considering the fact that it was originally going to be the next episode and that was cancelled, considering the time delay between HL1 and HL2, and considering the fact that they're likely using their new engine/technology to create it, I don't see how it's unusual for them to not be at the point where they'd want to start hyping the game up

Like I said, unless there have been major changes to it's design they should have things that can be shown. Assets like art and music aren't restricted to to the engine being used. There shouldn't be any reason why they can't show off a few pieces of the art or a teaser of some music every now and then. And yeah, they definitely are moving to Source 2 and will probably use something like Half-Life 3 to launch it, but that doesn't mean that all of a sudden everything done up to that point is useless and has to be scrapped. And how's the time delay between 1 and 2 anything other than showing they're taking even longer this time around? Especially if they are "not very far along" like you claim because it's only a 3 year gap between the last Half-Life 1 expansion and Half-Life 2 (compared to the current 6+ years) or 6 years between both of the base games (compared to 9+ years). And the engine thing isn't really an excuse either. From 1 to 2 they switched engines as well.

Except again, loot in just about any RPG is a major part of progression. Are you defining loot-driven by what it lacks (IE other forms of progression, focus outside of progression etc.)?

No, I'm defining it by it's focus. Take something like Dragon Age: Origins. That has loot in it but it only plays a small part in your progression. Most of your character's personal progression is through skill and attribute choices. Is the main driving force in DA:O loot? Is your primary goal to get better loot? The answer to both is no because DA:O is instead story-driven. If you've played Diablo/Torchlight/Titan Quest/Grim Dawn/Path of Exile etc then you'd know exactly what I mean.

You're the one accusing Valve of not contributing to these projects in any meaningful way, why not define it yourself?
And like I said before, Valve doesn't use hierarchies, it's entirely possible that their method for choosing who the "designer" is is not the standard.

Can you quote me on that? Didn't think so. The only points of mentioned contribution is the part you quoted and "Using that you could say that people that offered some advice "contributed" to the game." Other than that I haven't even mentioned the word. You were the one who brought it up, thus it's your definition to make.