This is relevant.
I find your stonewall ‘no-comment’ responses to the next Half-Life project interesting, because with every other aspect at Valve, you maintain a discussion with fans right until the very end. But before you announce a project, there’s stone silence. Is that to get people excited?
EJ: Oh no way. We’re not trying to spin people to get them super excited. We’re fans of games too and we know what it’s like to be in their seat. Part of it is that we try and be very nimble and fluid with how we make games, and sometimes that can be at odds with how we talk to our customers.
RW: Yeah we’ve been in situations before when we’ve said, hey, we’re going to make X. And then we don’t make X and people ask us why. And we say, yeah, here are the list of reasons why we couldn’t make X, and they say, screw that, you said you were making X!
EJ: And that’s really damaging to our customers. We try to be very careful about setting expectations about what we’re working on. I’m always going back and forth about how transparent we should be, because the reality is that we’re changing our mind all the time about what’s best for our customers.
But the problem is these changes aren’t always communicated to the customer, they just see snippets of info here and there, so you want to be clear what we’re talking about. It’s a really hard problem.
The silence is not about getting people excited about something, it’s about protecting them from an assumption we have about a project that could, in the end, go another way.
Last edited by Spidery_Yoda (2011-05-12 07:10:56)
episode 3 is talking so long because they need to make the gameplay up to the "standards" set by recent games... lame
What standards?Trotskygrad wrote:
episode 3 is talking so long because they need to make the gameplay up to the "standards" set by recent games... lame
I don't think that's it at all. I have no idea what they are doing mind you. I just think it has nothing to do with what you find in modern games that you don't find in Half-Life.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6569|Graz, Austria
I've been thinking that they maybe have a new engine in the works and want to release a full-blown HL3 on it, rather than wasting more (Valve) time and resources on an episode on the 7+ years old Source engine.
Hats?
Call Of Duty clone?henno13 wrote:
What standards?Trotskygrad wrote:
episode 3 is talking so long because they need to make the gameplay up to the "standards" set by recent games... lame
Hats?
I think Gabe has the teams occupied with bread and circuses in his vault for months on end.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
I don't think that's it at all. I have no idea what they are doing mind you. I just think it has nothing to do with what you find in modern games that you don't find in Half-Life.
It seems a bit premature to say that Episode 3 is cancelled. The interview doesn't suggest that it is, only that Valve don't like developing episodic content.
It makes sense to build a new engine for Half-Life 3, but I wouldn't call it a waste of time and resources to build games on the Source engine. Portal 2 is an obvious testament to that, and Portal 2 is a very pretty game.globefish23 wrote:
I've been thinking that they maybe have a new engine in the works and want to release a full-blown HL3 on it, rather than wasting more (Valve) time and resources on an episode on the 7+ years old Source engine.
Last edited by mikkel (2011-05-15 07:21:36)
You know a news article is serious when they use "bonza".
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
They don't have a new engine in the works, but they are focusing on improving source more than they have lately.
They talk about it in these 2 interviews.
http://www.develop-online.net/features/ … io-culture
http://www.develop-online.net/features/ … l-on-Valve
They talk about it in these 2 interviews.
http://www.develop-online.net/features/ … io-culture
http://www.develop-online.net/features/ … l-on-Valve
graphics and epically long first person cutscenes...henno13 wrote:
What standards?Trotskygrad wrote:
episode 3 is talking so long because they need to make the gameplay up to the "standards" set by recent games... lame
like portal 2 opening.
\_/
Show me Source 2 and I'll get worked up about a Valve game again.
Show me Source 2 and I'll get worked up about a Valve game again.
portal 2 looked more than good enough
the Source engine is infinitely more polished than any newly released one.
why in the fuck would I want to relive source's early days, just so some devs at valve get to re-write the same code and slap a new name on it because Source has reached some arbitrary expiry date?
the Source engine is infinitely more polished than any newly released one.
why in the fuck would I want to relive source's early days, just so some devs at valve get to re-write the same code and slap a new name on it because Source has reached some arbitrary expiry date?
Source looks good enough, and not using a new engine will drastically reduce resources required for any future products. Source isn't even a bad engine, it's not like Bethesda where their gamebryo engine was so shitty that they had to make a new engine for Skyrim.
Portal 2 also forced you to load, load, load and load again.
Alright, to be fair, Source is great and works on all of my active PC's. I'm more interested in the possibility of a Valve game other than CS/HL/Portal/L4D, but by the time that happens, Source will probably have outlived its upgrade life. It's gotta happen sooner or later. Half-Life 1 came out in '98. Half-Life 2 came out six years later. The clock's ticking.
Alright, to be fair, Source is great and works on all of my active PC's. I'm more interested in the possibility of a Valve game other than CS/HL/Portal/L4D, but by the time that happens, Source will probably have outlived its upgrade life. It's gotta happen sooner or later. Half-Life 1 came out in '98. Half-Life 2 came out six years later. The clock's ticking.
Source isnt just the same engine with some HDR and other newer effects bolted on, it has distinct separate versions. Just because it isnt called something else doesnt mean it isnt different.
The only problem with it (if this is actually the reason, no one knows) is the large amount of loading screens. I dont know why they went to big intrusive loading screens rather than their normal "Loading..." in the middle of the screen in text for Portal 2, it made them far worse.
The only problem with it (if this is actually the reason, no one knows) is the large amount of loading screens. I dont know why they went to big intrusive loading screens rather than their normal "Loading..." in the middle of the screen in text for Portal 2, it made them far worse.
Source does a foul job of rendering large environments. When they do, it's usually really sparse or just a map on rails. If they can miraculously pull some more modifications out of their ass to fix this age old problem, they may be able to eke a few more years out of Source. If not, well, time for a new engine. I can deal with bugs for awhile if it means pulling Source games out of a technological rut.
Yes large environments and the constant loading screens are the only problems I have with modern Source. I don't know how they could 'fix' those things really.
/new engine
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6569|Graz, Austria
Yeah, without streaming capabilities the Source engine is doomed.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
I don't get this sentiment. It's like people heard it somewhere and latched onto it without thinking. Half-Life and derivatives have been successful in large part due to the modding communities, and the ease of mapping small, closed worlds is a very significant part of that. I can't think of any popular, or even half-way popular Half-Life or Half-Life 2 multiplayer game or mod that would benefit significantly from level streaming. It's pretty strange to suggest that an engine is doomed because it lacks a largely superfluous feature.globefish23 wrote:
Yeah, without streaming capabilities the Source engine is doomed.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
If Valve provides even half that level of support to Source 2, I will call it a successful venture. I don't think Source is doomed, but I do think that it can reach a technological dead end for reasons previously listed.
What you called superfluous isn't at all. At some point (one that I've already reached), sitting around waiting for maps to load every few hundred steps is going to get old. Some games can be designed around that successfully (the small maps of TF2, the close proximity of safe rooms and turn-taking in L4D), but as stated, I'd like to see something else. I understand a great deal rests on the machines Valve thinks their customers are still using, but the average is improving all the time.
What you called superfluous isn't at all. At some point (one that I've already reached), sitting around waiting for maps to load every few hundred steps is going to get old. Some games can be designed around that successfully (the small maps of TF2, the close proximity of safe rooms and turn-taking in L4D), but as stated, I'd like to see something else. I understand a great deal rests on the machines Valve thinks their customers are still using, but the average is improving all the time.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6569|Graz, Austria
You can't create a believably immersive, story-driven single-player experience, if a considerable amount of the time is spent on riding elevators.mikkel wrote:
I don't get this sentiment. It's like people heard it somewhere and latched onto it without thinking. Half-Life and derivatives have been successful in large part due to the modding communities, and the ease of mapping small, closed worlds is a very significant part of that. I can't think of any popular, or even half-way popular Half-Life or Half-Life 2 multiplayer game or mod that would benefit significantly from level streaming. It's pretty strange to suggest that an engine is doomed because it lacks a largely superfluous feature.globefish23 wrote:
Yeah, without streaming capabilities the Source engine is doomed.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
Also, the modding community can still create small, closed worlds with an engine that also supports large, seamless worlds.
The engine has nothing to do with the quality, popularity or longevity of a game. There are enough crappy games made with good engines.
Since I played GTA3 in 2002, games with a large, open world, where you can go anywhere and (seemingly) can do anything, are my favourite. And even Valve thinks so, if you look at the HL2 and the L4D series, which simulated large, open worlds by circumventing the shortcomings of the Source engine with clever design tricks.
In Portal 2, the "clever" design trick with slapping an ugly, low-res still frame over the elevator-ride-covered loading sequence, failed miserable in my opinion. Even having an animated elevator interior for that time would have been much better.
It absolutely is superfluous in the context of the longevity of Source-based games. Only a minuscule amount of the overall time spent playing Source-based games is spent playing singleplayer games with frequent loading screens. The bulk is spent on multiplayer games that genuinely do not need any kind of level streaming to do what they do.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If Valve provides even half that level of support to Source 2, I will call it a successful venture. I don't think Source is doomed, but I do think that it can reach a technological dead end for reasons previously listed.
What you called superfluous isn't at all. At some point (one that I've already reached), sitting around waiting for maps to load every few hundred steps is going to get old. Some games can be designed around that successfully (the small maps of TF2, the close proximity of safe rooms and turn-taking in L4D), but as stated, I'd like to see something else. I understand a great deal rests on the machines Valve thinks their customers are still using, but the average is improving all the time.
Thankfully the bulk of time spent on the Source engine is spent on multiplayer games that either don't need level changes at all, or have infrequent level changes that add to the immersion in the way that they're presented.globefish23 wrote:
You can't create a believably immersive, story-driven single-player experience, if a considerable amount of the time is spent on riding elevators.mikkel wrote:
I don't get this sentiment. It's like people heard it somewhere and latched onto it without thinking. Half-Life and derivatives have been successful in large part due to the modding communities, and the ease of mapping small, closed worlds is a very significant part of that. I can't think of any popular, or even half-way popular Half-Life or Half-Life 2 multiplayer game or mod that would benefit significantly from level streaming. It's pretty strange to suggest that an engine is doomed because it lacks a largely superfluous feature.globefish23 wrote:
Yeah, without streaming capabilities the Source engine is doomed.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
That would make sense if you completely ignored the history of PC gaming. The /only/ games to enjoy considerable longevity with considerable communities around them, with very few or no exceptions, are MMOs, and extensively moddable games. The engine, and how it's presented to enthusiasts, has /everything/ to do with the longevity of a game.Also, the modding community can still create small, closed worlds with an engine that also supports large, seamless worlds.
The engine has nothing to do with the quality, popularity or longevity of a game. There are enough crappy games made with good engines.
Why does it matter what your favourite type of game world is? It makes as much sense as saying that pasta is doomed because you prefer rice. To suggest that Valve prefer sandbox game worlds by citing two very linear games that didn't at all attempt to be sandbox worlds is completely silly.globefish23 wrote:
Since I played GTA3 in 2002, games with a large, open world, where you can go anywhere and (seemingly) can do anything, are my favourite. And even Valve thinks so, if you look at the HL2 and the L4D series, which simulated large, open worlds by circumventing the shortcomings of the Source engine with clever design tricks.