Half Life 3 is super late
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
635 points (97.7% liked)
Gaming
19947 readers
112 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Half Life Alyx was sick a demonstrated everything VR could be. I will standby that statement and tolerate the flamers.
Hard agree. That game is what I hope the future of games is like. Meeting Jeff is one of my favorite moments in gaming.
load more comments
(5 replies)
At some point the Late vs Suck balance will tip the scales of So Late That the Customers Lost Interest or Died
I played hl2 as a teen.
One of my kids just finished episode 2 and asked me when the next one was coming out. I was like "oh bud I got some bad news for ya".
It's generational disappointment at this point.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Am not sure there's a way for them to release HL3 and don't disappoint huge number of people. Not because they suck at making games but because expectations have grown so so so much they are downright unachievable now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Is Gabe slowly turning into a wizard
tbf that's a lot easier to say when you're the president of one of the richest companies in the industry. I don't disagree, but not everybody has the resources to just keep developing forever, and that's easy to forget too.
But he's also president of one of the richest companies in the industry because he always said this.
And while your point is valid for smaller studios, it feels like it's usually used by the big ones that do have the resources, but would rather give more money to investors.
Yeah, no one has a problem with small indie groups doing early access, aka terraria, rimworld, factorio, minecraft. It's about keeping expectations in check and having a good fun base game.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's often enough AAA with tons of money that force insane crunch to hit a release date and still have buggy, uncompleted games.
In the documentary this quote is from he said that about thr development of HL1. To be fair the devs themselves said they voluntairily crunched quite a bit and had some time constraints at the end of the game.
Fun Pimps were a smaller company and they have been developing 7 Days since my gramps was in nappies!
The context for this was them deciding to take the time to finish the game properly even if they were no longer going to get paid to do it (the publisher would stop funding).
However, delay also doesn't mean a better product. It's possible for a game to be delayed a ton, and then still really suck.
Delay doesn't equal good. DN: Forever and Aliens: Colonial Marines made that clear.
Didn't colonial marine turn out to actually have really good AI that totally changed the game feel that had been broken by a single misplaced semi-colon or something?
https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/15/17574248/aliens-colonial-marines-fixing-code-typo-ai-xenomorphs yep, a code typo broke the alien AI. Unfortunately for that game though no amount of delays could've helped it, there were many more problems besides the AI. The AI was just the biggest problem.
Still better than if they released the same game earlier. Unless of course they kept adding features or content.
The real question is... Can indie games publishers afford the delay of a game?
Valve was a completely new company then. They weren't going indie, but Sierra didn't pay them for the remake of Half-Life. In the documentary they talk about financing it by creating Half-Life: Day One.
Chet Falizek, a dev who led L4D and a couple other games at valve talks about this a lot on TikTok, now that he's running an indie studio. He's a cool guy, would fit in on .ml or something for sure.
load more comments
(5 replies)
suck is forever
Why is the consumer just expected to roll over and take it when a game sucks instead of the responsibility being on the publisher to release updates until the game resembles what was originally advertised? Games aren't on ROM cartridges anymore, you can still improve the game after it's released.
Look, No Man's Sky set the precedent for what you're supposed to do when your game sucks at launch. And we should expect nothing less from game studios with ten times the person-power and money.
No Man's Sky is a great redemption arc, but it would have been better if the game hadn't sucked at launch
Yeah, if a product is sold, I expect it to work for the most part. Now, mistakes happen, and not much to do about very obscure things and it's great if thing can be added afterwards.
But what I want, and this is apparently wild, is a finished 1.0 product that works as expected.
Yeah, if their publisher hadn't forced them to release in its unfinished state, it would've been a lot better.
Obviously sucking at launch is bad. But it's inevitable that some games will suffer that fate and as No Man's Sky showed, that's no excuse for the game continuing to suck after launch.
Agree. Also the same with CP77 - I don’t care how much they update and polish that game, I’m not touching it again. It was barely playable on XBOX1X on release. I luckily was able to sell my launch day copy with a small loss, but I’m not trusting them with my money again, after I (and many others) have been misled, and given an unplayable game on consoles.
I am not an investor to lend money to the company for development, I am a consumer, so I want a working game for my money on Day 1, otherwise I’m shopping elsewhere - as plenty of studios manage to great and polished games (e.g. most PS exclusives).
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Why is the consumer just expected to roll over and take it
They're expected to do it because that's exactly what they do, every time.
Exactly, when you buy a shit product you should learn not to do the same thing. People are still out here buying crap and complaining on the internet where the money having developers couldn't give less of a fuck.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Gabe was talking about the making of Half Life, back when you shipped your disc and that was that. And the game was, apparently, crapola.
Same kind of deal with the original Deus Ex. It was a spaghetti of poorly interacting systems until the devs were able to make it all click together.
Gabe was talking about the making of Half Life, back when you shipped your disc and that was that. And the game was, apparently, crapola.
There were patch and updates back in the day. The problem was that not everybody had a good internet connection or a connection at all, during the 90's.
Games like Daikatana and SiN were flops due to bugs that required patches to fix.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's because that's how capitalism works. If you keep buying stuff from the same source without due diligence, you can't be surprised when you get stuck with another sucky game.
The only incentive to spend resources on fixing a game is to preserve reputation for future games.
Counterpoint: Star Citizen.
I'm not being snarky there. If there are no deadlines and unlimited feature creep, you get Star Citizen. Or rather, you never get Star Citizen except as a janky hyper-monetized pre-alpha.
Yes, landing is difficult.
There is delaying to release a higher quality product and delaying while having features creep... Not the same thing.
Nah star citizen was a scam first, game second. If it ever produces a game it will have been purely incidental to continuing to run the scam and milk those whales
load more comments
(2 replies)
Game developers seem to be very afraid to change core features or the story of the game in a major way (even if the actual work would not be too extensive) after release. But there are enough examples where games improved a lot after release.
Sure, the initial impression of the game might be ruined, but that is more a consequence for the producers that most often where responsible for the rushed release, than for the gamers or developers, of the game is fixed afterwards.
Joke on him, often game gets delayed under this exact pretext and it suck anyway.
I think it becomes a mixture of too early and delaying.
Some games clearly need another year to finish but they delay it for half a year and wont allow more for themselves
While this was true in a pre-Steam world, it hasn't been true for a while.
See Terraria (which didn't suck, but was lackluster compared to how the game is now), No Man's Sky, Cyberpunk 2077.
I don't have a problem when small studios do it for games like Terraria and No Man's Sky. It keeps them solvent without having to attach themselves to a big publisher.
I do have a problem when a giant, established company does it, as it the case for Cyberpunk 2077.
Cyberpunk and NMS did exceptionally decent first day numbers......and then they didn't do exceptionally decent numbers due to the well-deserved backlash. They would have sold even more copies over the last 5 years if they didn't scare half of the gaming industry away initially. You have to work really damn hard to save your game from death. Case in point: Bethesda isn't working to save Redfall and it shows.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Makes me think of old school Blizzard. Rest in peace.
I always thought that Miyamoto quote was real too!
view more: next ›