Half Life 3 is super late
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
71 points (97.3% liked)
Gaming
19858 readers
63 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
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 is 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.
Whenever I hear this quote I also think of the developers/publishers. They need to have a good reputation so people buy their games.
I think that's why EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft, Activision, etc sales have gone down. I will not say that gamers react fairly when it comes to unfinished game releases, but it takes one bad game to ruin a developer. Especially when you consider how small the margins are or if they are publicly traded. Even developers with good games have recently been going out of business because it's not sustainable.
I also think of their legacies. Especially in a post-steam world, a game with a good legacy will continue to sell for much longer. I don't think a game like Watch Dogs ever got rid of the stink surrounding it, even though it isn't a bad game to go back to nowadays.
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
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.
Generally they would fare better than AAA studios who are beholden to their publisher to release no matter what.
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.
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.
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.
It's often enough AAA with tons of money that force insane crunch to hit a release date and still have buggy, uncompleted games.
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).
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.
It's not a redemption arc, it's a people forgetting it exists except for those who want mediocre resource accumulation simulators.
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.
I remember getting patches on my PC gamer discs. Good times
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.
I kind of believe Chris Roberts himself is just an overambitious perfectionist. He pulled the same kind of bullshit with Freelancer, which only released because Microsoft put its foot down.
I can also believe that a lot of the top people around him are grifters feeding his ambition and perfectionism to keep the gravy train running.
Either way, they got my Kickstarter money so the only entertainment I'll ever get from that game is opining about it like I know anything.
That's my take too, though "overambitious perfectionist" still sounds too flattering for what a bumbling narcissist he is.
He even put himself directly into the fiction's lore as 
but bigger.
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
Makes me think of old school Blizzard. Rest in peace.
I always thought that Miyamoto quote was real too!
Sick of hearing about this this loser, go away already
How did Gabe Newell offend you?
The dude has been a bastion of how to run a company that delights its end-users and doing their best to run a company ethically. A staunch group of people that believe in right-to-repair as well as believing in modding and community growth of games.
Yes there's issues on the publisher/developmer side of things, however Valve constantly works with studios to help mitigate these pain points and on-board to their platform.