Is Half-Life 3 really that anticipated?

[Darth Rosenberg]

I think Half-Life 2's a strong candidate for- hyperbole incoming! - the best game ever made.

...but right now I couldn't give a toss about more H-L, as Valve have faffed around for too long. I see their refusal to commit to something as a bit of a betrayal of one of the most important game IP's of all time. The way they left the story hanging kinda reminds me of Shenmue's fate.

Except Sega had the decency to bankrupt themselves In The Name Of Art (along with ridiculous business decisions all around, obviously), whereas I honestly don't know where Valve stand with more Half-Life. I think the Episodes were a mistake, too, so all in all Valve have seriously dropped the ball on H-L's legacy.

 

[Kajin]

I often hear jokes about how HL3 is confirmed akin to number conspiracy theories. I might be hanging around the wrong kind of crowd but what is the big deal? It's a FPS that has been released after the flood of FPS over the last generation, the last Valve-developed HL game was nearly a decade ago. 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.

I don't follow these kinds of things, so maybe fans will be able to tell me why it's taken so long. However, bearing Duke Nukem in mind, maybe it's best for everyone to lower their expectations.

The last episode ended on a cliffhanger of epic proportions. People are pissed off that they're not getting a sense of closure, and that anger is being exacerbated year after year that goes by with not even a hint of that elusive closure on the horizon.

It wouldn't be so bad if the game studio in question dropped off the face of the world and no one ever heard from them again. In that case people could simply shrug their shoulders and go "such is life". But this isn't some pissant of an unknown, small time studio. This is Valve, and they make enough money yearly to build entire swimming pools out of dosh. They could go back and make HL3 whenever they damn well want to. But not only is there no mention of it, they remain incredibly tight lipped about the whole deal even going so far as refusing to mention so much as a passing desire to possibly start working on it in the distant future.

 

[Vigormortis]

I think that you even have to ask is an answer in and of itself.

Of course, this will be lost on the people that are going to take the time to post in here saying, "I just don't care anymore."

No, of course you don't care. You "don't care" to such a degree that you still post that you don't care in any thread on the topic.

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.

[sub]Seriously, the irony of discussions like these is palpable. And made hilarious by the fact that almost no one even realizes how ironic they are.[/sub]

 

[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.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

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.

 

[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.