Hectix777 said:
*If TL;DR skip to the bottom*
Now before you start, I actually like Valve. They do good work, make good games, and have developed a character I assume every PC gamer has been trying to push as the mascot of video games (Gordon Freeman) and replace Mario with him. They have a positive track record, the one place I look to when judging something is their past. They gave us Team Fortress 2, Half Life, DotA 2, the Source engine (possibly the easiest and friendliest level engine I've ever used), and the Portal series (within minutes of someone reading this their will be at least 3 references to the cake being a lie and the end song to Portal 2 on here). They have a good model, especially with Steam backing up their ventures the way they do. It's just with the release of this Valve employee handbook that has me thinking.
I'm one for the creative process and all and supporting an artist's right to create freely, but the whole lack of leadership thing kind of disturbs me. For those of you not familiar with it, Valve recently released their employee handbook which can be summed up to this:"Work on what you want, don't worry about deadlines, work freely, answer to no one, be creative, enjoy it." I know someone will correct me st some point, and I am open to it if you wish to correct me. Now while this sounds like a good method of making games, it sounds a bit counter-productive. There's no better way I can explain this than with an example.
Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
That's my problem, and it's most likely the reason why none of us have seen hide nor hair of Half Life 3 yet, it's because everyone is working on something else. Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done. Valve is the only one who can pull of this because they have Steam to back them up financially, anyone else trying this would probably fail.
So my question is this: Does anyone else question the way Valve is run? Or find it kind of dumb?
P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?
You may want to brace yourself because I'm about to refute almost your entire argument with a single link. (at least, in so far as you implying this system doesn't work because no one is making Half-Life 3)
Read this - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/23/gabe-on-ricochet-2-delay-but-he-doesnt-mean-ricochet/
And in case anyone doesn't catch it, they're
NOT actually talking about Ricochet 2.
For those too lazy to click the link, basically Newell says they've been hard at work on Half-Life 3 since the Orange Box released, they're just not ready to talk about it yet because things could change and they don't want to mislead the fans.
So, can we please please PLEASE put to rest the petty arguments over whether they're actually working on Half-Life 3? They clearly are, so why debate it?
Now, as to your other points. The system works exceptionally well for them. Why are we debating whether it does or not? It obviously gives them total freedom in the creative process; which then leads to such fantastic games as Portal 2, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, etc, etc. Where's the evidence that this system is flawed?
I don't get this argument -
"Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
Portal 2 had a design/dev team comprised of...and get this...a whopping 28 people. That's it. Just 28.
Seems to me they did a hell of a lot of work on that game, especially for such a small team. So I don't quite see how not having a classical work hierarchy is detrimental to the game design. Seems to work perfectly well.
Also, I can guarantee you they'd do just fine without Steam. It was over five years after Half-Life 1 came out that Steam was finally released; and seven years after Valve was formed. (and almost a solid year before any other developers/publishers started selling games on Steam) In that time Valve operated exactly as it does now and they stayed afloat. No extra funds coming in from Steam. Ergo, the whole "they can only work this way because of Steam" argument is one that, yet again, doesn't make sense to me.
As for the appeal of Gordon Freeman, it's simple. He's a "blank slate" character, so most people project themselves; their personalities and emotions; onto him. In effect, they associate themselves with the character. Therefore, unless you're some self-loathing misanthrope, it's hard to imagine why someone who likes the games would hate the character.
