Having recently finished Portal2 I found myself in the uncomfortable position where everything seemed to have been wrapped up but I wanted another sequel, a Portal 3 for more of Glados, more of Aperture Science and more fun portal based puzzles. Sadly that doesn't seem likely but then a comparison struck me and I couldn't help but run with it to the end.
Probably the most comparable studio to Valve in terms of emphasis on quality over quantity is Pixar. Now Valve has always developed in its own time and refused to release before they were ready - if that meant tacking months onto the release date then so be it. I think their greatest mistake was the decisions for the massive cliffhangers at the end of every one the Half Life series. The thing is with a cliffhanger the point is to keep the audience hooked and interested, the longer you wait the less effective it is.
A cliffhanger ties you to the audiences expectation of a continuation and their expectation for a timely one to satiate their thirst, their need for more. Odd for a company which publishes in their own time to use this. This is where the Pixar analogy comes in, another company which releases sequels when they're ready. Recently Toy Story 3 in fact. The wait between 1 and 2 was 4 years. Between 2 and 3 was 11 years. Yes the wait was worth it, but only because you didn't expect it. Nothing other than a complete ending could possibly have satisfied the audience and left an audience for the next sequel with that sort of time lag. You want them to remember the greatness of the previous installment as opposed to the endless unfulfilling wait.
Which I suppose might be partly driving the majority of big name game studios including Valve from single player to multi. The simple fact is that in terms of development time mutliplayer content is far more efficient as a player time sink then single. Imagine the development time for each level from HL2 from concept, design, scripting and testing vs say...how long did you spend on each section? A couple of minutes tops? A single multiplayer map will probably give the majority of players hours of satisfaction. Games like Halo prove it and games like Crysis 2 and Bad Company are perfect examples: multiplayer is no longer tacked on as an additional feature, now the singleplayer is.
Not to say it can't be good singleplayer. Nor the emphasis will be totally one way or the other. I could be wrong. Hopefully I am. I'm not competitive enough to enjoy multiplayer much these days.
This is particularly important for Valve because they're not a huge company and so they can't just throw an army of developers around. Less time spent developing individual games means they can make more games. Make more money. Repeat but with more employees. Cliffhangers aren't such an issue because development time is (theoretically) shorter. They're here to make money, making great games is just their method and you don't make great games by not being critical and working out the most efficient way of doing things.
I got a bit off topic there, I suppose what I'm saying is I reckon Valve is too good a developer to allow an IP such as their Portal series to die in obscurity after 2 just performances firmly in the limelight. Just...don't expect another for a decade.
Probably the most comparable studio to Valve in terms of emphasis on quality over quantity is Pixar. Now Valve has always developed in its own time and refused to release before they were ready - if that meant tacking months onto the release date then so be it. I think their greatest mistake was the decisions for the massive cliffhangers at the end of every one the Half Life series. The thing is with a cliffhanger the point is to keep the audience hooked and interested, the longer you wait the less effective it is.
A cliffhanger ties you to the audiences expectation of a continuation and their expectation for a timely one to satiate their thirst, their need for more. Odd for a company which publishes in their own time to use this. This is where the Pixar analogy comes in, another company which releases sequels when they're ready. Recently Toy Story 3 in fact. The wait between 1 and 2 was 4 years. Between 2 and 3 was 11 years. Yes the wait was worth it, but only because you didn't expect it. Nothing other than a complete ending could possibly have satisfied the audience and left an audience for the next sequel with that sort of time lag. You want them to remember the greatness of the previous installment as opposed to the endless unfulfilling wait.
Which I suppose might be partly driving the majority of big name game studios including Valve from single player to multi. The simple fact is that in terms of development time mutliplayer content is far more efficient as a player time sink then single. Imagine the development time for each level from HL2 from concept, design, scripting and testing vs say...how long did you spend on each section? A couple of minutes tops? A single multiplayer map will probably give the majority of players hours of satisfaction. Games like Halo prove it and games like Crysis 2 and Bad Company are perfect examples: multiplayer is no longer tacked on as an additional feature, now the singleplayer is.
Not to say it can't be good singleplayer. Nor the emphasis will be totally one way or the other. I could be wrong. Hopefully I am. I'm not competitive enough to enjoy multiplayer much these days.
This is particularly important for Valve because they're not a huge company and so they can't just throw an army of developers around. Less time spent developing individual games means they can make more games. Make more money. Repeat but with more employees. Cliffhangers aren't such an issue because development time is (theoretically) shorter. They're here to make money, making great games is just their method and you don't make great games by not being critical and working out the most efficient way of doing things.
I got a bit off topic there, I suppose what I'm saying is I reckon Valve is too good a developer to allow an IP such as their Portal series to die in obscurity after 2 just performances firmly in the limelight. Just...don't expect another for a decade.
