AverageJoe said:
Seneschal said:
I'm wondering how much a fan of HL such as you would let Valve get away with. What would you consider a bad or excessive change?
For example, can they add iron-sight aiming, a relatively inconsequential detail, or would the fandom boycott them for it? Regenerating health and cover systems I don't even need to mention, their inclusion would completely change the core gameplay, let alone anger the fans.
And another thing: HL3 will most likely be a rather expensive game; can Valve really keep the core gameplay and still make a living only on its old consumer base, or would they implement changes so they can grab a bigger audience? Because I'm under no illusion that the average player today sees health and armour bars as a bonus, though they might after an aggressive ad campaign.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think iron-sight aiming would be a bad move since its just an unnecessary realism and Half-Life has never been about realism in its gameplay, its the kind of game where you run around more in battle and its more reflex-based. As for regenerating health, I actually care less about this, since I'm of the belief that some games work better with health bars and some work better with regenerating health. Half-Life definitely works better with a health bar though, so I would be disappointed, but ultimately they could still make the formula work well with that change.
I'm definitely not stuck in the old ways, I can accept any changes as long as they are for the better. I just don't think the gameplay of Half-Life needs to change drastically because it works very well as it is. I think they should focus more on other aspects of the product.
One more thing. I'm sure the money Valve makes now is mostly from Steam, so I dont think theres any immediate obligation for them to completely change up the game to appeal to more people, especially because Valve already has a large fanbase.
I'm not getting at anything, sorry if it came out like that. It's the internet playing with the tone of my posts.
I actually agree that the HL gameplay isn't intrinsically deficient just because it's old. In fact, it would be refreshing to see a 2012-13 game return to health and armour (the only obstacle to those is bad level design, but that's exactly what Valve does so brilliantly).
I'm only slightly concerned with the iron-sight mechanic, since I recently tried to play Timeshift (widely regarded as a sort of HL2 ripoff) and found the shooting to be tiring. The weapons just weren't palpable enough, for the same reason that Fallout 3 was hard for me to get into after New Vegas - I was being spoiled by the pervasive use of iron-sight aiming in current games. It's not objectively good, I just find it greatly more enjoyable than using crosshairs.
And you're right, it's not as insignificant as I made it out to be; it narrows down the FoV, it slows down movement, it gives an entirely different pacing to combat and I admit that I can't quite imagine HL2 with it.
But I wonder if this will happen when HL3 comes out. I haven't tried an old-fashioned game since Timeshift, and that didn't quite suit me. I know that in 2004 I was definitely the audience for HL2, but I don't know if I'll still be it in a few years. I'm actually wondering how much I'd enjoy a replay today.
And in any case, I wouldn't bet on a corporation thinking "we make enough money, we can afford to not make our investment back on our next big project". I get that Valve respects its (substantial) fanbase, but they're not going to do them any favours out of sheer good will.
Hmm, weird runes and sigils in my captcha. The Escapist is obviously summoning demons.
