Gaming Titanfall 2 proves Half Life 3 is possible

Rick mentions H*** **** 3.

https://www.bit-tech.net/blog/gaming/2017/03/12/titanfall-2-proves-half-life-3-is-possible/

 

@Jake - You make a massive post that can simply be refuted with one word.

Doom.

If ID can then Valve can. Doom isn't anything but a thoroughbred FPS. It doesn't tread Titanfall's path, it sticks to what it is, and that is what makes it so great.

A huge part of Half-Lifes successes were the graphical improvements between each game, and the improvement in the story. Even in the episodes the story got better. All HL3 needs is a better story than HL2 and to be better graphically. Then Valve do their Valve thing, and Half-Life 3 would be a winner. No need for trying anything too new.

A new toy like the Gravity Gun was in HL2 wouldn't go amiss though.

 

Absolutely this.

Doom was a revelation. It was a masterclass by Id on how to drag a tried and tested classic FPS into the modern age. Make it unrelenting, make it action focused and make it all about shooting stuff in the face with big guns.

Cut the crap, go back to basics.

 

Could we not suggest our writers need to be physically assaulted for having differing opinions? Cheers.

I'd steer clear of the negative autism jokes too, solely because I'm autistic, and it grates a bit.

 

I don't buy into this argument that HL2 was the success it was because of technical, under the hood, innovations. As such I don't believe Valve have held off developing HL3 because they haven't been able to find another "silver bullet" (aka Gravity Gun)...

Half Life 2 was the success it was because it provided us with a world that was believable, characters that were relatable and likeable, and a story that you wanted a conclusion to (cheers, Gabe...). EP3 took those storyline and character developments and ramped them up to 11.

It also did this with a level of polish that, even now, is all too rare - it was well optimized, there were no control issues, the UI was unintrusive and the voice acting has never been surpassed. But ultimately the refinement in the technical aspects served only to keep the focus on the world and characters, and subsequently the immersion in its entirety, not distract you with "ooh ahhh" moments.

All this considered, the only conclusion I can come to as to why we don't have HL3, is that Valve can't finish the story in a way they are happy with. Probably because of hats.

 

There's only so many ways you can skin a crowbar...

 

I disagree, the fact that there are so few linear story driven FPS games makes it a great time to release it. It's my favourite genre and they always sell well.

I'd also argue that Valve owe it to us to make HL3. They sold the whole episode format to us promising 6 monthly instalments, they then left a cliff-hanger ending to Ep2

 

Who actually cares anymore? HL3 at this point would suck, and it would suck hard. The world has moved on. Valve know this and actually have the quality not to release a game just because. Get over it, and move on.

 

Doom disagrees. Sometimes it is actually good to go back in time and do things the old way.
Not everything needs to be a consolified 3rd person cover based open world ubisoft copypasta (or as it is sometimes called: A modern game).

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Doom did the near impossible, and was a good game that didn't sacrifice what originally made it good, while not bowing down and sucking COD peepee.

But Doom was a simple game that went through many, many revisions to get to a point where it no longer sucked. I don't think HL is nearly so simple. And HL3 would have to be extraordinary to not be a financial disaster. It might end up a cult classic, but Valve won't be interested in such. And if they thought they could put out a game worthy of the franchise, they would have already done so.

Don't hate me. I LOVED HL2 and the following 2 episodes, but I am also a realist. I do not want another Duke Nukem.

 

There are two sides to the argument for me:

1) HL3 will disappoint many players if/when it arrives. Simply because there will be too much hype and expactations will be sky-high. Even Doom, which was a revelation in my opinion, disappointed many people. Be it for being a linear shooter or for an initially mediocre multiplayer. Rest assured there will be a very vocal minority on reddit bitching about the tiniest detail they can blow out of proportion.

2) There is a place for a story-driven HL3 today. For several reasons, to be honest: as already mentioned there simply are not enough of them around, a great story has the ability to fascinate and thus drive sales, and HL2 was more than just a great story. Characters, atmosphere, guns, enemies, etc. Obviously, they will have to deliver something great again to reach the same level or even improve on HL2, but I'm as sure as I was with id that they can deliver.

 

I think most people just want a well written ending to the story and some pretty graphics packaged in a decent fps. Look at the excitement over ME: Andromeda, and there's nothing to indicate that it's anything other than more of the same. Except the characters look uglier.

 

It'll never be released 'cos Valve are making suits of 100 dollar bills and swimming in their pit of gold coins off the back of case sales and marketplace skin trades. There's no incentive for them to put that much money in to a AAA title when they can make millions in photoshop adding a new colour to an AK skin for CS:GO.

However, IF, they actually decided to start doing games development again, I think HL3 would be fantastic and received well.

 

Does it? I know an awful lot of people who bought Doom and thought it was absolutely terrible. I think it's perhaps not as clear cut as people are suggesting.

IMO HL3 isn't happening for a few reasons. The primary one is Valve doesn't need it. They're rolling in money thanks to Steam, and the games they do have out are raking it in also thanks to eSports and whatnot. The reason why this is important is that without a desperate need for another big hit title, if they don't really want to develop the game, they simply won't.

Valve has more interest in fostering their casinos to be honest.

 

You know what.

I'm tired of hearing about Half Life 3 and its non existence.

It'll never come out and I'm fed up with people harping on about it. It's almost as tiresome as people whinging about Firefly.

 

BLASPHEMY!!!

But, seriously, I would be interested in what made it bad?

 

I'd have to ask them, didn't buy the game myself as it didn't seem my cuppa. IMO it appeared pretty decent and faithful to the originals, but I'm just playing devil's advocate in that not everybody thinks it was a runaway success.

 

You had to go and bring up Firefly, did you? Words can hurt you know! The horror!

 

Anyone who bought Doom and thought it was "absolutely terrible", bought it not knowing what it is and what it wanted to do.

I can't stand puzzle games, so when I bought the Orange Box I never bothered installing Portal. A couple of years ago I buckled under the social pressure and decided to give it a go - found it utterly boring and frustrating, but I wouldn't ever say it was a bad game. Just like Doom, it ran smoothly, the mechanics all worked exactly as advertised and intended, it's just not my type of game.

I challenge anyone to claim to be a fan of FPS games and honestly say Doom was bad, let alone terrible.