Do you think we will ever see a Half-Life 3?

Will we see a Half-Life 3?

  • Yes, I think it's in the works now.

    Votes: 23 12.4%
  • Yes, but still not for a long time.

    Votes: 37 20.0%
  • No, Valve won't be making a third game.

    Votes: 125 67.6%

  • Total voters
    185

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,062
Companies don't really innovate, because they can't innovate. Innovation is expensive, and innovative games really don't sell. If you look at the true innovative games, they're cumbersome, and partly because no one really knows what to do. But once you have that first step, you can take the next step forward. And what people tend to think as revolutionary games are the games that saw the revolution, and saw the flaws and had ideas how to fix them. E.G. Few remember Dune II for RTS games, and even fewer remember Herzog Zwei (and even fewer than that remember Utopia). But Warcraft? Who hasn't heard of Warcraft? Dune II had a major issue in that you could only select single units. Warcraft fixed this, and Command and Conquer improved upon it, which Warcraft II picked up upon to be really the first major RTS. With 2D fighters, no one remembers Street Fighter 1, but everyone's played Street Fighter 2. Even Valve's original Half Life is less revolutionary, and more evolutionary. But it's significant in being the first polished game of it's type, and the first many played. And look at other Valve properties. They've really succeeded upon acquisitions of other companies games, or other peoples games (by hiring the talent), which they've improved upon, but gave the mass audience the first taste of those games.

And VR is apparently the next big thing. But right now, there aren't really any groundbreaking VR games. And that's what I mean more about being played out. Not that the genre is dying, but there hasn't been much innovation brought to the genre. But if VR isn't a gimmick, sooner or later someone is going to make the future, at which point, Valve might be the perfect medium to bring the future to the masses. And thanks to Steam, they're also in a position they can be picky. While Valve certainly needs money, they don't have investors breathing down their neck 24/7 to make sure next quarter's stock price will be higher than the previous quarter, by any means necessary. EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and even Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, just aren't in the same position that Valve is in to usher in the VR era.

Innovation is certainly more expensive and risky, but they can certainly sell well. Eventually it creeps into more mainstream games. A large amount of the "new" features in BF3/4 were borrowed from Red Orchestra, as an example. But a large part unwillingness on part of the publishers and part unimaginative customers. They don't realize it, but enhancements to old gameplay is welcome and well received. They just don't realize it until they play a game that branches out.

Mafia 3 is an excellent example of a such a game. It is GTA in the 1960s. The cars, guns and music is changed but aside from that the gameplay is just mirrored and as dull as GTA itself. Despite being set in the 1960s, the player can call in new cars, ammo trucks and the like. Even though cell phones did not exist back then. It is hilariously awkward to see the main character talk to himself aloud and then have whatever you ordered delivered right to you. They didn't even try to make the game fit the setting. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Ironically, the game was panned. Probably in large part due to GTA being the godfather of the genre and better marketing, but both series (at least GTA4/5 and Mafia 3) are just as underwhelming and stuck in the early 2000s. Had it not been for marketing and brand recognition, I bet GTA would have been panned to. I think the reaction to Mafia 3 is people realizing that genre is too played out and has not seen any good changes for well over a decade.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,767
We will absolutely see another Half Life game. It's way too valuable of an IP. It's probably one of the most valuable game IP's ever. Certainly at the top of the top.

To this day, not a lot of games touch Half Life 2, period. This is a fact.

I would buy this game without question and so would millions other. The WORLD would literally buy this game.

How does a company say no to 500 million dollars?

They don't.
 

Azureth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
5,330
Innovation is certainly more expensive and risky, but they can certainly sell well. Eventually it creeps into more mainstream games. A large amount of the "new" features in BF3/4 were borrowed from Red Orchestra, as an example. But a large part unwillingness on part of the publishers and part unimaginative customers. They don't realize it, but enhancements to old gameplay is welcome and well received. They just don't realize it until they play a game that branches out.

Mafia 3 is an excellent example of a such a game. It is GTA in the 1960s. The cars, guns and music is changed but aside from that the gameplay is just mirrored and as dull as GTA itself. Despite being set in the 1960s, the player can call in new cars, ammo trucks and the like. Even though cell phones did not exist back then. It is hilariously awkward to see the main character talk to himself aloud and then have whatever you ordered delivered right to you. They didn't even try to make the game fit the setting. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Ironically, the game was panned. Probably in large part due to GTA being the godfather of the genre and better marketing, but both series (at least GTA4/5 and Mafia 3) are just as underwhelming and stuck in the early 2000s. Had it not been for marketing and brand recognition, I bet GTA would have been panned to. I think the reaction to Mafia 3 is people realizing that genre is too played out and has not seen any good changes for well over a decade.
Uhhh..How is the genre stuck in the early 2000s? Every game offers more and more.
 

0neTwo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
347
Whenever they need a sure fire boost of money they will make it.

As it is now, they are running out of space to hold the money steam makes.
 

Matthew Kane

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
4,233
Most people will not give a shit about a EP3 or HL3 sequel when it does come out. The game is 10 years too late to the market.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,710
if by "most people" you mean of the entire population of earth, then yea...
 

Bigbacon

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
17,617
at this point HL has come and gone. let it die already. HL2 wasn't even that good. HL
1 was great, came out at the right time, and did stuff that hadn't been done yet.

We will absolutely see another Half Life game. It's way too valuable of an IP. It's probably one of the most valuable game IP's ever. Certainly at the top of the top.

To this day, not a lot of games touch Half Life 2, period. This is a fact.

I would buy this game without question and so would millions other. The WORLD would literally buy this game.

How does a company say no to 500 million dollars?

They don't.

explain how they don't touch HL2??? please. HL2 wasn't the second coming of anything except maybe having some annoying ass physics puzzles for the sake of showing off physics. the engine is the only thing the come from the game that has any major merit.

with how FPS games are today, I don't think the world would be buying HL3. I bet a lot of the market doesn't even know WTH Half life is anymore, especially console only gamers.

if HL3 ever emerged, it would have to fucking epic beyond all epicness to be something important in todays gaming world. I highly doubt it would be.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
16,414
if HL3 ever emerged, it would have to fucking epic beyond all epicness to be something important in todays gaming world. I highly doubt it would be.

Naa, just throw some "RPG elements" like skill tree's and choose your own adventure mechanics in & people will be happy. That's what most games have now anyway.
 

BiH115

Gif Guy
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
9,327
Uhhh..How is the genre stuck in the early 2000s? Every game offers more and more.

Because people are bored themselves, therefore projecting onto others that the only reason for the boredom is x, y, and z.

There's really nowhere for games to go innovation wise, outside of something like VR. The only thing that goes up is cost to create. Sure, a game can come out here and there that uses some new mechanics, but largely, I feel that trying that hard to stand out isn't really worth it. Focus on good storytelling, and fantastic mechanics, coupled with no bugs. That's what people want. Also stop churning out bullshit sequels every 6 months, I'm looking at you Ubishit.
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,325
There's really nowhere for games to go innovation wise, outside of something like VR.

I don't really agree here. There are very few innovative games, and that includes if you go back to the beginning of video games. It's the easy innovations which are gone imho. When 2D and 3D first became popular, there was a lot of low hanging fruit for innovation. VR still has that now. But that doesn't mean you can't be innovative outside of VR. The problem with innovation is that it's hard, and I mean, it's really, really, really hard. It takes a special kind of visionary, which is near impossibly rare, and then you still have to be able to implement the idea. And then you have to sell your idea. Look to the indie scene, and not the AAA game world though, and sooner or later, you'll see something new.
 

BiH115

Gif Guy
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
9,327
I don't really agree here. There are very few innovative games, and that includes if you go back to the beginning of video games. It's the easy innovations which are gone imho. When 2D and 3D first became popular, there was a lot of low hanging fruit for innovation. VR still has that now. But that doesn't mean you can't be innovative outside of VR. The problem with innovation is that it's hard, and I mean, it's really, really, really hard. It takes a special kind of visionary, which is near impossibly rare, and then you still have to be able to implement the idea. And then you have to sell your idea. Look to the indie scene, and not the AAA game world though, and sooner or later, you'll see something new.

Yes, but how often do we really praise a game for being innovative? We praise games for being fantastic, and fun, and great looking, sure. There isn't a lot of outstanding innovation going on, for innovation's sake. Let's step back a moment and try to understand what innovation really means though - is it completely different gameplay and art style? Is it the use of outside hardware (VR), combined with unique gameplay? It's really open to interpretation. I've got my own opinions, as we all do.

Sure, there are fantastic, no, incredible games coming out constantly, look at Horizon Zero Dawn, Persona 5, FInal Fantasy XV, Quantic Dream's games. Hell, look at The Order: 1886. People shit on that game left and right, because it was more like playing a movie, but it still technically classifies as a game. It had a fantastic setting and story, incredible graphics, but it didn't quite offer enough, so therefore it never really got it's time in the light (perhaps they can fix that by creating a proper sequel). Was that innovative? I'm not sure really.

Anyway... It's incredibly difficult (not to mention risky) pouring countless hours into planning and development to try to make something profoundly different, I'm sure that's common sense. As someone who's been deep on the development (and a lot of planning sessions) side(s) of the gaming industry, it's a real pain in the ass to get stars to align to get everyone on board to work on an idea that seems out there even in the slightest, and when it finally does happen, and the game isn't as critically acclaimed as was hoped for, it's now twice as hard to make something as brash/bold.
 

Starbomba

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
254
Don't really think we'll see a HL3. At this point it has been way too overhyped, it will not meet any expectations.
 

SvenBent

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
3,203
Yes, but how often do we really praise a game for being innovative? We praise games for being fantastic, and fun, and great looking, sure. There isn't a lot of outstanding innovation going on, for innovation's sake. Let's step back a moment and try to understand what innovation really means though - is it completely different gameplay and art style? Is it the use of outside hardware (VR), combined with unique gameplay? It's really open to interpretation. I've got my own opinions, as we all do.

Sure, there are fantastic, no, incredible games coming out constantly, look at Horizon Zero Dawn, Persona 5, FInal Fantasy XV, Quantic Dream's games. Hell, look at The Order: 1886. People shit on that game left and right, because it was more like playing a movie, but it still technically classifies as a game. It had a fantastic setting and story, incredible graphics, but it didn't quite offer enough, so therefore it never really got it's time in the light (perhaps they can fix that by creating a proper sequel). Was that innovative? I'm not sure really.

Anyway... It's incredibly difficult (not to mention risky) pouring countless hours into planning and development to try to make something profoundly different, I'm sure that's common sense. As someone who's been deep on the development (and a lot of planning sessions) side(s) of the gaming industry, it's a real pain in the ass to get stars to align to get everyone on board to work on an idea that seems out there even in the slightest, and when it finally does happen, and the game isn't as critically acclaimed as was hoped for, it's now twice as hard to make something as brash/bold.


a lot of innovation i've seen in games lately has made me return to good old games that just had a simple but good gameplay. to much bloat in a lot of games today in my honest opinion.
 

Toepunch

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
157
When
Freezes
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,333
only chance it has now is if they feel vr is popular enough and they make it a vr only type of game. But that could be another 10 years down the road
 

ZLoth

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
854
We have a better chance of seeing Kentucky Route 0 - Episode 5 released before we see Star Citizen. As for Half Life 3... well, all that Valve cares about is Steam and DOTA.

Enough said.
 

AceGoober

Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
22,635
At this point, I've given up hope seeing HL3 or HL:E3. Valve left us in a cliff-hanger which isn't cool but if they choose not to continue the series then it is their choice. Nothing we can do about it.
 

AltTabbins

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
20,089
I think they are past their time. HL2 came out 13.. THIRTEEN years ago. Let that soak in for a minute.
 

dave343

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Messages
1,810
I just wanted Episode 3!!!!!!!! And I don't even care if they use the same original Source Engine, just finish the story and give us Episode 3!!!! Valve... are you reading this!?!? I'll pay you $100, just make episode 3 in source and finish the dang story!
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,924
It'll come out.

Somehow, someway, sometime...something with the name HL3 wil come out. And we'll be so excited. And it'll suck, because it'll be made by some third rate studio in Bulgaria who bought the IP for a few bucks.

While I desperately want there to be a real follow up to the series, I've lost hope that whatever follow up comes out will be any good or even relate to the story line properly. Why they never put to the task of actually making HL3 I'll never know...it's bizarre to kill off a series that craps money out for you. My guess like everyone else's is that Steam killed HL3. Just a lot cheaper to sell games than to design them.
 

Samson4EiT

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
1,503
It'll come out.

Somehow, someway, sometime...something with the name HL3 wil come out. And we'll be so excited. And it'll suck, because it'll be made by some third rate studio in Bulgaria who bought the IP for a few bucks.

While I desperately want there to be a real follow up to the series, I've lost hope that whatever follow up comes out will be any good or even relate to the story line properly. Why they never put to the task of actually making HL3 I'll never know...it's bizarre to kill off a series that craps money out for you. My guess like everyone else's is that Steam killed HL3. Just a lot cheaper to sell games than to design them.

Because crapping out 30% money off others games is a shitload more than making your own. Why tarnish the steam image on something that can't possibly live up to the height, might fuck with their bread and butter. Is probably some thought in the back of Gabe's mind that just won't allow him to okay it.
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,319
I'm pretty sure that Gabe's made it fairly obvious that Half Life 3 is going to be their VR title that ushers in the new era of VR greatness. It's going to take awhile though until there is enough at home adoption of the tech for them to fund and launch a game of that magnitude though. I'd say another 5 years would be fairly realistic.
 

twonunpackmule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
1,535
Whenever Half Life 3 comes out, I'll be there. Sweatpants on. As this boner is going to need a fabric able to withstand the bloodflow.
 

AltTabbins

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
20,089
“Update: It appears that, yet again, our hopes have been raised, only to be smashed down upon the cold, hard, rocks of reality. Shortly after this post went up, McVicker deleted the video containing the "five years or so" tease, saying on Twitter that two people have confirmed to him that the email was actually a fake.”

Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
Top