Does Half Life 3 need major changes to live up to the hype?

Does Half Life 3 need major changes to live up to the hype?

  • A: No, I would be satisfied with a minor evolution of the series.

    Votes: 45 26.8%

  • B: A major engine overhaul. Source 2.0 or a heavily modified Source engine.

    Votes: 65 38.7%

  • C: Major game play changes, Open World, Time Maniuplation, Bullet Time, etc...

    Votes: 5 3.0%

  • D: Both options B & C, major engine and game play overhaul.

    Votes: 40 23.8%

  • E: I do not care about the Half Life franchise.

    Votes: 13 7.7%
  • Total voters
    168
J

Johnked6

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
1,156
What do you guys think? It's been 8 years since Valve released Half Life 2 and the fps genre has evolved a lot since then. A lot of gamers are getting worn out on the 10 hr cinematic linear fps formula.

Does Valve need to make major changes to the Half Life franchise? Open world? New engine? New game play mechanics?

Or would you be happy seeing a 10 hr Half Life 2: Episode 3?
 
Man it really is a slow time around here at this rate.

B&C for me at the rate it's going.
 
My selection isn't on there. I would be satisfied with a minor evolution of game play but want Source 2.0 or at least something much better than HL2
 
I love HL and HL2, but I feel like 3 really needs to push the envelope if it's going to make an impact today. If they suddenly revealed it tomorrow and what I saw didn't excite me as much/more than Bioshock Infinite then I'd be pretty disappointed (which is probably my most anticipated fps).
 
HL is a linear franchise; that's just its thing. Like, you wouldn't want a new Stalker game to be an off-the-wall shooter with dozens of enemies at once like Serious Sam, Quake, Doom, or DN3D of old, even it were done really damn well; and likewise I don't think you want to change up the HL formula. (Except to show a little restraint on the see-saw puzzles, eh Valve?) Anyways, it doesn't matter terribly if the game is a short 10 hours, since HL's longevity has historically come from the game's accessibility to modders, not the singleplayer content.

As for living up to the hype, Valve has kept mum on the topic, so the only hype is what's coming from the fans as they're rabidly chomping at the bit for any information at all. So all HL3 needs to do to live up to the hype is for the fans to just chill out for a bit, enjoy the games/life they have currently, then proceed to enjoy HL3 whenever it decides to show up. :)
 
It will get "10/10 GAME OF THE YEAR" just for being released. It will be praised as the pinnacle of first person shooters even though it will be a generic linear corridor shooter and platformer.

I just don't care about that series anymore especially with Valve releasing, IMHO, bad games like L4D2 and Portal 2.
 
Couldn't give a fuck if they used the same engine from HL1 or 2. I play for the story and mechanics.
 
Engine overhaul IMO. I still enjoy playing HL2 to this day, so I'd be happy with similar gameplay. That doesn't mean they shouldn't innovate, but I don't think they have to make the game another shooter following every random trend people want right now.
I'm personally just wanting the same evolution we got between HL1 and HL2.
 
I'm sure I'll be happy with whatever Valve does. Sadly the amount of hype this game has, I doubt many gamers will agree.
 
Strong setting/theme/narrative, some decent new mechanics and fairly nice graphics. HL open world would not really work.
 
Q-BZ said:
B&C for me at the rate it's going.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Source is getting incredibly long in the tooth, and I'd like to see some gameplay improvements since HL2 (i.e. not just doing the same thing). Doesn't need to be a major overhaul to gameplay (we want them to keep the same HL feel, after all) but some other cool mechanics (like how cool the gravity gun was) would be nice.
 
It can't live up to the hype. Just like a prequel/sequel/whatever of Alien didn't live up to the hype. Things rarely IF EVER live up to hype.

Best thing to do is to not read anything about HL3 and reserve judgement until you play it. That's how I'm going about it.
 
Without a major engine overhaul there's nothing of value left in the series for me, I'm not even interested in completing the saga to be honest, could easily never see any more half life games ever and not give a damn.
 
Since there really is next to no hype, does it matter? Will we eventually get a HL3? Prolly. But I sure as hell am not expecting it anytime in the next two years.
They have been incrementally updating it in spurts, on and off since HL2 came out. It would be a reasonable to believe that they are going to continue to do the same going forward for at least the next little while. No reason to come out with a next gen engine with so many willing to buy anyway. I just want the series to be over honestly. Let it be done. Move onto something else. How about a L4D MMO..................................lol.
 
I don't know that there's "next to no hype" when some troll pic gets posted of an HL3 shirt and everyone goes nuts. But yeah, it has been so long now that I don't really even think about it anymore. I'd like to see it, I'd play it if/when it is released, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
I expect that HL3 will have a similar amount of evolution as HL2 did. Remember that in terms of the franchise, HL2 introduced:

- major sidekick characters
- vehicles
- physics gameplay
- major engine update
- limited squad control

So think of things along that scale and that's probably what HL3 will have when it comes out in 8 years.
 
Wouldn't mind just a continuation of episode 2. I thought episode 2 was fantastic and the game's mechanics still feel great. I see no reason to change everything to appease the modern impatient ADD gamer.
 
yourgrandma said:
I see no reason to change everything to appease the modern impatient ADD gamer.
Click to expand...
I'm not to concerned about that to be honest. Remember, for a time a two weapon limit was in HL2. Despite the fact that it was already a popular mechanic at the time, Valve ditched it because they felt either it didn't fit Half-Life or it detracted from the gameplay. So I trust them to make reasonable decisions in that regard.
 
A major engine overhaul, DX11 support and not a console port and not a shitty generic console FPS shooter will be great.
 
i'm sick of FPS games shrinking the single-player portion and relying on multi-player to carry the game. I'm sick of MP carrying the majoring of the game. I never play online/MP. I want a longer SP campaign and new play style.
Id's RAGE got bad reviews, but save for the short game i really liked it.

I love to see Valve introduce different characters or classes (ie: variety of protective suits) that each have unique play-styles. This would provide some re-playability.
In the end, if we really love a game, we don't want a game to ever end. Right?
naturally, that isn't possible so the best thing that could be done is to offer some interesting re-playability.

...and oh yeah: i wouldn't complain if they left the graphics the way they were.
 
Upgraded to todays standards seems like a given, but Half Life was really more about the story line. I have been dying to play "Episode 3" which never happened, and found myself really getting attached to the story line. I actually liked the Episodal way they released content for that game, and would be perfectly happy if they did that again.
 
I think they'd need something major just to get me interested at this point,they don't seem to give a damn about the franchise anymore,and so much time has gone by that the feeling is mutual. I just can't get excited about standard linear shooters anymore,open world is the way to go,but I don't know if they could even pull it off with the series being so rooted in linear game play.
 
wonderfield said:
Direct3D 11 support is important to you for what reasons, specifically? You mentioned tesselation: what else?
Click to expand...

Well, there was that AMD tech demo in which they used DX11 compute shaders to help do dynamic lighting on a forward rendered engine. I wouldn't mind seeing that in a game sometime in the future.
 
Personally I don't care if anything uses DX11 again as long as the game looks good. IMO, we've seen too many performance quirks with DX11 and games like the Witcher 2 are doing fine without it.
Just give me a modern looking game with the same type of "upgrade" that HL2 was over HL1 and that'll be fine.
Even with all of the delays, HL2 still kicked major graphical ass when it hit. I'm hoping HL3 will follow suit.
 
If they made something that played like HL or episode 2 I'd bite. I wouldn't bother if it played like HL2 though; they can keep their boring vehicle segments and tech-demo physics puzzles to themselves.

I don't think the game needs a new engine, what would it add other than minor graphical bells and whistles?
 
Kind of a moot point considering Valve has no official (or unofficial) comment on development of it. I've been waiting with everyone else but I am to the point I just wish they would finish the story even if it was on the HL1 engine.
 
HL3 needs to stay linear. Period.

I know a lot of you can't play a video game now without it being open world and if it doesn't compete with the play style of today's modern FPS. Half-Life 3 won't be Half-Life if it is not linear. This game has always been about storyline and mechanics.

Of course they need to implement new content but can anyone really doubt their creative capability? I think there is enough evidence from HL2 and Portal that they certainly have that potential.

I do not care much for updated graphics, I think HL2 looked great at the time and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest bit if HL3 looked identical. A new engine would be required for new mechanics so yes, I think Source 2.0 should be the next engine.

All I want is to continue the story and have fun with some new gadgets. Half-Life is not about rewards or achievements or leveling. I think I am going replay it when I get home from work.
 
wonderfield said:
Direct3D 11 support is important to you for what reasons, specifically? You mentioned tesselation: what else?
Click to expand...

Look at Crysis 2 or any other game with DX11 and those feature sets. Even DX10. Does it matter specifically?

My point was that asking why you would want an updated engine (especially of one that is currently about 5 years since the last significant upgrade) is kind of a retarded question.
 
Actually he was asking what was hoped to be gained by it. It's an apt question considering people seem to throw the term "DX11" out to describe what it is they want to see in a game engine, but don't really explain why they want a DX11 renderer.

I can take Direct3D 11 and render the original Doom with it pretty much identically to how it would look in its original software renderer. It's not a very compelling thing for people unless you actually do something of substance with that technology. Valve could use DX11 simply to make the existing renderer and the features it supports just a bit faster, which I don't think anyone here is all that concerned about. So, yeah, the specifics do kind of matter.
 
D... sort of.

The Source Engine was built to be modular. It has never really been bleeding edge from a pure graphics fidelity standpoint. (Doom 3 launched the same year as Half-Life 2.) It has, however, held up quite well due to incremental improvements, and it has always hinged on technology beyond what is brought to life in screenshot stills.

I do not expect a Source Engine 2. Instead, I would expect a slew of relatively major yet still somewhat incremental updates to the current engine. It more than likely will do at least one thing better than anyone else (Half-Life 2 had the best physics of the time), while still looking quite good, but it won't exactly win any screenshot contests.

Now, as far as gameplay changes are concerned, I do not want them to change the overall formula. It is nostalgic. It works. I would, however, expect for them to add in some of the mechanics found in the Portal franchise.

Using the portal gun to avoid death by striders while simultaneously defeating hordes of combine? Yes, please. The addition of the portal gun would also provide them opportunities to make the gravity gun fresh again.
 
djsb said:
Well, there was that AMD tech demo in which they used DX11 compute shaders to help do dynamic lighting on a forward rendered engine. I wouldn't mind seeing that in a game sometime in the future.
Click to expand...

where did you see that?

edit: i thought you were talking about a VALVE demo
 
wonderfield said:
Actually he was asking what was hoped to be gained by it. It's an apt question considering people seem to throw the term "DX11" out to describe what it is they want to see in a game engine, but don't really explain why they want a DX11 renderer.

I can take Direct3D 11 and render the original Doom with it pretty much identically to how it would look in its original software renderer. It's not a very compelling thing for people unless you actually do something of substance with that technology. Valve could use DX11 simply to make the existing renderer and the features it supports just a bit faster, which I don't think anyone here is all that concerned about. So, yeah, the specifics do kind of matter.
Click to expand...

No, they really don't. Why else would you overhaul the engine if not for better graphics or more features? It makes no sense.

"What is hoped to be gained" -> Better graphics/more features.

Why are you having trouble understanding this? Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top