• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
Back at Steam Dev Days in 2014, Valve released the "VR Bible" which was a general developers guide to the current best VR design practices. When VR first became a consumer (and developer) technology, nobody really knew how to make VR stuff. With regards to things like 3D games on conventional screens, there have been decades of refinement to get to where things are now, the ability to just pick up a controller and everything works. Think back to the early mario 64 days of 3D gaming, or even earlier. Remember when the camera was a huge part of games, how sometimes entire games would be broken because the camera would be poorly programmed? Get stuck in walls, or just not be smart enough to give you a good clean view of what was going on? Remember how long it took before we had proper mario 64 style analogue controls?

You know how virtually every game has the same dual analog controls these days? Button placement has conglomerated among the systems? Things like that happened organically and slowly over time. Iteration and experimentation leads to that.

The change to VR meant a reboot of all those things. When you properly develop a VR game, and not just make a game like you make on a normal television in "3D", you have to rethink how everything works. From minute things like "don't grab the camera away from the player's face" to complex things like "how do you move around without making someone sick." For modern game development, you can go on google and find endless amounts of literature from people talking about how one should approach making conventional games. In 2014, absolutely no material existed for VR.

So at dev days, Valve said they had a large team of people experimenting with VR game development and were figuring out what works, what doesn't, and how to make long form games without making other people sick. The "VR Bible" was a list of the practices they had found since then. A few years later, the lab came out, which was a glimpse into how their research for "VR bible" practices were going. The "VR Bible" and "The Lab" weren't meant to be full games, they were tests of small concepts for a larger project. Valve also released "The Unity Renderer," a renderer built for VR development that other devs can use, and things like Steam Skeletal Input, which aimed to unify all VR controllers into one API, along with their own bleeding edge VR controller -- the Valve Index controller.

All this experimentation and iteration has been leading up to this game. Beyond Half Life and Valve fans, VR fans should be bonkers nuts for this, because this is the company that has been leading the charge for VR development finally revealing it's very long term hand here. I fully expect this to be the best-in-class for VR. This is going to be a new Doom, a new Mario 64. Really, really befitting that it's using the Half Life setting.
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
I never played a Half Life game so I'm interested in seeing what makes them so well liked.

They do everything well, and tend to set the tone for games that follow. They're usually revolutionary releases. Playing the games years after they release feels very mundane and samey, because basically everything took after HL1 and HL2 after they were released.
 

cakely

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,149
Chicago
Well, the rumor was dead-on.

Valve's doing another Half-life game. I can't think of another gaming announcement I'd be more excited by.
 

samred

Amico fun conversationalist
Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,585
Seattle, WA
Wait


WAIT


Three games?

So. Half-life, portal, and left4dead??

Valve didn't have anything to say about the other two VR games in April. (Gaben mentioned "three games" years ago at a roundtable conversation with some journalists, so that's ancient news.) And my sources have given me downtrodden looks when I ask about what's going on with any other official Valve VR games but have nothing firmer to say.
 

Overture

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,595
Portugal
Never thought I'd see the day... what the fuck, can't even put it into words. Man, I still remember playing the Half-Life demo at my best friend's place, over and over again before we got the game. Half-Life has been with me for so fucking long... just seeing something with Half-Life in its name being announced is a fucking riot.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
I'm an enormous Half-Life fan. I've replayed the original countless times, and I used to replay Half-Life 2 and its two Episodes annually. I never, not once, got bored in a single playthrough. They still, to this day, represent what I feel is amongst the most delicate and intelligent level design in first person shooters, with an absolutely absurd degree of encounter and location variety seamlessly integrated into one another. I've never correlated time relative to expectations with Half-Life 2: Episode 3, and have never expected it to be anything other than more-of-the-same quality of its predecessors. Half-Life is one of my favourite franchises ever.

It's exciting to see Valve go back to the series, but I'm oddly emotionless about the whole thing. Precisely because Valve has demonstrated apathy to the kind of experiences the Half-Life series provided, shelving single player experiences for the last eight years. It's hard for me to get overly excited that the next chapter in this iconic franchise is;
1) Likely helmed by people who've lesser experience with the franchise, due to numerous key staff leaving (see: Marc Laidlaw, who wrote the entire saga, left, and reverted to twitter to fanfic Episode 3).
2) Is a side story, not even a continuation of the arc that has been left unresolved for twelve years.
3) Requires an upfront investment of thousands of dollars (in Australia) to play.

Don't get me wrong; seeing Valve even acknowledge Half-Life, let alone make anything within the franchise, has me intrigued. I'm also still firmly in the camp that VR is the future; I love the emergent technology and if I had the money to blow I'd happily, readily jump on a premium kit of Vive. I've used VR, and I fucking love it.

But man, I just don't know. Valve is not the company today that was making the games I loved over a decade ago. I'm 32. I was 20 when Half-Life 2: Episode 2 dropped. 24 for Portal 2. I hope Valve has the chops to deliver a rich, authentic Half-Life experience irrespective of staff who've moved on. I hope it's a thunderous demonstration of VR. But I can also totally appreciate why some people are apathetic.
Speaks to a lot of my reservations as well.
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
Valve is betting big on VR... they have invested heavily into VR over the last few years.

More than heavily invested in it, they basically have created the entire modern VR industry.

So, story time about Valve's VR hardware: they literally gave it away for free to Oculus. It's amazing how no big gaming publications have ever tried to investigate this story. Look at who left Valve for Oculus during the facebook buy out. The story goes like this: When John Carmack at Quakecon showed off "carmack's VR headset" (which was Palmer Luckey's duct tape prototype) Valve hit him up as they'd already been doing R&D on their own VR hardware with Michael Abrash for a couple of years. They had two teams working on what they considered the *Reality projects: One lead by Abrash, which became their VR division, and one lead by Jerri Elsworth, who was developing an AR solution. Valve decided to back their VR solution, and as such let Elsworth keep all of her valve-funded, valve-developed research and development and take it to her own company (which is amazing on its own).

But back to VR -- Valve hit up Luckey and Carmack and offered to share their solution because they flat out didn't want to enter the hardware market. They needed a big player to take their tech and run with it, so they could have a market to sell with. Valve basically defined modern VR. You can look at the list of features their early headset had, that Oculus cribbed. For example, the constellation tracking system of the rift? It came from Valve, valve was prototyping 10 different types of tracking solutions at the time. Their constellation system was the last one Oculus got to see before they split, which is why Vive uses the more advanced Lighthouse tracking where Oculus went with the older constellation tracking.

I tried their headset at Dev Days, where it was known as "The Valve Room." This was way, way before even the DK2 had been announced. They already had a dual screen, 1080p per eye VR headset with full roomscale tracking and asynchronous reprojection going. Like, 2 full years before Oculus released the DK2. The Oculus rift DK2 and CV1, to an enormous degree, looks like a commercial version of "The Valve Room"

So back to the story about Oculus: There was actually conflict at valve between VR team members over whether or not they should share their technology completely free with Oculus. Valve quite literally gave their tech to Oculus, no strings attached. When Mark Zuckerberg was shown a prototype at Oculus' office as a pitch for facebook to buy them out, they showed them the Valve room and not the DK2. Zuckerberg literally thought, when he bought oculus, that he bought valve's technology. When he learned that they didn't have the team, or the exact demo he tried, they tried to buy out valve, and when they couldn't, they tried to poach the VR team. Maybe I shouldn't share this stuff as it's really contentious, but those who stay told me that the people who left for big raises at Oculus, are the same people who had been arguing prior that Valve should give their tech away to oculus for free.

Anywho, Facebook's attempt to poach Valve's VR division actually didn't work, with the vast majority of the VR division staying and working to this day. They cross over into other R&D, as to "power" their VR technology, they had to simultaneously prop up technologies like dx2vk (in fact, their VR conference is WHERE they announced dx2vk, during their "use our free tools for gamedev" lecture), sdl2, etc.

Valve has the single most unrecouped R&D costs in the entire VR market. They literally charged absolutely nothing for their R&D.

Welp, I'd like to source my claims about Valve and Oculus to Alan Yates, the person behind lighthouse itself, but it looks like he deleted his account where he said some thing. Despite that, a few pictures of evidence:

m5nalPR.jpg


That's a leaked pic of Zuck's actual VR pitch, he's literally in the valve room. This is the same room Valve took users into one on one with Michael Abrash at Dev Days.

some direct quotes from him on the subject:

I am sure Facebook charged Oculus with securing the employment of those that made The Valve Room they were sold on work before the sale. Unfortunately for them they did not succeed and the great majority of the team that actually made it work remains at Valve.

Jack I'm happy to see you experiment with Lighthouse-like tracking, but you should do some pencil and paper design before you go too far down many of the paths you've mentioned. While higher scan rates are interesting if you think about it for a moment you will see that is not the first thing you should optimise for. Raster scanning would add more complexity and performance constraints for basically no benefit. Field of view and scan linearity of various alternative light engines will be challenging to achieve. Reverse biased LEDs won't have the responsivity required for reasonable sensitivity and likely have too much capacitance for high bandwidth, the price difference is not worth the huge performance hit. Our lasers aren't CW. Lensing distortions are amongst the largest sources of error in the system. Anyone can slap together a Lighthouse-like transmitter, but making it perform well is very nontrivial. Once you build your first prototypes and actually measure their performance you will realise how long a road you have ahead. Gotta ask if it is worth it? Every subsystem of Lighthouse can consume an engineer for two or three years to perfect. We have already Muntzed the heck out of it to get it to a consumer product of reasonable performance and continue to do so. Plus IP wise you will be in a very bad place. The 1st rule of Lighthouse is make interoperating implementations.
 

Gevin

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,823
Back at Steam Dev Days in 2014, Valve released the "VR Bible" which was a general developers guide to the current best VR design practices. When VR first became a consumer (and developer) technology, nobody really knew how to make VR stuff. With regards to things like 3D games on conventional screens, there have been decades of refinement to get to where things are now, the ability to just pick up a controller and everything works. Think back to the early mario 64 days of 3D gaming, or even earlier. Remember when the camera was a huge part of games, how sometimes entire games would be broken because the camera would be poorly programmed? Get stuck in walls, or just not be smart enough to give you a good clean view of what was going on? Remember how long it took before we had proper mario 64 style analogue controls?

You know how virtually every game has the same dual analog controls these days? Button placement has conglomerated among the systems? Things like that happened organically and slowly over time. Iteration and experimentation leads to that.

The change to VR meant a reboot of all those things. When you properly develop a VR game, and not just make a game like you make on a normal television in "3D", you have to rethink how everything works. From minute things like "don't grab the camera away from the player's face" to complex things like "how do you move around without making someone sick." For modern game development, you can go on google and find endless amounts of literature from people talking about how one should approach making conventional games. In 2014, absolutely no material existed for VR.

So at dev days, Valve said they had a large team of people experimenting with VR game development and were figuring out what works, what doesn't, and how to make long form games without making other people sick. The "VR Bible" was a list of the practices they had found since then. A few years later, the lab came out, which was a glimpse into how their research for "VR bible" practices were going. The "VR Bible" and "The Lab" weren't meant to be full games, they were tests of small concepts for a larger project. Valve also released "The Unity Renderer," a renderer built for VR development that other devs can use, and things like Steam Skeletal Input, which aimed to unify all VR controllers into one API, along with their own bleeding edge VR controller -- the Valve Index controller.

All this experimentation and iteration has been leading up to this game. Beyond Half Life and Valve fans, VR fans should be bonkers nuts for this, because this is the company that has been leading the charge for VR development finally revealing it's very long term hand here. I fully expect this to be the best-in-class for VR. This is going to be a new Doom, a new Mario 64. Really, really befitting that it's using the Half Life setting.

This sounds amazing and all but the great minds of this forum have told me Valve is lazy and does absolutely nothing, so I have to assume this is invented
 

TaterTots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,963
Holy shit! This is legit HL3?

It's not titled Half-Life 3. It's called Half-Life Alyx. Rumored to be a prequel or a mix of both.

Hell no. It's a prequel. They have yet to finish the announced sequel from over a decade ago.

If that leaked transcript from the other thread is real, depending on this games success, it could lead to a proper HL3, but it would be met with the same negativity on this forum about VR.
 

Maple

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,722
I feel like I'm the only one not really excited about this.

- It's a HL spinoff, not HL3.
- It's VR, so I'm not expecting something that's particularly strong in terms of narrative or gameplay.
- Valve's recent projects haven't exactly inspired confidence that they still know how to make great games.
 

the-pi-guy

Member
Oct 29, 2017
6,270
So this will likely be the Half Life title with the highest cost of entry for people with no PC or PCVR yeah? Nice
Sure...
That doesn't really mean much, as you can say it about almost literally any new game ever....

VR does add a bit compared to most games, but you're paying for a compelling experience. One that doesn't have any parallels in TV gaming.

Alternatively why not VR?

Valve has spent a good portion of the last decade working on VR, pushing hardware from behind the scenes, and is now manufacturing their own VR headset. They know how compelling VR can be, and they've been developing this title as a AAA title to push VR into the mainstream.

The fact I had to Google this game gives me the impression this hasn't changed for VR in the mainstream. It seems like a meaty game for VR, for sure, but not something that is wowing people by the droves to get into VR, if I'm making much sense here. Half-Life might have that power, especially considering if we even decide to include the Portal series under that umbrella, that overall brand has been missing a major release in almost a decade, and people are hungry for something.
Which is their hope. There is a lot of room for VR to grow in every concievable way from the hardware, and the software, and the size of the consumer base.
Valve has been working extensively on the hardware side, and they are hoping that they can help the software to push consumers into buying it.
 

JLP101

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,742
More than heavily invested in it, they basically have created the entire modern VR industry.

So, story time about Valve's VR hardware: they literally gave it away for free to Oculus. It's amazing how no big gaming publications have ever tried to investigate this story. Look at who left Valve for Oculus during the facebook buy out. The story goes like this: When John Carmack at Quakecon showed off "carmack's VR headset" (which was Palmer Luckey's duct tape prototype) Valve hit him up as they'd already been doing R&D on their own VR hardware with Michael Abrash for a couple of years. They had two teams working on what they considered the *Reality projects: One lead by Abrash, which became their VR division, and one lead by Jerri Elsworth, who was developing an AR solution. Valve decided to back their VR solution, and as such let Elsworth keep all of her valve-funded, valve-developed research and development and take it to her own company (which is amazing on its own).

But back to VR -- Valve hit up Luckey and Carmack and offered to share their solution because they flat out didn't want to enter the hardware market. They needed a big player to take their tech and run with it, so they could have a market to sell with. Valve basically defined modern VR. You can look at the list of features their early headset had, that Oculus cribbed. For example, the constellation tracking system of the rift? It came from Valve, valve was prototyping 10 different types of tracking solutions at the time. Their constellation system was the last one Oculus got to see before they split, which is why Vive uses the more advanced Lighthouse tracking where Oculus went with the older constellation tracking.

I tried their headset at Dev Days, where it was known as "The Valve Room." This was way, way before even the DK2 had been announced. They already had a dual screen, 1080p per eye VR headset with full roomscale tracking and asynchronous reprojection going. Like, 2 full years before Oculus released the DK2. The Oculus rift DK2 and CV1, to an enormous degree, looks like a commercial version of "The Valve Room"

So back to the story about Oculus: There was actually conflict at valve between VR team members over whether or not they should share their technology completely free with Oculus. Valve quite literally gave their tech to Oculus, no strings attached. When Mark Zuckerberg was shown a prototype at Oculus' office as a pitch for facebook to buy them out, they showed them the Valve room and not the DK2. Zuckerberg literally thought, when he bought oculus, that he bought valve's technology. When he learned that they didn't have the team, or the exact demo he tried, they tried to buy out valve, and when they couldn't, they tried to poach the VR team. Maybe I shouldn't share this stuff as it's really contentious, but those who stay told me that the people who left for big raises at Oculus, are the same people who had been arguing prior that Valve should give their tech away to oculus for free.

Anywho, Facebook's attempt to poach Valve's VR division actually didn't work, with the vast majority of the VR division staying and working to this day. They cross over into other R&D, as to "power" their VR technology, they had to simultaneously prop up technologies like dx2vk (in fact, their VR conference is WHERE they announced dx2vk, during their "use our free tools for gamedev" lecture), sdl2, etc.

Valve has the single most unrecouped R&D costs in the entire VR market. They literally charged absolutely nothing for their R&D.

Welp, I'd like to source my claims about Valve and Oculus to Alan Yates, the person behind lighthouse itself, but it looks like he deleted his account where he said some thing. Despite that, a few pictures of evidence:



That's a leaked pic of Zuck's actual VR pitch, he's literally in the valve room. This is the same room Valve took users into one on one with Michael Abrash at Dev Days.

some direct quotes from him on the subject:

Thank you for posting that. I had no idea. So what does Valve get out of this? Why would they not keep there secrets to themselves? Isnt steam VR free? What is the end game here?
 

Deleted member 8674

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,240
At this rate we will be running out of jokes. First Shenmu and FF7 Remake and now Half-life! We'll always have Agent I guess.
 

.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,219
More than heavily invested in it, they basically have created the entire modern VR industry.

So, story time about Valve's VR hardware: they literally gave it away for free to Oculus. It's amazing how no big gaming publications have ever tried to investigate this story. Look at who left Valve for Oculus during the facebook buy out. The story goes like this: When John Carmack at Quakecon showed off "carmack's VR headset" (which was Palmer Luckey's duct tape prototype) Valve hit him up as they'd already been doing R&D on their own VR hardware with Michael Abrash for a couple of years. They had two teams working on what they considered the *Reality projects: One lead by Abrash, which became their VR division, and one lead by Jerri Elsworth, who was developing an AR solution. Valve decided to back their VR solution, and as such let Elsworth keep all of her valve-funded, valve-developed research and development and take it to her own company (which is amazing on its own).

But back to VR -- Valve hit up Luckey and Carmack and offered to share their solution because they flat out didn't want to enter the hardware market. They needed a big player to take their tech and run with it, so they could have a market to sell with. Valve basically defined modern VR. You can look at the list of features their early headset had, that Oculus cribbed. For example, the constellation tracking system of the rift? It came from Valve, valve was prototyping 10 different types of tracking solutions at the time. Their constellation system was the last one Oculus got to see before they split, which is why Vive uses the more advanced Lighthouse tracking where Oculus went with the older constellation tracking.

I tried their headset at Dev Days, where it was known as "The Valve Room." This was way, way before even the DK2 had been announced. They already had a dual screen, 1080p per eye VR headset with full roomscale tracking and asynchronous reprojection going. Like, 2 full years before Oculus released the DK2. The Oculus rift DK2 and CV1, to an enormous degree, looks like a commercial version of "The Valve Room"

So back to the story about Oculus: There was actually conflict at valve between VR team members over whether or not they should share their technology completely free with Oculus. Valve quite literally gave their tech to Oculus, no strings attached. When Mark Zuckerberg was shown a prototype at Oculus' office as a pitch for facebook to buy them out, they showed them the Valve room and not the DK2. Zuckerberg literally thought, when he bought oculus, that he bought valve's technology. When he learned that they didn't have the team, or the exact demo he tried, they tried to buy out valve, and when they couldn't, they tried to poach the VR team. Maybe I shouldn't share this stuff as it's really contentious, but those who stay told me that the people who left for big raises at Oculus, are the same people who had been arguing prior that Valve should give their tech away to oculus for free.

Anywho, Facebook's attempt to poach Valve's VR division actually didn't work, with the vast majority of the VR division staying and working to this day. They cross over into other R&D, as to "power" their VR technology, they had to simultaneously prop up technologies like dx2vk (in fact, their VR conference is WHERE they announced dx2vk, during their "use our free tools for gamedev" lecture), sdl2, etc.

Valve has the single most unrecouped R&D costs in the entire VR market. They literally charged absolutely nothing for their R&D.

Welp, I'd like to source my claims about Valve and Oculus to Alan Yates, the person behind lighthouse itself, but it looks like he deleted his account where he said some thing. Despite that, a few pictures of evidence:

m5nalPR.jpg


That's a leaked pic of Zuck's actual VR pitch, he's literally in the valve room. This is the same room Valve took users into one on one with Michael Abrash at Dev Days.

some direct quotes from him on the subject:

Very interesting read. Laughed at the Zuckerberg demo bit. If that's really how it went down, Oculus made out like bandits. If Valve has been this deep into VR R&D for so long, it really helps fill in the blanks of what they were doing apart from the obvious with Steam and their live games.
 

s0l0kill

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
856
More than heavily invested in it, they basically have created the entire modern VR industry.

So, story time about Valve's VR hardware: they literally gave it away for free to Oculus. It's amazing how no big gaming publications have ever tried to investigate this story. Look at who left Valve for Oculus during the facebook buy out. The story goes like this: When John Carmack at Quakecon showed off "carmack's VR headset" (which was Palmer Luckey's duct tape prototype) Valve hit him up as they'd already been doing R&D on their own VR hardware with Michael Abrash for a couple of years. They had two teams working on what they considered the *Reality projects: One lead by Abrash, which became their VR division, and one lead by Jerri Elsworth, who was developing an AR solution. Valve decided to back their VR solution, and as such let Elsworth keep all of her valve-funded, valve-developed research and development and take it to her own company (which is amazing on its own).

But back to VR -- Valve hit up Luckey and Carmack and offered to share their solution because they flat out didn't want to enter the hardware market. They needed a big player to take their tech and run with it, so they could have a market to sell with. Valve basically defined modern VR. You can look at the list of features their early headset had, that Oculus cribbed. For example, the constellation tracking system of the rift? It came from Valve, valve was prototyping 10 different types of tracking solutions at the time. Their constellation system was the last one Oculus got to see before they split, which is why Vive uses the more advanced Lighthouse tracking where Oculus went with the older constellation tracking.

I tried their headset at Dev Days, where it was known as "The Valve Room." This was way, way before even the DK2 had been announced. They already had a dual screen, 1080p per eye VR headset with full roomscale tracking and asynchronous reprojection going. Like, 2 full years before Oculus released the DK2. The Oculus rift DK2 and CV1, to an enormous degree, looks like a commercial version of "The Valve Room"

So back to the story about Oculus: There was actually conflict at valve between VR team members over whether or not they should share their technology completely free with Oculus. Valve quite literally gave their tech to Oculus, no strings attached. When Mark Zuckerberg was shown a prototype at Oculus' office as a pitch for facebook to buy them out, they showed them the Valve room and not the DK2. Zuckerberg literally thought, when he bought oculus, that he bought valve's technology. When he learned that they didn't have the team, or the exact demo he tried, they tried to buy out valve, and when they couldn't, they tried to poach the VR team. Maybe I shouldn't share this stuff as it's really contentious, but those who stay told me that the people who left for big raises at Oculus, are the same people who had been arguing prior that Valve should give their tech away to oculus for free.

Anywho, Facebook's attempt to poach Valve's VR division actually didn't work, with the vast majority of the VR division staying and working to this day. They cross over into other R&D, as to "power" their VR technology, they had to simultaneously prop up technologies like dx2vk (in fact, their VR conference is WHERE they announced dx2vk, during their "use our free tools for gamedev" lecture), sdl2, etc.

Valve has the single most unrecouped R&D costs in the entire VR market. They literally charged absolutely nothing for their R&D.

Welp, I'd like to source my claims about Valve and Oculus to Alan Yates, the person behind lighthouse itself, but it looks like he deleted his account where he said some thing. Despite that, a few pictures of evidence:

m5nalPR.jpg


That's a leaked pic of Zuck's actual VR pitch, he's literally in the valve room. This is the same room Valve took users into one on one with Michael Abrash at Dev Days.

some direct quotes from him on the subject:

Ah man I remember all that shittery going on, after the Oculus stint they partnered up with HTC and the Vive was born, Oculus is legit built on top of Valve's tech, I'm actually quite happy they made their own headset and finally pushing the boundaries they want to push, I'm sure HLA will be a step in that direction
 

breadtruck

Member
Oct 27, 2017
592
I tried to get excited, but I can't.

Been too long for HL. Don't care about vr besides silly YouTube videos of people screwing around.

Oh well.
 

scitek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,054
I never played a Half Life game so I'm interested in seeing what makes them so well liked.

Understanding the impact they had on the industry at the time of their release will go a long way toward helping you understand why they're so well-liked. They're still solid games, but they both basically did things that had never really been done before (or to such an extent) at the time.