• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

daybreak

Member
Feb 28, 2018
2,418
It wouldn't be the same game. Without VR it would be a relatively boring corridor shooter.

I can't express enough how incredible this title is, it's a complete gamechanger for VR. I hope people don't play it modded for non-VR and hate on the game, because they won't be playing the same game at all.
 

TooBusyLookinGud

Graphics Engineer
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
8,086
California
I can see a jacked-up version happening, but the pace would get a lot of complaints because it's not heavy in action. It was built for VR, meaning that it's slower-paced, physics and world interactions are centered around VR controllers. I just don't think it would translate well. There is nothing like looking into a window, not seeing your target and leaning in a little more to see the little fucker on the floor. It just can't be replicated without VR.
 
Last edited:

Wowfunhappy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,102
In other words, the time spent redesigning HL:A to work outside of VR would *absolutely* be better spent on a brand-new flat-screen game with more plot stakes. The amount of work they'd need to invest would be staggering, that's how crucial head- and hand-tracking are to the way the game's geometry, dialogue, and combat sequences play out.

Just as an interesting thought experiment—what if it was a motion-control game, but still on a flat screen? So, you'd still have the Index controllers or something equally good, as well as some for of head tracking (maybe a Kinect?), but you're just playing on a TV.
 

Doskoi Panda

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,084
Those of you who maintain that a flatscreen, traditionally-controlled Half-Life Alyx is feasible, even now that the game is out... imagine something with me.

It's the year 1996. You've got a small stack of this month's gaming magazines and they're all effusively praising Nintendo's latest big game - Super Mario 64.

Now, you're a big Mario fan as it is. You've played SMB and SMB3 on the NES, and Super Mario World on the SNES. You're seriously hyped for more Mario. Everything you've read about Mario 64 sounds pretty damn cool, to boot. It's not the same Mario you grew up with, of course, but by all accounts its something that's even more novel and interesting. You want this game.

...but you're not interested in a Nintendo 64. Maybe you just can't afford it right now, since it's still new. It would cost you $260 plus tax to buy the console and the game, and that's a bit much, you've got other shit going on in your life, so that money is better spent elsewhere. Or maybe you've already purchased a different gaming platform, and you're comfortable gaming there. Or maybe you just can't stand the idea of using the N64's wonky-looking controller, or paying $60-$100 to play games that look like simple cartoons, considering that Quake just released and Final Fantasy 7 is just around the corner, and you could spend the money to play those, instead.

Man, Super Mario 64 sounds neat, though. You've been waiting to play a brand new Mario game for years. And you know what? The SNES96 emulator runs pretty well on your gaming PC. Honestly, you'd be fine with a 2D version of Mario 64 on the SNES, and you feel that many other existing SNES owners would, too. I mean, who wouldn't? 2D platforming is what made Super Mario so big to begin with. People would buy that game in droves. Shit, people would buy Super Mario World 2 in droves, so Nintendo might as well serve up something to that existing paying audience. It just makes sense.

So you take to Usenet. You visit your gaming newsgroup, and posit a simple question -

"Why doesn't Nintendo make a version of Mario 64 for the SNES? If hackers made their own 2D platforming version of Mario 64, you'd play it, right?"

That's you, right now. Not you, OP, but the people I addressed with this post's first sentence. Think about that for a minute. Think about the answers that Super Mario 64 players of the time might have given you, and whether or not history would go on to prove them right.

Could Nintendo, or some of the most gifted modders/game 'hackers' of the 1990s, have made a half-decent 2D approximation of Mario 64? Sure, if they put in a monster amount of work. And what would that amount to? A completely different game top-to-bottom, one that could never facilitate the intended experience of the original - only small parts of its aesthetic and mechanical trappings. Any player who played Super 2D Mario 64 expecting the Super Mario 64 experience would walk away having experienced a novelty, a facsimile. Perhaps a decent game in its own right, but certainly not a genuine alternative, or a comparable experience. Just a novelty, relatively speaking, one which jettisons the most important and innovative elements of Super Mario 64 in favor of the familiar. And the familiar is clearly not Nintendo's ambition with Super Mario 64, so what you're getting with Super 2D Mario 64 isn't close to what the SM64 hyped suggested you'd get.

Of course, that's all hypothetical, because those most familiar with Super Mario 64 in 1996 would tell you, flat-out, that a 2D version is just never going to happen. Too much would have to be changed, too much would be lost in the transition, and the developers would never see that version as a justifiable expenditure of their time and effort.

And that's what you're seeing in this thread. Half-Life Alyx is about being a VR game. Half-Life Alyx is meant to give players a new understanding of and appreciation for VR's potential, and the unique game design that VR enables through its controls and perspective. Just as Super Mario 64 was meant to give players a new understanding of and appretiation for 3D gaming's potential, and the unique game design that 3D gaming could enable with new controls and perspectives. Anything less, or anything different if you will, would be just that - a lesser monument to new gaming possibilities, and a completely different game, to boot. A different game that, for what it's worth, you're not necessarily unreasonable for wanting - I share with you the desire for a new, traditional Half-Life game after all - but it's certain that Half-Life Alyx could never be that game, and that that game could never be Half-Life Alyx.

---

(So you log off Usenet, deciding that maybe, you'll stick with games like Quake and Final Fantasy 7 for the time being. It's not like there aren't plenty of other amazing, novel, and innovative games for you to play on the platforms you own and have access to right now!

Timeskip to the year 2000. PS2 is right around the corner, and you couldn't be more hyped. You've seen footage and read stories of games that might just blow your mind, of 3D games that look or sound too amazing to miss. Many of which, unbeknownst to you, were developed by people who were inspired to utilize - and even innovate upon - the design concepts and practices introduced to them by, among other titles, Super Mario 64.

To help pass the time, though... you decide to buy an N64, the very console you chose not to purchase only a few short years ago. Of course, it's 2000, and to purchase an N64 and a copy of Super Mario 64 would cost you only a fraction of what that purchase would have cost you in 1996. That's when you finally play Super Mario 64 - and you end up having as much fun with SM64 in 2000, as you might have back when N64 and its weird-ass controller and oddball games were prohibitively expensive for you, or alien to you, back in 1996.

Suddenly, you fully see the appeal and potential of 3D gaming, and you're ready to see what the future holds. And though your opportunity to play Super Mario 64 didn't come until years after the game debuted, you hardly think less of the game for it - maybe it even made its mark as one of your favorites, because as it turned out, so much of what made SM64 special did not fade with time.

That could be you, too.)
 
Last edited:

Rygar 8Bit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,002
Site-15
Those of you who maintain that a flatscreen, traditionally-controlled Half-Life Alyx is feasible, even now that the game is out... imagine something with me.

It's the year 1996. You've got a small stack of this month's gaming magazines and they're all effusively praising Nintendo's latest big game - Super Mario 64.

Now, you're a big Mario fan as it is. You've played SMB and SMB3 on the NES, and Super Mario World on the SNES. You're seriously hyped for more Mario. Everything you've read about Mario 64 sounds pretty damn cool, to boot. It's not the same Mario you grew up with, of course, but by all accounts its something that's even more novel and interesting. You want this game.

...but you're not interested in a Nintendo 64. Maybe you just can't afford it right now, since it's still new. It would cost you $260 plus tax to buy the console and the game, and that's a bit much, you've got other shit going on in your life, so that money is better spent elsewhere. Or maybe you've already purchased a different gaming platform, and you're comfortable gaming there. Or maybe you just can't stand the idea of using the N64's wonky-looking controller, or paying $60-$100 to play games that look like simple cartoons, considering that Quake just released and Final Fantasy 7 is just around the corner, and you could spend the money to play those, instead.

Man, Super Mario 64 sounds neat, though. You've been waiting to play a brand new Mario game for years. And you know what? The SNES96 emulator runs pretty well on your gaming PC. Honestly, you'd be fine with a 2D version of Mario 64 on the SNES, and you feel that many other existing SNES owners would, too. I mean, who wouldn't? 2D platforming is what made Super Mario so big to begin with. People would buy that game in droves. Shit, people would buy Super Mario World 2 in droves, so Nintendo might as well serve up something to that existing paying audience. It just makes sense.

So you take to Usenet. You visit your gaming newsgroup, and posit a simple question -

"Why doesn't Nintendo make a version of Mario 64 for the SNES? If hackers made their own 2D platforming version of Mario 64, you'd play it, right?"

That's you, right now. Not you, OP, but the people I addressed with that first sentence. Think about that for a minute. Think about the answers that Super Mario 64 players of the time might give you, and whether or not history would go on to prove them right.

Could Nintendo, or some of the most gifted modders/game 'hackers' of the 1990s, have made a half-decent 2D approximation of Mario 64? Sure, if they put in a monster amount of work. And what would that amount to? A completely different game top-to-bottom, one that could never facilitate the intended experience of the original - only small parts of its aesthetic and mechanical trappings. Any player who played Super 2D Mario 64 expecting the Super Mario 64 experience would walk away having experienced a novelty, a facsimile. Perhaps a decent game in its own right, but certainly not a genuine alternative, or a comparable experience. Just a novelty, relatively speaking, one which jettisons the most important and innovative elements of Super Mario 64 in favor of the familiar. And the familiar is clearly not Nintendo's ambition with Super Mario 64, so what you're getting with Super 2D Mario 64 isn't close to what the SM64 hyped suggested you'd get.

Of course, that's all hypothetical, because those most familiar with Super Mario 64 in 1996 would tell you, flat-out, that a 2D version is just never going to happen. Too much would have to be changed, too much would be lost in the transition, and the developers would never see that version as a justifiable expenditure of their time and effort.

And that's what you're seeing in this thread. Half-Life Alyx is about being a VR game. Half-Life Alyx is meant to give players a new understanding of and appreciation for VR's potential, and the unique game design that VR enables through its controls and perspective. Just as Super Mario 64 was meant to give players a new understanding of and appretiation for 3D gaming's potential, and the unique game design that 3D gaming could enable with new controls and perspectives. Anything less, or anything different if you will, would be just that - a lesser advancement in the gaming space, and a completely different game, to boot. A different game that, for what it's worth, you're not necessarily unreasonable for wanting - I share with you the desire for a new, traditional Half-Life game after all - but it's certain that Half-Life Alyx could never be that game, and that that game could never be Half-Life Alyx.

đź‘Ť
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,950
Just as an interesting thought experiment—what if it was a motion-control game, but still on a flat screen? So, you'd still have the Index controllers or something equally good, as well as some for of head tracking (maybe a Kinect?), but you're just playing on a TV.
You ever play Killzone 3 in 3D with the PS Move? It would be worse than that, and also completely fundamentally broken from a gameplay standpoint. Half Life Alyx has way, way more going on than a PS Move game. The power of a PC and the fidelity of the Index controllers & steam vr tracking won't change the brick wall that comes from removing the VR headset from the equation. It's not even worth thinking about.
 

Rubblatus

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,178


Figure out a way for me to pet the shit out of that headcrab with a mouse and keyboard, and I'd say "Maybe."

While I was trying to nervously put a shotgun cartridge in the chamber, I dropped it. That was an incredible and memorable moment for me right there, and I see it as imposible to recreate that experience on a 2D version of the game, where you would just be looking at a screen and pressing a button to reload. That is completely different to feeling you have a fucking headcrab jumping at your physical face and you have to physically reload your gun as fast as possible.
I was confronted by three venomous headcrabs next to a pit who were all leaping at me non-stop. I was in such a high pressure situation I tried to reload my pistol without ejecting the magazine first, causing me to drop not one but TWO pistol clips in the scramble into said pit before I figured out what was happening. I fucking love it so much.

Just as an interesting thought experiment—what if it was a motion-control game, but still on a flat screen? So, you'd still have the Index controllers or something equally good, as well as some for of head tracking (maybe a Kinect?), but you're just playing on a TV.
I feel like if you have to buy ~450 dollars in VR hardware AND have a Kinect lying around to make a reasonable version of Half-Life: Alyx exist on a flat panel display, you could probably save a lot of time and effort on an objectively inferior version of the game by just buying a cheaper VR headset instead.

But hey you do you.
 

Matheus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
37
Brazil
I could see it working, with some adjustments, mainly to puzzles that use the multi tool, but i do believe it loses a lot of the magic. I've just been through this part on chapter 3 with the
barnacles close to explosives, and while it could work with mouse and keyboard, there's a LOT of tension in aiming with your hands at stuff, trying to not hit anything that would kill you
. This is an incredible game not because of VR, but it was tailored so well to the medium that it just wouldn't be as fun without it
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,716
Those of you who maintain that a flatscreen, traditionally-controlled Half-Life Alyx is feasible, even now that the game is out... imagine something with me.

It's the year 1996. You've got a small stack of this month's gaming magazines and they're all effusively praising Nintendo's latest big game - Super Mario 64.

Now, you're a big Mario fan as it is. You've played SMB and SMB3 on the NES, and Super Mario World on the SNES. You're seriously hyped for more Mario. Everything you've read about Mario 64 sounds pretty damn cool, to boot. It's not the same Mario you grew up with, of course, but by all accounts its something that's even more novel and interesting. You want this game.

...but you're not interested in a Nintendo 64. Maybe you just can't afford it right now, since it's still new. It would cost you $260 plus tax to buy the console and the game, and that's a bit much, you've got other shit going on in your life, so that money is better spent elsewhere. Or maybe you've already purchased a different gaming platform, and you're comfortable gaming there. Or maybe you just can't stand the idea of using the N64's wonky-looking controller, or paying $60-$100 to play games that look like simple cartoons, considering that Quake just released and Final Fantasy 7 is just around the corner, and you could spend the money to play those, instead.

Man, Super Mario 64 sounds neat, though. You've been waiting to play a brand new Mario game for years. And you know what? The SNES96 emulator runs pretty well on your gaming PC. Honestly, you'd be fine with a 2D version of Mario 64 on the SNES, and you feel that many other existing SNES owners would, too. I mean, who wouldn't? 2D platforming is what made Super Mario so big to begin with. People would buy that game in droves. Shit, people would buy Super Mario World 2 in droves, so Nintendo might as well serve up something to that existing paying audience. It just makes sense.

So you take to Usenet. You visit your gaming newsgroup, and posit a simple question -

"Why doesn't Nintendo make a version of Mario 64 for the SNES? If hackers made their own 2D platforming version of Mario 64, you'd play it, right?"

That's you, right now. Not you, OP, but the people I addressed with this post's first sentence. Think about that for a minute. Think about the answers that Super Mario 64 players of the time might have given you, and whether or not history would go on to prove them right.

Could Nintendo, or some of the most gifted modders/game 'hackers' of the 1990s, have made a half-decent 2D approximation of Mario 64? Sure, if they put in a monster amount of work. And what would that amount to? A completely different game top-to-bottom, one that could never facilitate the intended experience of the original - only small parts of its aesthetic and mechanical trappings. Any player who played Super 2D Mario 64 expecting the Super Mario 64 experience would walk away having experienced a novelty, a facsimile. Perhaps a decent game in its own right, but certainly not a genuine alternative, or a comparable experience. Just a novelty, relatively speaking, one which jettisons the most important and innovative elements of Super Mario 64 in favor of the familiar. And the familiar is clearly not Nintendo's ambition with Super Mario 64, so what you're getting with Super 2D Mario 64 isn't close to what the SM64 hyped suggested you'd get.

Of course, that's all hypothetical, because those most familiar with Super Mario 64 in 1996 would tell you, flat-out, that a 2D version is just never going to happen. Too much would have to be changed, too much would be lost in the transition, and the developers would never see that version as a justifiable expenditure of their time and effort.

And that's what you're seeing in this thread. Half-Life Alyx is about being a VR game. Half-Life Alyx is meant to give players a new understanding of and appreciation for VR's potential, and the unique game design that VR enables through its controls and perspective. Just as Super Mario 64 was meant to give players a new understanding of and appretiation for 3D gaming's potential, and the unique game design that 3D gaming could enable with new controls and perspectives. Anything less, or anything different if you will, would be just that - a lesser monument to new gaming possibilities, and a completely different game, to boot. A different game that, for what it's worth, you're not necessarily unreasonable for wanting - I share with you the desire for a new, traditional Half-Life game after all - but it's certain that Half-Life Alyx could never be that game, and that that game could never be Half-Life Alyx.

---

(So you log off Usenet, deciding that maybe, you'll stick with games like Quake and Final Fantasy 7 for the time being. It's not like there aren't plenty of other amazing, novel, and innovative games for you to play on the platforms you own and have access to right now!

Timeskip to the year 2000. PS2 is right around the corner, and you couldn't be more hyped. You've seen footage and read stories of games that might just blow your mind, of 3D games that look or sound too amazing to miss. Many of which, unbeknownst to you, were developed by people who were inspired to utilize - and even innovate upon - the design concepts and practices introduced to them by, among other titles, Super Mario 64.

To help pass the time, though... you decide to buy an N64, the very console you chose not to purchase only a few short years ago. Of course, it's 2000, and to purchase an N64 and a copy of Super Mario 64 would cost you only a fraction of what that purchase would have cost you in 1996. That's when you finally play Super Mario 64 - and you end up having as much fun with SM64 in 2000, as you might have back when N64 and its weird-ass controller and oddball games were prohibitively expensive for you, or alien to you, back in 1996.

Suddenly, you fully see the appeal and potential of 3D gaming, and you're ready to see what the future holds. And though your opportunity to play Super Mario 64 didn't come until years after the game debuted, you hardly think less of the game for it - maybe it even made its mark as one of your favorites, because as it turned out, so much of what made SM64 special did not fade with time.

That could be you, too.)

Great story, you can just imagine the fictional characters that play the 2D port of Mario 64 saying "Meh, I don't see what was all the Mario 64 hype for, this port plays just like any 2D game". I imagine something like this happening with a traditional screen port of HLA. People read the high praise this game is getting and think they will have access to the things people are describing by playing in on a screen. Not even close.
 

Okii

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,189
Feasible? Yes. Enjoyable? No.

Modders can do some incredible stuff and I'm sure we'll see something soon but it won't be in anyway representative of Half Life Alyx in any real way, some stuff just cannot be translated to flat screen and this game is just chocked full of them.
 

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
Just as an interesting thought experiment—what if it was a motion-control game, but still on a flat screen? So, you'd still have the Index controllers or something equally good, as well as some for of head tracking (maybe a Kinect?), but you're just playing on a TV.

everybody has played the wii and kinect and knows the disconnect, and the moment they play VR they realize the difference. There's a reason why this part of the milo demo is obviously bullshit if you've ever used a kinect before:



You don't catch stuff like that when you play kinect, because you don't actually track and feel objects flying in the air. The video is obviously bullshit because you don't anticipate trajectory like that, you wouldn't bend at the catch unless you were acting. Again, anyone who actually played any kinect knows exactly what I'm talking about. When someone throws something at you on a flat screen, even with head tracking, you don't feel like it's coming at you, and as such, you don't instinctively know where to put your hands to catch it. Everyone who tried to "catch" something thrown at them with a wiimote or kinect or Dualaxis controller knows what I'm talking about, that awkward moment where you move your hands around to try and figure out where they align to in relationship to the television screen space (I.e. "My hands when held up here map to my hands being there on the tv screen...").

None of that is how it works in VR. VR gives your brain enough visual cues to trip your proprioception. Proprioception is our ability to know where our hands are in relation to our body without actually looking at them. It's an innate sense of just knowing where your hands are. It's why, IRL, when you catch a baseball, you keep your eyes on the ball and your hands just move to the right spot. All that is biological and built into our body. It's instinctual. You don't have to think about the mapping from your physical location to abstract, 2D projected image across the room.

The reason HL:A works so well is because it's built entirely around the concept of proprioception. There are lots of engagements that rely on your being able to know, instinctively, where your hands are in the VR world. The type of set up you're talking about would still require major caveats, there are several moments I can think of that just wouldn't work. It'd be too cumbersome, it'd be similar to the complaints of "waggle" so to speak.
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,716
I was confronted by three venomous headcrabs next to a pit who were all leaping at me non-stop. I was in such a high pressure situation I tried to reload my pistol without ejecting the magazine first, causing me to drop not one but TWO pistol clips in the scramble into said pit before I figured out what was happening. I fucking love it so much.

LOL, a lot of "Oh Shit I'm Fucked" moments in this game.
 

HylianSeven

Shin Megami TC - Community Resetter
Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,241
Absolutely not, for a number of reasons.

The levels themselves are pretty small and closed in. There are some that are more open, but not on the scale of HL2 and they would feel very cramped on a KB+M control scheme. Areas that feel absolutely huge in VR are just small areas in HL1 or HL2.

The interactivity is something you can't replicate with KB+M. Part of the gameplay is the panic of reloading quickly enough while in an encounter. The enemies can be slower than usual and behave differently than they did in HL2, but in VR, just a couple of combine soldiers can easily fuck you up. You cannot run guns blazing at them no matter how good you are.

This is a VR game and was designed as such. It really would not work as a traditional flat screen game. You would end up feeling like so much of the game is "just press E" if you tried.
 

Love Machine

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,254
Tokyo, Japan
To anyone still thinking "I don't care if it's flat, I just want to play it":

Do yourself a favour and get comfy with a nice, high quality Let's Play.
Experiencing it even second-hand in VR will still be way more interesting than experiencing it first-hand on any other platform.
 

Chasing

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
10,854
A game designed from grounds up for VR can never be experienced in the same way "flat".
 

Love Machine

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,254
Tokyo, Japan
VR dev here - all of the vr projects I've worked on have had a developer only "screen mode" that lets you move the character/camera and do basic interactions without being in VR. These modes / player controllers are made to make development and testing easier and faster. If you're just testing some basic scripting or a world element, you don't need to be looking at it in VR all of the time to do iterations, so not having to pick up your headset and switch from screen to VR and back a million times a day is helpful!

Many times these modes are used in conjunction with hotkeys / cheats to perform basic stuff - like a keypress could automatically act like holding your glove out and letting it go could act like the "wrist flick" that brings objects your way. Taking out a clip and reloading could be mapped to a keypress. An on-screen cursor could take the place of aiming, grab mechanics could be automated and mapped to a generic use etc.

I've played about 2 hours of Alyx so far, and depending on how hacky a mod could get (access core features like calling reload on the gun, advancing the next stage of a puzzle, or enabling something to be picked up with a cursor instead of two hands), it'd be possible to do a non-vr mod, but it still wouldn't *feel* like playing the game the way it was meant to be played would feel. It would be compromised and while you might be able to play through it, it'd likely feel hobbled or *not as good*, etc. But conceivably possible? Probably.
Hmm, this is interesting. Thanks for the insight!
I suppose there are those games on PC that emulate real-life gun control/reload mechanics, so the idea is not completely farfetched.

But ultimatley it's not just the interactivity; it's the fact that the player will be traversing those environments and making their way through encounters that are designed with VR at its core. The speed of the player character, the presence within the world, the overall pacing... All these would change drastically and reduce the quality of the experience.

Sure, it's "feasible" as in "someone could theoretically do it" (and most likely will), but in terms of practicality, it's about as "feasible" as playing Dark Souls with Donkey Kong Jungle Beat bongos.
 

ss_lemonade

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,699
Early in the game, there was a zombie that banged into a window beside me and that literally made me flinch sideways. That same scene would have lacked any impact whatsoever if played on a standard screen.
 

RyougaSaotome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,709
It would be a bad game.

Enemy encounters are designed around VR movement and your own real aim using your hands.

Outside of VR with a mouse and keyboard, these intimate encounters would take five seconds and be the easiest and least exciting things on the planet.

It works because you inhabit the space.
 

Scruffy8642

Member
Jan 24, 2020
2,856
Alyx is the next evolution in gaming and takes so many steps forward. People need to give up on the idea of bringing it back and ruining the experience.
 

HylianSeven

Shin Megami TC - Community Resetter
Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,241
It would be a bad game.

Enemy encounters are designed around VR movement and your own real aim using your hands.

Outside of VR with a mouse and keyboard, these intimate encounters would take five seconds and be the easiest and least exciting things on the planet.

It works because you inhabit the space.
One of the best examples of this is the 7th chapter.

Jeff

A special zombie infested with Xen plants where he is super strong and impervious to bullets, but he's blind and can hear really well. You have to throw things to distract him, crawl into crawlspaces to get around him, even hide among boxes in a freight elevator with him for the whole ride up.

I couldn't imagine that chapter without VR
 

I KILL PXLS

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,614
Everyone that has played first person shooters has reloaded guns millions of times, but having to physically do the mechanics of reloading a gun in VR, similarly to how you would in real life makes all of the difference in the world. It completely changes how it feels to do something you have done millions of times by pressing a button to play an animation that looks the exactly the same, every single time. Just today I was playing the 3rd chapter and there is a section where you have several headcrabs following you. While I was trying to nervously put a shotgun cartridge in the chamber, I dropped it. That was an incredible and memorable moment for me right there, and I see it as imposible to recreate that experience on a 2D version of the game, where you would just be looking at a screen and pressing a button to reload. That is completely different to feeling you have a fucking headcrab jumping at your physical face and you have to physically reload your gun as fast as possible.
Sweet jesus. I just had a moment like that today. Just after getting the flashlight I ended up in a tight pitch black room filled with an unknown number of zombies and scittering headcrabs (unknown because it was dark and I was frantically flicking my flashlight around the room and could only mostly hear what I was trapped with). After unloading all the ammo I had in my pistol and then my shotgun in what I could briefly see, I found myself fumbling for more ammo to reload. The problem was now that I was using my flashlight hand to reload, I could barely see my weapon to know where to load the shells leading me to totally fumble them to the ground. Now I'm sitting there in the dark with nothing but the sound of a variety of headcrab related enemies closing in and I panic for a second while I try to decide if I'm going to try to pick those up (they're my last shells) and try to fumble my way through reloading in the dark again, or switch to my pistol. I decide to retreat a bit (mostly to keep moving since I know these headcrabs must be ready to pounce) and switch to my pistol completely forgetting in my haste that it also needs to be reloaded and in the darkness I have this moment of like "Oh shit. There's no way I'm going to be able to reload this in the dark. This is it. I'm dead." It's the exact moment of panic and fear they depict at the end of the gameplay trailer except cranked to 10 because I'm in the dark and don't even know how many things are after me. After a couple seconds though I'm able to steel myself, regain some composure, manage to clumsily put a new clip in the pistol, and finish off the freakshow around me.

All of that probably happened within 10-20 seconds. It was one of the craziest and unique moments I've had playing a video game period and 100% would not have been the same outside of VR.

Those of you who maintain that a flatscreen, traditionally-controlled Half-Life Alyx is feasible, even now that the game is out... imagine something with me.

It's the year 1996. You've got a small stack of this month's gaming magazines and they're all effusively praising Nintendo's latest big game - Super Mario 64.

Now, you're a big Mario fan as it is. You've played SMB and SMB3 on the NES, and Super Mario World on the SNES. You're seriously hyped for more Mario. Everything you've read about Mario 64 sounds pretty damn cool, to boot. It's not the same Mario you grew up with, of course, but by all accounts its something that's even more novel and interesting. You want this game.

...but you're not interested in a Nintendo 64. Maybe you just can't afford it right now, since it's still new. It would cost you $260 plus tax to buy the console and the game, and that's a bit much, you've got other shit going on in your life, so that money is better spent elsewhere. Or maybe you've already purchased a different gaming platform, and you're comfortable gaming there. Or maybe you just can't stand the idea of using the N64's wonky-looking controller, or paying $60-$100 to play games that look like simple cartoons, considering that Quake just released and Final Fantasy 7 is just around the corner, and you could spend the money to play those, instead.

Man, Super Mario 64 sounds neat, though. You've been waiting to play a brand new Mario game for years. And you know what? The SNES96 emulator runs pretty well on your gaming PC. Honestly, you'd be fine with a 2D version of Mario 64 on the SNES, and you feel that many other existing SNES owners would, too. I mean, who wouldn't? 2D platforming is what made Super Mario so big to begin with. People would buy that game in droves. Shit, people would buy Super Mario World 2 in droves, so Nintendo might as well serve up something to that existing paying audience. It just makes sense.

So you take to Usenet. You visit your gaming newsgroup, and posit a simple question -

"Why doesn't Nintendo make a version of Mario 64 for the SNES? If hackers made their own 2D platforming version of Mario 64, you'd play it, right?"

That's you, right now. Not you, OP, but the people I addressed with this post's first sentence. Think about that for a minute. Think about the answers that Super Mario 64 players of the time might have given you, and whether or not history would go on to prove them right.

Could Nintendo, or some of the most gifted modders/game 'hackers' of the 1990s, have made a half-decent 2D approximation of Mario 64? Sure, if they put in a monster amount of work. And what would that amount to? A completely different game top-to-bottom, one that could never facilitate the intended experience of the original - only small parts of its aesthetic and mechanical trappings. Any player who played Super 2D Mario 64 expecting the Super Mario 64 experience would walk away having experienced a novelty, a facsimile. Perhaps a decent game in its own right, but certainly not a genuine alternative, or a comparable experience. Just a novelty, relatively speaking, one which jettisons the most important and innovative elements of Super Mario 64 in favor of the familiar. And the familiar is clearly not Nintendo's ambition with Super Mario 64, so what you're getting with Super 2D Mario 64 isn't close to what the SM64 hyped suggested you'd get.

Of course, that's all hypothetical, because those most familiar with Super Mario 64 in 1996 would tell you, flat-out, that a 2D version is just never going to happen. Too much would have to be changed, too much would be lost in the transition, and the developers would never see that version as a justifiable expenditure of their time and effort.

And that's what you're seeing in this thread. Half-Life Alyx is about being a VR game. Half-Life Alyx is meant to give players a new understanding of and appreciation for VR's potential, and the unique game design that VR enables through its controls and perspective. Just as Super Mario 64 was meant to give players a new understanding of and appretiation for 3D gaming's potential, and the unique game design that 3D gaming could enable with new controls and perspectives. Anything less, or anything different if you will, would be just that - a lesser monument to new gaming possibilities, and a completely different game, to boot. A different game that, for what it's worth, you're not necessarily unreasonable for wanting - I share with you the desire for a new, traditional Half-Life game after all - but it's certain that Half-Life Alyx could never be that game, and that that game could never be Half-Life Alyx.

---

(So you log off Usenet, deciding that maybe, you'll stick with games like Quake and Final Fantasy 7 for the time being. It's not like there aren't plenty of other amazing, novel, and innovative games for you to play on the platforms you own and have access to right now!

Timeskip to the year 2000. PS2 is right around the corner, and you couldn't be more hyped. You've seen footage and read stories of games that might just blow your mind, of 3D games that look or sound too amazing to miss. Many of which, unbeknownst to you, were developed by people who were inspired to utilize - and even innovate upon - the design concepts and practices introduced to them by, among other titles, Super Mario 64.

To help pass the time, though... you decide to buy an N64, the very console you chose not to purchase only a few short years ago. Of course, it's 2000, and to purchase an N64 and a copy of Super Mario 64 would cost you only a fraction of what that purchase would have cost you in 1996. That's when you finally play Super Mario 64 - and you end up having as much fun with SM64 in 2000, as you might have back when N64 and its weird-ass controller and oddball games were prohibitively expensive for you, or alien to you, back in 1996.

Suddenly, you fully see the appeal and potential of 3D gaming, and you're ready to see what the future holds. And though your opportunity to play Super Mario 64 didn't come until years after the game debuted, you hardly think less of the game for it - maybe it even made its mark as one of your favorites, because as it turned out, so much of what made SM64 special did not fade with time.

That could be you, too.)
Damn son. Current post of the year right here.
 

c0Zm1c

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,221
Figure out a way for me to pet the shit out of that headcrab with a mouse and keyboard, and I'd say "Maybe."
That's always the problem with this topic, the assumption that a non-VR version must attempt to match the VR version in every way. Any such mod, extensive or otherwise, is doomed from the start.

I've not had the chance to play the game yet but from everything I've seen I could loosely draw a comparison with the immersive sim - resource gathering, creative use of objects and the environment to make progress and defeat opponents - so a from-the-ground-up rework in that vein for non-VR could work very well.

Yes, it would be a different game but that's kind of the point: Half-Life fans that aren't interested in VR don't want to play the one Valve made.
 

Dr. Ludwig

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,528
Even Valve themselves expects the non-VR mods.

I'll check it out just for the novelty a bit but it's not the way I want to experience the game fully. HL Alyx pushes interactions and physics in VR to such an absurd degree, any compromised version is just gonna be awkward jank.
 

Love Machine

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,254
Tokyo, Japan
Those of you who maintain that a flatscreen, traditionally-controlled Half-Life Alyx is feasible, even now that the game is out... imagine something with me.

It's the year 1996. You've got a small stack of this month's gaming magazines and they're all effusively praising Nintendo's latest big game - Super Mario 64.

Now, you're a big Mario fan as it is. You've played SMB and SMB3 on the NES, and Super Mario World on the SNES. You're seriously hyped for more Mario. Everything you've read about Mario 64 sounds pretty damn cool, to boot. It's not the same Mario you grew up with, of course, but by all accounts its something that's even more novel and interesting. You want this game.

...but you're not interested in a Nintendo 64. Maybe you just can't afford it right now, since it's still new. It would cost you $260 plus tax to buy the console and the game, and that's a bit much, you've got other shit going on in your life, so that money is better spent elsewhere. Or maybe you've already purchased a different gaming platform, and you're comfortable gaming there. Or maybe you just can't stand the idea of using the N64's wonky-looking controller, or paying $60-$100 to play games that look like simple cartoons, considering that Quake just released and Final Fantasy 7 is just around the corner, and you could spend the money to play those, instead.

Man, Super Mario 64 sounds neat, though. You've been waiting to play a brand new Mario game for years. And you know what? The SNES96 emulator runs pretty well on your gaming PC. Honestly, you'd be fine with a 2D version of Mario 64 on the SNES, and you feel that many other existing SNES owners would, too. I mean, who wouldn't? 2D platforming is what made Super Mario so big to begin with. People would buy that game in droves. Shit, people would buy Super Mario World 2 in droves, so Nintendo might as well serve up something to that existing paying audience. It just makes sense.

So you take to Usenet. You visit your gaming newsgroup, and posit a simple question -

"Why doesn't Nintendo make a version of Mario 64 for the SNES? If hackers made their own 2D platforming version of Mario 64, you'd play it, right?"

That's you, right now. Not you, OP, but the people I addressed with this post's first sentence. Think about that for a minute. Think about the answers that Super Mario 64 players of the time might have given you, and whether or not history would go on to prove them right.

Could Nintendo, or some of the most gifted modders/game 'hackers' of the 1990s, have made a half-decent 2D approximation of Mario 64? Sure, if they put in a monster amount of work. And what would that amount to? A completely different game top-to-bottom, one that could never facilitate the intended experience of the original - only small parts of its aesthetic and mechanical trappings. Any player who played Super 2D Mario 64 expecting the Super Mario 64 experience would walk away having experienced a novelty, a facsimile. Perhaps a decent game in its own right, but certainly not a genuine alternative, or a comparable experience. Just a novelty, relatively speaking, one which jettisons the most important and innovative elements of Super Mario 64 in favor of the familiar. And the familiar is clearly not Nintendo's ambition with Super Mario 64, so what you're getting with Super 2D Mario 64 isn't close to what the SM64 hyped suggested you'd get.

Of course, that's all hypothetical, because those most familiar with Super Mario 64 in 1996 would tell you, flat-out, that a 2D version is just never going to happen. Too much would have to be changed, too much would be lost in the transition, and the developers would never see that version as a justifiable expenditure of their time and effort.

And that's what you're seeing in this thread. Half-Life Alyx is about being a VR game. Half-Life Alyx is meant to give players a new understanding of and appreciation for VR's potential, and the unique game design that VR enables through its controls and perspective. Just as Super Mario 64 was meant to give players a new understanding of and appretiation for 3D gaming's potential, and the unique game design that 3D gaming could enable with new controls and perspectives. Anything less, or anything different if you will, would be just that - a lesser monument to new gaming possibilities, and a completely different game, to boot. A different game that, for what it's worth, you're not necessarily unreasonable for wanting - I share with you the desire for a new, traditional Half-Life game after all - but it's certain that Half-Life Alyx could never be that game, and that that game could never be Half-Life Alyx.

---

(So you log off Usenet, deciding that maybe, you'll stick with games like Quake and Final Fantasy 7 for the time being. It's not like there aren't plenty of other amazing, novel, and innovative games for you to play on the platforms you own and have access to right now!

Timeskip to the year 2000. PS2 is right around the corner, and you couldn't be more hyped. You've seen footage and read stories of games that might just blow your mind, of 3D games that look or sound too amazing to miss. Many of which, unbeknownst to you, were developed by people who were inspired to utilize - and even innovate upon - the design concepts and practices introduced to them by, among other titles, Super Mario 64.

To help pass the time, though... you decide to buy an N64, the very console you chose not to purchase only a few short years ago. Of course, it's 2000, and to purchase an N64 and a copy of Super Mario 64 would cost you only a fraction of what that purchase would have cost you in 1996. That's when you finally play Super Mario 64 - and you end up having as much fun with SM64 in 2000, as you might have back when N64 and its weird-ass controller and oddball games were prohibitively expensive for you, or alien to you, back in 1996.

Suddenly, you fully see the appeal and potential of 3D gaming, and you're ready to see what the future holds. And though your opportunity to play Super Mario 64 didn't come until years after the game debuted, you hardly think less of the game for it - maybe it even made its mark as one of your favorites, because as it turned out, so much of what made SM64 special did not fade with time.

That could be you, too.)
Amazing. Pretty much a perfect analogy.

Tl;dr:
 

Genio88

Banned
Jun 4, 2018
964
I like how most people here have 0 experience in modding or developing but still say no chance, i also have no experience in that but i wouldn't say that a mod is impossible
 

s0l0kill

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
856
I like how most people here have 0 experience in modding or developing but still say no chance, i also have no experience in that but i wouldn't say that a mod is impossible
It doesn't take a genius to see that a game made for VR isn't translatable to normal gaming, can you REMAKE it for normal gaming?, sure, could you mod it? Anything is possible, but it's a VR game, with VR mechanics, it's pacing is different, it's puzzles makes use of motion controls, if you were to get a normal version it won't be the same game, so a mod isn't an option, a remake might be. But doubt Valve is going to do it.
 

ArcLyte

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,062
There is no way HLA, a game that was built from the ground-up for VR, will ever translate to flat screen play in a cohesive, functional way. Is it possible to hack something together that's technically playable? Yes. Will it be worth the massive effort to do it? No. Will it be fun or in any way representative of the original VR presentation? Hell no.
 

indask8

Member
Oct 28, 2017
324
Non VR will be hard.
However, I'm pretty sure they'll be wrappers to get the game working with a cell phone + dumb VR headset + controllers making the whole package cheaper.
 

Quample

Member
Dec 23, 2017
3,234
Cincinnati, OH
Yes, it would be a different game but that's kind of the point: Half-Life fans that aren't interested in VR don't want to play the one Valve made.

I get that people are upset and want to do anything to avoid playing in VR, but from my perspective it comes off as stubbornness...it's being stubborn not to play the game at all as the developers intended and spilled out their guts for, and being stubborn for not wanting to take the leap and try something new. I think even if the developers expect people to play a 2d modded version, they probably would prefer people not to play it at all since it will be an utter shell of the experience they painstakingly created.

I get that some people don't want to throw more money than the price of the game itself, but a lot of people's sheer unwillingness shows when they think they have to spend an exorbitant amount to play...getting the lowest end used headset for well under 200 dollars would give an infinitely better experience than any modded version could. Tons of gamers spend a shitload of money on PC peripherals and microtransactions, and a lot of those people probably refuse to get VR headsets for whatever reason.

People need to accept the fact that this is a VR game, and one that many of us believe is a game changer for the medium and aspects of game playing in general. I don't care if people play some shoddy modded version, but it's an extremely limited and almost insulting point of view to share on gaming forums. People are essentially port begging the fuck out of this game (which is a bannable offense here btw). That's why I may come off as pissed (not at you who I quoted, just at the general response some are giving). It's because all these threads come up and people are knocking the game left and right for being in VR, sometimes it's subtle sometimes it's blatant.

If people really care that much about Half Life, they should save up for a headset. And there are other great VR games, so it's really not like you're spending that money for one game. Even if you are, I guarantee it's worth it.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
684
USA
I've learned to never doubt what modders can achieve. They will just rebuild the whole damn game one day, many years down the road.
 

Brodo Baggins

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,055
It's doable, but I don't think it would be anywhere near as fun w/o significant rebalancing. A lot of the joy comes from the physicality and interactivity of it.
 

Rubblatus

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,178
That's always the problem with this topic, the assumption that a non-VR version must attempt to match the VR version in every way. Any such mod, extensive or otherwise, is doomed from the start.

I've not had the chance to play the game yet but from everything I've seen I could loosely draw a comparison with the immersive sim - resource gathering, creative use of objects and the environment to make progress and defeat opponents - so a from-the-ground-up rework in that vein for non-VR could work very well.
It's less that it must match the VR version in every way, than it is that people are underestimating the exact range of actions these physics-driven controls enable and the ways in which Valve specifically makes you interact with the Z-Axis or asynchronous inputs to do pretty much anything. It's not just running around with a gun and snatching things towards you with a gravity tether. If you can't flip a headcrab onto its back or turn an object in 3D space, you're going to need to re-design, cut or script a solution to a lot of content.

That aside I don't think the individual level concepts can't translate back to non-VR. I believe a Half-Life: Alyx Source demake would probably be the better play here over modding Alyx.
 

qrac

Member
Nov 13, 2017
759
My guess is valve is going to release a non-VR version down the line.
Don't think that many people have VR or will buy VR. The sales from a non-VR version would be to great to miss it.
 

Dr. Ludwig

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,528
My guess is valve is going to release a non-VR version down the line.
Don't think that many people have VR or will buy VR. The sales from a non-VR version would be to great to miss it.

They don't care about pushing unit sales at least in short term. Their main priority had always been pushing VR to the mainstream.

They have no intention of releasing a "non-VR version".
 

c0Zm1c

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,221
I get that people are upset and want to do anything to avoid playing in VR, but from my perspective it comes off as stubbornness...it's being stubborn not to play the game at all as the developers intended and spilled out their guts for, and being stubborn for not wanting to take the leap and try something new. I think even if the developers expect people to play a 2d modded version, they probably would prefer people not to play it at all since it will be an utter shell of the experience they painstakingly created.

I get that some people don't want to throw more money than the price of the game itself, but a lot of people's sheer unwillingness shows when they think they have to spend an exorbitant amount to play...getting the lowest end used headset for well under 200 dollars would give an infinitely better experience than any modded version could. Tons of gamers spend a shitload of money on PC peripherals and microtransactions, and a lot of those people probably refuse to get VR headsets for whatever reason.

People need to accept the fact that this is a VR game, and one that many of us believe is a game changer for the medium and aspects of game playing in general. I don't care if people play some shoddy modded version, but it's an extremely limited and almost insulting point of view to share on gaming forums. People are essentially port begging the fuck out of this game (which is a bannable offense here btw). That's why I may come off as pissed (not at you who I quoted, just at the general response some are giving). It's because all these threads come up and people are knocking the game left and right for being in VR, sometimes it's subtle sometimes it's blatant.

If people really care that much about Half Life, they should save up for a headset. And there are other great VR games, so it's really not like you're spending that money for one game. Even if you are, I guarantee it's worth it.
Price of entry isn't the only issue. Lack of room is one thing (I'm wondering if I'll have enough for it, when/if I get an Index.)

There may be health issues to consider. I've been reluctant to share this before because, well, I feel it's personal (and the way some VR fanatics attack such issues can be fucking annoying to say the least!) but I have asthma and my doctor speculated I may have bronchiectasis too; I can get out of breath fast. Even just playing Super Mario Galaxy 2 last year I noticed my breathing became unusually strained after a while, and that was from being sat down and simply waggling a Wii remote. It's a problem I wouldn't have any concerns about if a non-VR version of Alyx existed alongside the VR version (I have no trouble playing Black Mesa, nor had I any trouble playing any previous game in the Half-Life series, though I was in better health back then!)

Or people may simply not want to play a new Half-Life in VR even if they do have the money to throw at it. After all, for all this speak about Alyx being built from the ground up for VR, the previous four entries in the series were not. It shouldn't be difficult to see (and respect!) why some, many even, don't like it when a series shifts from being one thing to something else, particularly in this case - utterly different. It inevitably fractures a fan base.
 

Berto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
556
I've learned to never doubt what modders can achieve. They will just rebuild the whole damn game one day, many years down the road.
Hell, they are building a whole game based around a half a dozen paragraph script for Episode 3. Modders are crazy talented and persistent, someone will rebuild the whole game, not just mod the current one to barely function on a screen.
 

Lurcharound

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,072
UK
Could there be, technically? Sure don't see why not.

Will it happen? It's Half Life, I'm guessing it will.

Will it be good? Unless the kidders also rework the game itself then no. It's really design ground up for VR. Unlike most VR games that are mostly generic in gameplay with VR as a perspective Alyx is designed around VR.

Stripping out VR would leave a flawed game - you'd need to rework most of the design/approach too if you wanted a non VR version that's as good as the VR version.
 

Villein

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
1,982
Valve only made this game because they wanted to push VR forward, I doubt the game even works or is worth playing without it.