• 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.

Deleted member 18944

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,944
Both Casali and Valve co-founder Gabe Newell explained to IGN that Valve uses Half-Life games explicitly to push technology forward and turn heads. In a new interview with our own Ryan McCaffrey, Newell said "Half-Life games are supposed to solve interesting problems," and explained that Valve doesn't want to just "crank Half-Life titles out because it helps us make the quarterly numbers." Casali similarly says that they were "looking for what is going to make that next big impact" after Episode Two.
Casali says Valve doesn't move forward with projects that don't seem promising or aren't working out. "Our judge and jury is always the playtesting," he explains. "It never comes from us. It always comes from somebody outside. And they always tell us how we're doing. And no matter what it is that we're doing, we get validated by that playtesting process, and we stick to that religiously." Simply put, if we never got to play the Half-Life games Valve was messing around with, odds are we wouldn't have wanted to anyway.
The other reason for the long delay in Half-Life's return was the creation of Source 2, the follow-up to the Source engine used in Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, CS:GO, and lots of other games (including the Titanfall series). By the end of Episode Two, Valve was already looking towards its next engine, and had already learned the hard lesson not to develop both a Half-Life game and its engine from the ground up at the same time. "We [didn't] want to make that same Half-Life 2 mistake again," Casali explains, "of working on Source 2 and the next Half-Life game at the same time, because that created a lot of pain the first time we tried to do that."

To break the timeline down for you, Half-Life 2 was in development for six years, starting just after the first Half-Life's release in 1998 and ending in 2004. Episode One followed roughly a year and a half later in 2006, followed by Episode Two at the end of 2007. At that point, Valve knew it wanted to make Source 2 and didn't want to start work on a Half-Life game using it before it was ready – and knew it still wanted that follow-up to make an impact.

Seven years later, Source 2 was made available in Dota 2's Workshop Tools in 2014 before the entire game was ported to the engine in 2015. Meanwhile, Valve tells me Half-Life: Alyx has been in development for roughly four years, allowing the studio to start working on it around 2016 with a Source 2 engine that Casali says was nearly complete by that point.

Much more here - https://www.ign.com/articles/valve-explains-why-half-life-2-episode-3-was-never-made
 

Hermii

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,729
I still think they should have finished the story, and given us some kind of ending that wasn't a cliffhanger.
 

mattyhochs

Member
May 9, 2018
162
So, essentially, their answer is "We didn't work on Episode 3 because we didn't want to." It's disappointing story-wise, but I don't want developers working on things they don't want to.
 

Mr_Antimatter

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,576
I think their big issue is the company has little in the way of structure, so projects start and die all the time because the developer just can't get the sort of backing they needed to move forward. I'm sure a dozen HL3's popped up and died over the last 12 years. Ditto for L4D 3 and others.
 

peppersky

Banned
Mar 9, 2018
1,174
I gotta say: I genuinely think gaming would be a lot better if every studio was able to release games like Valve is.
 

Nooblet

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,677
It all makes sense now
BbkGDXb.png
 

Jroc

Member
Jun 9, 2018
6,145
I still think they should have finished the story, and given us some kind of ending that wasn't a cliffhanger.
Exactly. It annoys me to this day.
Yeah, they couldve just given us ep3 to finish out HL2, and then whatever sequel/prequel to the games was coming next couldve been to push whatever new tech was next, like VR.

To me, "we always try to push the envelope and refuse to settle for anything less than groundbreaking" sounds like a face-saving version of "we ran into development hell while trying to finish the final 5 hour episode in our planned episodic expansion-pack trilogy." There's no way they would have shelved an Episode 2-tier version of Episode 3 if it were ready to go circa ~2010.

I guess we have our official explanation now, but it's essentially just "we had development trouble."
 

Saty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
613
If they would have said that 2 years after the release of Ep2 then they would have saved a lot of the displeasure directed at Valve.
 

Kinthey

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
22,494
I still think they should have finished the story, and given us some kind of ending that wasn't a cliffhanger.
Yeah, I get the stuff about the engine and all, but the thing is that Half Life 2 just wasn't finished yet. No one expected a new FPS revolution, people expected them to finish what they started.
 

Smash-It Stan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,306
I dont know why they just didnt say that a decade ago. "Every half life game is a revolution of something. Episode 3's story is too big for an episode, so we want a full game, but what can't find any boundaries or barriers to break down" is hella lame.
 

Moff

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,812
that's a poor explanation, I loved episode 2 but it didn't push tech or turn heads, might have just as well scrapped it. not even mentioning episode 1.
 

Snake Eater

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,385
people saying Valve should've said something... all it did was grow their brand mystique day by day because people kept asking
 

Hazzuh

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,166
How did Episode 1 or 2 push technology forwards? They were just great games but were (obviously) incremental improvements on HL2.
 

Pilgrimzero

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,129
They could have put together a little motion comic DLC thing that explains what happens in the story. What a shit excuse.
 

toy_brain

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,212
I don't buy the reason given in the first quote, about having to break new ground all the time. You don't set out to make an episodic game with the expectation that every new chunk you put out each year* will be revolutionary. You do it because you feel like you have a good pipeline in place and can crank.

I have a suspicion that Valve's internal 'flat' structure is proving deadly to game development. Every major game they have put out recently has been because they acquired an existing team, and that team can put out one, maybe two games before Valve's company structure rips the team apart.
Portal is one example, Alyx is also an external studio.

*I forget what the original schedule was supposed to be. With a year I feel like I'm being generous.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,367
Cool that they talked about it, but I think they really should do a conclusion/continuation at some point. Obviously the series isnt dead, but they cant possibly expect to sit on that cliffhanger while making other games in the series lol
 

Mr. Gold

Member
Jul 1, 2019
725
I don't know if I buy that excuse. I think it's more along the lines that they got busy with other projects that were making more money.
 

HustleBun

Member
Nov 12, 2017
6,076
Sorry but if that's why then you shouldn't have ended Half-Life 2: Ep 2 on a cliffhanger that you explicitly promised to follow-up with soon.

Valve is one of my favorite game developers of all time but they're trying to rewrite history a little bit here.
 

vastick

Banned
May 4, 2019
132
That is bullshit and goes against the existence of the first two episodes that were just more Half-Life without pushing the technology at all.
 

Border

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,859
"We didn't make it because Half-Life games are supposed to solve problems. We don't just pump them out."

Okay, well then what problem were EP1 and EP2 supposed to be solving? Why did you commit to pumping the game out on an episodic schedule if they aren't just meant to be cranked out on a schedule?
 

Dr. Mario

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,042
Netherlands
How did Episode 1 or 2 push technology forwards? They were just great games but were (obviously) incremental improvements on HL2.
Yeah that was my take as well. If you're charitable and ignore Lost Coast, Episode 1 introduced some graphical updates like bloom / HDRR, but neither episode really pushed anything, so that's no reason Episode 3 couldn't have been made.
 

lasthope106

Member
Oct 25, 2017
924
Iowa USA
Nah, they can reason their way around it all they want, but Episode 3 was never promised to be the next-gen Half Life game. It was the conclusion of the 3 episodes they said they were going to make. And in that respect they failed. So whatever floats gabeN's boat to make him sleep at night.
 

mikhailguy

Banned
Jun 20, 2019
1,967
"We didn't make it because Half-Life games are supposed to solve problems. We don't just pump them out."

Okay, well then what problem were EP1 and EP2 supposed to be solving? Why did you commit to pumping the game out on an episodic schedule if they aren't just meant to be cranked out on a schedule?

If you play them with the commentary on..there were little granular things. It's been a while, but I think I remember the Advisor's psychically controlled orbiting debris field and the realistic collapsing bridge being big deals to them.
 

Halbrand

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,630
Stupid excuse. They shouldn't have even made Episode 1 and 2 if they weren't committed to a conclusion.
 

finalflame

Product Management
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,538
"We didn't make it because Half-Life games are supposed to solve problems. We don't just pump them out."

Okay, well then what problem were EP1 and EP2 supposed to be solving? Why did you commit to pumping the game out on an episodic schedule if they aren't just meant to be cranked out on a schedule?
Much smaller problems at the time.

The scale of the problems Valve has set out to solve have also significantly grown since then. We're talking a video game company turned platform holder, with huge growth in scale and ambitions. It's not surprising. They could either focus on the future of platforms for PC gaming, the emergence of DOTA2 and other transformative online experiences, and the future of how we interact with media, or just make a new HL game because a very small group of vocal people were yelling about it.

The choice was obvious.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,180
Roma, Italia
I don't get it. So why isn't Half Life: Alyx Episode 3 again? They should have developed both for VR at the same time in a similar fashion, it would have been great
 

SaberVS7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,294
That is bullshit and goes against the existence of the first two episodes that were just more Half-Life without pushing the technology at all.

Yeah that was my take as well. If you're charitable and ignore Lost Coast, Episode 1 introduced some graphical updates like bloom / HDRR, but neither episode really pushed anything, so that's no reason Episode 3 couldn't have been made.

Episode 1 introduced a ton of AI improvements that Alyx (as in the NPC) primarily makes use of - Much subtler than what Half-Life 2 brought to the table, but a piece of what Valve's intended ambitions were.

Episode 2 further expanded the Scripting capabilities Valve had become renowned for since the first Half-Life, with Cinematic Physics being the major spectacle centerpiece that drove production values up. This is mainly used for large-scale pre-calculated physics-based events involving destruction of structures.

Black Mesa makes heavy use of both of these as part of its presentation. Admittedly Cinematic Physics hasn't aged all that well in the face of increased processing power allowing for Real-Time destruction and physics at 60FPS+, but it was a creative solution for its time.
 
Aug 25, 2019
380
I feel stupid for waiting and them not saying a thing. Ughhh more communication you guys... It really would have not spoiled anything.
 

DoradoWinston

Member
Apr 9, 2019
6,337
people are saying they should have said this a long time ago but I thought this was like...common knowledge.

if they really wanted to pump em out they could have.
 

Dylan

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,260
The idea that Half Life 3: Episode 3 would have satisfied the fans that are saying they "just want it to wrap the story up".. I don't know. Even Game of Thrones, with a bajillion dollars behind it, managed to completely bury any enthusiasm for that brand, because the producer's needed to "wrap it up".
I think Valve made the smart decision; if you are in the business of putting out gold, then don't put out anything that isn't gold.
 

megalowho

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,562
New York, NY
I think most people get this, they just wanted the episodic story brought to a satisfying conclusion before going dark and devising the next big impact iteration of the franchise.
 

MillionIII

Banned
Sep 11, 2018
6,816
I think that just didn't know how to move forward with ep3 so they put it on the backburner until they found something that would get them excited to do it, at least they are excited now I guess.
 

Watership

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,134
I still think they should have finished the story, and given us some kind of ending that wasn't a cliffhanger.
This. I understand the technology and innovation push, but don't just stop a narrative like that. The truth of all this is that by 2007 when Episode 2 came out, Steam was their main source of revenue. They didn't have to finish the story, and so they didn't.