Don't get wrong, I do enjoy the episodes a lot, but...

[blake18]

You see, Valve has stated that the whole reason they decided to make episodes 1-3 the actual third game in the series, was because they did not want gamers to have to wait so long. Here we are, in 2008, and we only just got episode 2 recently. At this rate, episode 3 should be out towards the end of 2009, perhaps even summer 2010. This would end up being just about the same amount of time that Half-Life 2 took to develop (and that's not even factoring in that HL2 really should have taken a whole year less then it did, due to the whole Source code leak).

Now, don't get me wrong, I do think the episodes are great, but I most definitely would have preferred a full game on a new engine. Just imagine what a Half-Life 3 would have looked like with graphics similar to say, Crysis. Can any HL fan honestly say they would not have preferred a full game on a whole new engine? The first Half-Life revolutionized the FPS genre, and amazingly, Half-Life 2 did as well. Fans have come to expect amazing innovation and originality with the Half-Life series, and, so far, the episodes really don't do much different then HL2 already did. Just imagine how much further they could have pushed the physics and graphics in this game with directx 10.

 

[LackingSaint]

Yes, but you wouldn't have received any HL games from 2005-2009.

 

[Psofus_HffK]

Tis not graphs that count. Tis Story.

 

[Naudian]

Tis tits.

Alyx's.

 

[blake18]

Tis tits.

Alyx's.

HAHA!

But still, my argument still stands. They really should make a new HL with a whole new engine based on DX10. You can't deny that that would be awesome. :thumbs:

I have to add, that it really irritates me the way they chose to do the naming scheme with the episodes - "Half-Life 2" is still in the god damn title. They stated themselves that the episodes are HL3. Not changing the naming scheme just makes people think that Valve will still be making a whole new HL3. The way they are naming the episodes makes them seem more like expansions then anything else.

 

[Absinthe]

...

Seriously?

 

[99.vikram]

To make a brand new engine with all the features that we've come to expect (HDR, motion blur, shader effects etc.) would take a longer than 5 years. Unreal Engine 3, despite having been built on the foundation of Unreal Engine 2, took 4 years to make.

I'm glad Valve went Episodic. That said, I want Valve to release a major game and then go back to episodes, because the release of a big game builds more excitement for the series.

...

Seriously?

Very profound.

 

[Absinthe]

It's just... they aren't Half-Life 3. And there's no reason to completely scrap the Source engine.

I too would like a cycle of full and episodic releases.

 

[Operational]

I thinks it's easy to lose perspective on the benefits of episodic gaming. Put it this way you've just finished HL2 for the first time and then imagine that instead of the episodes Valve goes for HL3 instead. All the story, gameplay developments, graphical improvements etc that we know and use today are still being worked on at Valve HQ and we're siting here years after HL2 still wondering, for example, if Alyx is going to live.

Plus I think you underestimate the Episodes and really overestimate this hypothetical HL3 which would have looked about the same as Ep3 will and would have taken longer to make since it would be on a "new engine" rather than giving updates to the same engine.

 

[blake18]

It's just... they aren't Half-Life 3. And there's no reason to completely scrap the Source engine.

I too would like a cycle of full and episodic releases.

Yes, they are. Valve has said so themselves. Gabe Newell said when asked about the naming scheme for the episodes: "Probably a better name for it would have been Half Life 3: Episode One, but these three are what we?re doing as our way of taking the next step forward, but Half-Life 2 was the name we used."

And to the poster above, NO, episode 3 will look no where even close to more modern game engines. If they had decided to make a new engine, they could have built it around the DX10 spec and made it look as good, or better, then Crysis. You will never convince anyone that episode 3 will look anywhere near the level of Crysis. It's also not just about graphics, it's about how they could have improved physics, the way the environment reacts to the elements, ect. Things that just really engage the player could have been added with a new engine. Just look at what they are doing with Far Cry 2, sure the original Far Cry engine still looks nice, but they could not do 1/4th of what they are doing if they were using the old engine.

As I said, I love the episodes, but HL3 could have been so much more...

 

[Asknoone]

The Episodes continue to push forward what is arguably an extremely polished and developed game design philosophy; the innovation they utilize in the gameplay is second to none. True – the template is still very much what we saw in HL2, but if there's anything that's obvious it's that that doesn't actually matter. Crysis, as fun as I'm sure it is, looks to be no more than Far Cry 1.5. It's essentially the exact same game, only it's changed the superficial stuff. HL2 and its Episodes are the opposite, and as much as I would love to see a full game somewhere down the line I think this method of delivery is actually accomplishing things other developers should start taking note of.

 

[Barnz]

Half-Life is not about graphics.

 

[blake18]

Half-Life is not about graphics.

No offense, but that is just a stupid statement. If that were true, then why did they bother polishing up Episode 2 to look so nice? Hell, why did they even bother making HL2 probably the best looking game of its day when it was released?

 

[Absinthe]

Yes, they are. Valve has said so themselves. Gabe Newell said when asked about the naming scheme for the episodes: "Probably a better name for it would have been Half Life 3: Episode One, but these three are what we?re doing as our way of taking the next step forward, but Half-Life 2 was the name we used."

And yet, do you see the number 3 anywhere in the name Half-Life 2: Episode 1? No. You've misread his statement. The episodes, in effect, comprise a third Half-Life game. But it is NOT Half-Life 3.

And just how many people would be able to run this "OMG better than Crysis" engine you talk about?

 

[Operational]

If they had decided to make a new engine, they could have built it around the DX10 spec and made it look as good, or better, then Crysis.

There is no way Valve would release a game with Crysis's requirements in the current or near future market. And why would they? Crysis's sales didn't exactly take the world by storm and many attribute this to its high system requirements.

You will never convince anyone that episode 3 will look anywhere near the level of Crysis.

I'm not trying to, but at the same time HHL3 (Hypothetical-Half-Life 3) wouldn't either.

It's also not just about graphics, it's about how they could have improved physics, the way the environment reacts to the elements, ect.

They improved the physics in Ep2. There was also cinematic physics in Ep2. I'm sure that they would like to do more but the Source engine already has realitivly high CPU usage.

Just look at what they are doing with Far Cry 2

I haven't been keeping up with FarCry2, I haven't even played FarCry1 or Crysis - although Crysis is on my todo list but more to look at the pretties than actually play.

sure the original Far Cry engine still looks nice, but they could not do 1/4th of what they are doing if they were using the old engine.

Valve designed Source to be upgradable, so that they don't need to spend the time on a whole new engine - they can upgrade the current one and get the same results that they are after.

As I said, I love the episodes, but HL3 could have been so much more...

I disagree. At the very least the time Valve takes per hour of gameplay has improved and I think the Episodes are of a higher quality output of Valve's compared to HL2 as well.

 

[kupocake]

imagine what a Half-Life 3 would have looked like with graphics similar to say, Crysis. Can any HL fan honestly say they would not have preferred a full game on a whole new engine?

What... You're complaining that they're taking as long to develop a game which doesn't have a new engine, and suggesting developing an entirely new engine as a time saving measure? We wouldn't be playing 'Half-Life 3' until 2010 under that plan, and we definitely wouldn't have played a new 1/3rd of the game every year and half so far.

There is virtually no advantage to doing an Episodic game as Valve has done it. Recent interviews have taken the tone that they actually feel that way, and there seems to be somewhat of a suggestion that Episode Three will end up as something of a monolithic sized project (And if that's the case, won't we all be glad that Valve made us 1 and 1/3rds of a full game, instead of a just a full game?). But at the same time, there isn't any real disadvantage of Episodic. I like having new parts of the game every now and then. I'd enjoy them equally if they were in one big bundle. I don't care if the 'Fourth Half-Life Project' ends up as an episodic one or not.

edit:

The episodes, in effect, comprise a third Half-Life game. But it is NOT Half-Life 3.

This. The 'Half-Life 3' name is still very much available for use as a title for a future project, even if it is in fact the Fourth Half-Life project. Unless Valve number their titles using prime numbers. Go Go Half-Life 7.

 

[ríomhaire]

I don't understand how people compain about HL2's graphics. I think they're still very nice and Source is one of the most realistic looking engins. Perhaps Unreal Engine 3 can do nice lighting effects and stuff but people in that engine almost always look like they're made out of plastic. Then again, I'm one of those people that still thinks HL1 and Deus Ex look quite good.

 

[LackingSaint]

Why do you want to mess up a good thing? Source is still one of the best engines around, and dumping it in favour of a high-maintenence engine just so 'it looks better' (which is not that great of an improvement, considering the fact that the original mario is great fun, despite having 'awful graphics').

 

[PimpinPenguin]

blake18 i think you are putting to much emphasis on Graphics and DX10, The problem with Valve is they are not big enough and are to slow, which are not good quality's to have when building a new engine. Epic have lots of experience and a large team which makes it easier for them to build the Unreal Engine. Also have you seen the Valve hardware survey, cause if you have you should see that only a small percentage have DX10 capable computers making it a waste of time, Valve prefer to make new graphical features that everyone can enjoy, hence the Source engine provides the best quality graphics on low to mid range computers.
Right now DX10 is a waste of time, no game even Crysis is using it to it's potential, look at comparisons between them and see for yourselves.

The end of the day, the engine is a small part of the game, it's how the designers build the game that revolutionise it, how they build the levels, making gameplay and story exciting. Having an Uber Engine doesn't automatically make your game better.

 

[saratos]

DX10 is not going to be standard until the end of Vistas lifespan (which hasn't even started yet). Either way, Valve has been very kind to people who have bad PC's, and it shows in the kind of low-end hardware that Source can run on. Do you think they would wish to alienate a bunch of their userbase for a DX10 specialized engine, especially when Source is still great, and upgradeable?

 

[Blackthorn]

Am I the only one who thought Episode 2 looked amazing?

As PimpinPenguin said, there's so much more to a game than a flashy engine. Crysis looks fantastic, but the gameplay feels empty, and the environments have an unsettling lifelessness to them. Most likely since it's pretty much an extended tech demo. There's also the fact that, as I've always said, if you make an engine that the consumer can't run, you've failed.

What's always impressed me about Half-Life is how real the environments feel. The architecture is familiar to real life, graffiti and everyday appliances are scattered everywhere, and despite the linear paths you follow they somehow never feel linear. The intelligent use of lighting, shape and mood is nothing short of artistic.

There's also a final note to consider. A new engine would mean a whole load of new files to install. By using the same engine, there's familiarity for the developer and the player, and a whole lot less that can go wrong.

 

[Trevelyan]

Can any HL fan honestly say they would not have preferred a full game on a whole new engine?

I'm grateful for & have thoroughly enjoyed the two parts (especially pt 2) of this Half Life Trilogy which have been released in the 3 yrs since HL2. Having heard what the game developers/designers at Valve have had to say about the episodic approach, I as a gamer share their positive sentiments about how this has effected their work.
Portal, the graphic enhancements on EP 2 & those featured in Loast Coast may of been worse off if they had developed a "full game on a whole new engine."

Your asking a hypothetical question though, as is this question... will Valve release another monolithic Half Life game in the future?

Well, according to Gabe Newell in this interview...

"once we've gone through episode 3, we're gonna solicit our community & say what do you think? is this better than the monolithic approach to releasing games? or do you want us to go back & do something like half-life 2" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qqfwCNogUM

I hope he's good to his word & maybe he'll post here again with some questions! I know that I'm going to wait for EP 3 until I make a truly considered judgement regarding this matter.