L4D3 is HL3...? [Theory]

[Sharp-Shooter]

Its just a code name, every big company does this just in case of a leak like this, half-life 3 was in development for a long time im sure of it.

First of all im pretty sure valve does not like the idea of episodic content for half-life anymore, EP3 is gone along with EP4 for good, they wanted to build a new engine (Source 2 and is confirmed) because source is already outdated when EP2 came out, they will not show HL3 on an old engine that's for damn sure.

Also notice how hl3 art gets leaked yet none do so far l4d3

Gaben was onced asked when is recochet 2 coming out as a joke refering to hl3 and he responded with pretty much, its being worked on, we just dont talk about it because we keep changing our minds about story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS9zD_LPhw0
"everyone that worked on ricochet 2 (aka hl3) continues to work on ricochet 2"

heres another tease of Gaben forging a crowbar saying these things take time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTsR4RBH000
Why did valve not develop blue shift and opposing force? thats because when they finished half-life they started working on half-life 2 right away, so they hired gearbox to develop the games while valve works on source and half-life 2.
does this seem familiar? csgo? why didnt valve develop csgo? i suspect that they have their hands very full at this time, developing dota 2 which is now at full release, source 2, and HL3

why did i make this thread? mainly to try to silence all the people who are saying "BUT VALVE DOESNT CARE ABOUT HL3 ANYMORE!" but also to try and start a discussion on if you agree with me or not? do you think l4d3 is a mask for hl3? or do you think l4d3 is indeed in the works as a standalone or a mutliplayer component to hl3 similar to what cs:s was to hl2?

Valve is not going to show a source 2 tech demo without showing a game afterwards.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

I can't disagree with you because I have been ...

SILENCED

 

[Sharp-Shooter]

lol, thanks for taking the time to read my thread, i also wanted to add that i believe that hl3 will be more grand, not so much open world like more games but definitely in that direction, sort of expanding what episode 2 was like, but having multiple paths to take in a wide open level, valve experimented with this alot and had huge successes with episode 2 feeling like it had a bigger world to explore, episode 2 was definitely more fun because of this imo.

 

[kineaesth]

If L4D3 is code for HL3, what if Source 2 is code for L4D3?

 

[MFL]

And the pants were dead.

 

[TheWiktor]

It'd be cool if this was true, but... meh. I don't know...

 

[Stormy]

No. Valve arnt making games anymore. They just have a shit ton of staff just sitting around making hats for TF2.

 

[Aizawa]

No. Valve arnt making games anymore. They just have a shit ton of staff just sitting around making hats for TF2.

since Episode 2 they released a game every year except 2010

 

[Stormy]

yes. And now all they make hats.

How on earth could 250+ people be making a new video game! Thats just crazy talk, they are all just hat makers.

 

[Omnomnick]

since Episode 2 they released a game every year except 2010

Correction: They have actually released a game every year since 2004.

Half-Life 2/Counter-Strike: Source - 2004
Day of Defeat: Source - 2005
Half-Life 2: Episode 1 - 2006
Half-Life 2: Episode 2/Portal/TF2 - 2007
Left 4 Dead - 2008
Left 4 Dead 2 - 2009
Alien Swarm - 2010
Portal 2 - 2011
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - 2012
Dota 2 - 2013
???? - 2014

 

[Aizawa]

Correction: They have actually released a game every year since 2004.

Half-Life 2/Counter-Strike: Source - 2004
Day of Defeat: Source - 2005
Half-Life 2: Episode 1 - 2006
Half-Life 2: Episode 2/Portal/TF2 - 2007
Left 4 Dead - 2008
Left 4 Dead 2 - 2009
Alien Swarm - 2010
Portal 2 - 2011
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - 2012
Dota 2 - 2013
???? - 2014

Wow you are right! Thanks, forgot Alien swarm and day of defeat. Wasnt Counter-Strike Source already released 2003 on steam? So they released a game every year since 2003

 

[Omnomnick]

Nope, Counter-Strike: Source was first released in August 2004 as a beta, before being given to people who bought Half-Life 2 with ATI graphics cards.

 

[Aizawa]

ok then my "source" (hehe) told me wrong. Sorry to the Thread creator for talking about different stuff but the topic

 

[Omnomnick]

ok then my "source" (hehe) told me wrong. Sorry to the Thread creator for talking about different stuff but the topic

Hell, it was more interesting than the crap in the thread title.

does this seem familiar? csgo? why didnt valve develop csgo? i suspect that they have their hands very full at this time, developing dota 2 which is now at full release, source 2, and HL3

Valve did develop CS:GO, and they continue to develop it. Hidden Path were just brought in to assist with the development, it is still very much a game created by Valve.

 

[trunk_slamchest]

sharp shooter, as a huge valve crack pot theorist, i have to agree with you. i wouldnt put it past vavle to code name HL3 development with L4D3, and the points you bring up about Riccochet 2 are fairly spot on.

it is plausible that valve realized it is almost impossible to 100% stop information leaks. so incase there are leaks like THIS, THIS and THIS, HL3 wont pop up everywhere and people will instead take the bait and believe L4D3 is in development with source2, rather than HL3.

i find it rather foolish for valve to develop L4D3 considering how much they divided the L4D community with L4D2's release, as well as the counter strike community with CS:CZ, CS:S and now CS:GO. esports as a whole took a huge step back because CSS nor CSCZ was widely adopted by the competitive community as everyone believed would happen, and pro players and tournaments just stuck with 1.6. with TF2 and Dota2 i cant possibly see a TF3 or Dota3 ever being released because of how much valve has invested into TF2 and Dota2. it would ruin both communities.

i also believe there is no need to really put code names for say, source2 engine development, because instead that will build hype for the engine itself. it is not the same situation as HL3 because S2, SFL, SB and OR research have all been confirmed by valve, so codename HL3 as L4D3 could be the perfect decoy.

but im very hard pressed to believe anything until "something happens," so ill just sit here with all my speculations and assumptions and take a bath with them.

 

[Lobster]

i find it rather foolish for valve to develop L4D3 considering how much they divided the L4D community with L4D2's release.

You keep saying this but it's irrelevant. The boycott was a complete farce that quickly dissipated after the game came out. The game sold more copies than the first, and in terms of split-content the sequel now contains the entirety of the first game anyway. Certainly there are people who prefer the first game over the second for one reason or another, but you can find just as many people who "prefer" the first Half-Life game over the second. It is just something that exists in any franchise.

It is also ridiculous to assume that they would use the name of one of their top selling franchises to disguise the production of another. Just imagine they used the name 'Portal 3' instead? How many Portal fans would be pissed off that the rumour of a sequel turned out to be a Half-Life game that they couldn't give a toss about. Yes, shocking as it is sounds, there exist Valve fans in this world who don't care about Half-Life!

That's not to say that the Half-Life fan base isn't just as important, and I do live in hope that we will get something eventually.

 

[JossiRossi]

We should have a "Baseless and Ill-informed Speculation" forum.

 

[Omnomnick]

We should have a "Baseless and Ill-informed Speculation" forum.

We do. We call it "ValveTime".

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

We do. We call it "ValveTime".

I always thought that was SPUF, hence the G-man theories years ago.

 

[MFL]

G-Man is Kim Il-Sung.

 

[trunk_slamchest]

You keep saying this but it's irrelevant. The boycott was a complete farce that quickly dissipated after the game came out. The game sold more copies than the first, and in terms of split-content the sequel now contains the entirety of the first game anyway. Certainly there are people who prefer the first game over the second for one reason or another, but you can find just as many people who "prefer" the first Half-Life game over the second. It is just something that exists in any franchise.

when theres a sequel, there will always be the split between people who prefer one or the other. that is a fundemental of almost any sort of media. the difference between L4D and almost all over valve franchises is that L4D2 was released ~1 year after L4D, while the average time span between sequels for valve has been ~5-6 years. not quite the Osbourne Effect, but close.

usually when valve makes a sequel, they do a damn good job of it. not saying L4D2 is bad, but my personal opinion L4D2 is just being a massive expansion pack, not a complete recreation of the sequels predecessor. it makes me question why valve didnt either, wait a year to just release 1 game or add the content like they do with TF2, since what L4D2 expanded on was a new story, characters, weapons and enemies rather than a complete port of the game's environment.

hindsight is 20/20 i know, but what sequels did to counter strike might be a better example than L4D. im still hoping day of defeat 2 is in the works, because DOD to me is the completely opposite and would be a great title to boot with a new havok engine.

It is also ridiculous to assume that they would use the name of one of their top selling franchises to disguise the production of another. Just imagine they used the name 'Portal 3' instead? How many Portal fans would be pissed off that the rumour of a sequel turned out to be a Half-Life game that they couldn't give a toss about. Yes, shocking as it is sounds, there exist Valve fans in this world who don't care about Half-Life!

portal and L4D are not the same games. Portal and HL exist in the same universe and players hold a much deeper emotional attachment to Portal than L4D. imo it would be way too soon to do a sequel with Portal where L4D2 came out in 2008, which is 5 years ago, just long enough where valve can make jokes about it. valve is becoming notorious for trolling their community about HL3, and i really dont think anyone would be too sad if L4D3 was code for HL3, just like no one cares if Ricchochet 2 is really code for HL3. Portal 2 came out 2 years ago, so its still fresh in everyones mind. and valve is still having fun with it (putting a glados announcer pack into Dota2 or putting Wheatley as a spy sapper in TF2).

 

[Krynn72]

im still hoping day of defeat 2 is in the works, because DOD to me is the completely opposite and would be a great title to boot with a new havok engine.

I, like usual, find myself disagreeing with you on most points, but it doesn't matter because I agree with this so hard that it made me forget everything else you just said.

L4D3 is the codename for DoD2.

 

[Vegeta897]

Eh, what would DoD2 really bring to the table?

I mean, I know Valve probably wouldn't make it unless they had a really unique concept at its core. So I guess I'm just prompting a discussion on what would be cool in a new small-scale WW2 shooter.

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

Well tbh CSGO didn't bring anything new, since it was just CSS with slight changes on the shooting mechanics, new shaders and shadow maps.

In a market full of modern miltary shooters, I think a remake of a WW2 game with Valve's brand new engine sounds fun and steam workshop support to boot.

 

[Krynn72]

Eh, what would DoD2 really bring to the table?

I mean, I know Valve probably wouldn't make it unless they had a really unique concept at its core. So I guess I'm just prompting a discussion on what would be cool in a new small-scale WW2 shooter.

A squad level co-op game in the vein of L4D would be pretty cool. It'd probably have to rely a lot more on custom missions by modders to have longevity since there's not as much leeway for randomization like in L4D. But I've really wanted a good co-op vs AI FPS WW2 game for awhile. Iron Front came very close, Red Orchestra could have done it but they wanted to be versus only which was a huge let down because I hate PVP because it always devolves into an unrealistic shitfest. Had so much fun back in the day playing Hidden and Dangerous 2 Co-op with my brother. ARMA handles my ultra-realistic modern era fix, but WWII is still my favorite era for games.

 

[trunk_slamchest]

Eh, what would DoD2 really bring to the table?

100% destructible environments. drive able tanks and jeeps as well as flyable bombers and fighters with the ability to blow up entire buildings with an air raid or panzer. tf2 style heroes for axis and allies. squad based objectives such as CTF, CP and Payload in 1 map. ingame cosmetics and weapons like TF2, Dota2 and CS:GO. zombie survivial style tower defense MvM mode like TF2. "Kill Hitler" Saxton Hale-esque game mode. L4D style Co-Op as a search and destroy game mode that follow traditional multi rail shooters. OR support. 100% destructible environments. i am just brainstorming.

 

[Vegeta897]

Fully destructable environments is cool but doesn't make it unique enough. That doesn't define the core gameplay, it's just really awesome. Yes it does add new gameplay elements, but it doesn't describe the game.
Cosmetics have nothing to do with gameplay, and would be pretty stupid in a WW2 game if you ask me. You'll have to elaborate more on the tf2 style heroes thing. Do you mean classes?
Tanks, jeeps, planes? So basically larger scale battles. Nothing new there either, those are just essential elements of a large scale WW2 FPS.
Krynn's ideas are an example of core game ideas that could make the game actually unique. Having it be a coop vs AI game is completely leaving the original spirit of DoD though. May as well call it something else. Valve didn't come up with DoD originally so it's not like they have a reason to stick with the name for a totally different style of game.

 

[trunk_slamchest]

Fully destructable environments is cool but doesn't make it unique enough. That doesn't define the core gameplay, it's just really awesome. Yes it does add new gameplay elements, but it doesn't describe the game.

what? blowing up an entire house that has 10 or 20 enemies with a howitzer isnt unique? planting dynamite in a church tower that a sniper has been camping in all game and waiting for him to come by to blow it up, knowing it will destroy the entire tower and stop the sniper from going back to the same spot over and over again isnt unique? how bout planting dynamite on a bridge, but the dynamite doesnt do enough damage and only blows up 25% of the bridge so you need to go find or buy more dynamite, but the tanks you were suppose to destroy roll over the bridge and demolish the building your squad is holding out in. how bout storming Normandy and actually having to place bangalores around the map because the enemy placed barbed wire everywhere. how about constructing buildings with hard points, and say a boiler in the 2nd or 3rd story that causes a fire if it gets hit with a nade or explosive?

Cosmetics have nothing to do with gameplay, and would be pretty stupid in a WW2 game if you ask me. You'll have to elaborate more on the tf2 style heroes thing. Do you mean classes?

you apparently missed cosmetics AND weapons. how bout weapon modifications in lue of Strange Parts in TF2. classes are already done in DoD. cmon man....all you have to do is give each one a unique personality and background and give them a relationship with each other. modifiy movement speeds and tweak nerfs and buffs. you really think having "BORN 2 KILL" written on your helmet or a pack of cigarettes and an Ace of Space playing card strapped to your helmet would be stupid? how bout a picture of the Scouts Mom taped to your canteen. or a pin up girl on your tank? how bout a decal is a tally mark for how many kills you get with your bomber. how bout being able to name your sniper rifle and have its name on its barrel?

Tanks, jeeps, planes? So basically larger scale battles. Nothing new there either, those are just essential elements of a large scale WW2 FPS.

not if you have completely destructible environments. say you spot a jeep driving down a road and you place a claymore on a tree to knock it down in order to block the road so you can ambush the jeep. say then the jeep has a guy with a panzerfaust in the passenger seat and he fires a panzerfaust at the building behind you, it shatters and crushes your squad in the rubble.

Krynn's ideas are an example of core game ideas that could make the game actually unique. Having it be a coop vs AI game is completely leaving the original spirit of DoD though. May as well call it something else. Valve didn't come up with DoD originally so it's not like they have a reason to stick with the name for a totally different style of game.

do you actually read my posts? or do you lazily skim over them assuming your half ass your responses actually get somewhere. what do you think MvM is? what do you think Saxton Hale game mode is? what has valve been doing every halloween for TF2? its funny that by your logic nothing krynn posted is new either haha. you are a joke. if youre going to stick your nose out just to try and spite me every time i post i have no problem pointing out how narrow your vision is.

 

[Lobster]

Aren't Gearbox making a game like that already? A WW2 Left 4 Dead? It was carrying the Brothers in Arms brand, but they dropped it because it turned out one of them wasn't a brother or something like that..

 

[Krynn72]

if youre going to stick your nose out just to try and spite me every time i post i have no problem pointing out how narrow your vision is.[/FONT]

I know you're still new here, but at VT.net we make fun of the size of Vegeta's chin, not his nose.

Aren't Gearbox making a game like that already? A WW2 Left 4 Dead? It was carrying the Brothers in Arms brand, but they dropped it because it turned out one of them wasn't a brother or something like that..

Furious Four, don't really know much about it yet, and its supposedly undergoing a overhaul (which explains why we've see nothing about it for like two years). I don't think Gearbox's style would be what I'm looking for.

 

[Vegeta897]

anger

I didn't say none of those physics things were unique. I said it doesn't define the overall gameplay, it only enhances it. If you took Red Orchestra and added all those things in, it wouldn't fundamentally change the game. It would just make it better.

Yes I did overlook the part where you said weapons. But I still don't like the idea of being able to find/unlock/whatever weapons in games, especially a WW2 game that is supposed to have some grounds in reality (history). People didn't unlock weapons/attachments/enhancements in WW2. As far as the cosmetics, sure some of them could be cool, but they are totally insignificant to me as far as how interested I would be in this game you're describing.

Yes, having all those vehicles in the destructable environments you describe would be awesome. Unique too. But you haven't even described what the game would be like, just some things it has. Would it be BF style capturing tactical points? Would there be a ticket-like system? How are vehicles deployed? Is there a class system? All of those things are more relevant to actual gameplay, not just things that enhance it.

You didn't mention anything about Saxton Hale or MvM or any of that other stuff in your post when I first replied to your post. I don't know how long after you made the post that you added those in, but they weren't there when I wrote my reply. Those things you added ARE examples of what I meant when I say core gameplay concepts, like the one Krynn posted. So I can understand your frustration with me if you think I was replying to the version of your post that had those ideas.

If you think I only made my post because it was you, allow me to laugh. I argue with Krynn way more and since way before you came around. He will vouch for this. If Krynn hadn't posted an actual unique game idea that wasn't just a few unique game features then I would have said the same thing to him that I said to you. If you want to have a discussion with me, stop leaning on that crutch.

 

[Chris D]

Look, every body knows I try to do as little work as possible, so I would appreciate it if I didn't log in for the first time in a year and see millions of post reports from millions of people who are trying to murder each other.

/exaggeration mode.

(Play nice people )

 

[Hobbax]

In 2014, I expect only content updates, or the begin of console era for valve.

 

[ShinRa]

I hope they're aware that the audience that played Half life and HL2 are or almost are a decade older than they were when they first played the series. The longer they push back HL3 I think personally less and less people are going to care anymore. I can hardly remember the story from HL/HL2 as it is. They're classics yes, but HL3 might have the same allure when it's finally released as Duke Nukem did. A very "yay but meh" mentality across the community.

 

[JossiRossi]

Duke Nukem was received poorly for being very bad, and because they had been in constant hype mode for a decade with the game always "near completion".

 

[Omnomnick]

Duke Nukem was received poorly for being very bad, and because they had been in constant hype mode for a decade with the game always "near completion".

Not to mention the game was literally in and out of development for over 12 years, meaning that a lot of the mechanics, environments and NPCs were designed or created years before the game was even close to release, which in turn means things were totally out of date and messed up compared to other, newer areas of the final product.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Not to mention the game was literally in and out of development for over 12 years, meaning that a lot of the mechanics, environments and NPCs were designed or created years before the game was even close to release, which in turn means things were totally out of date and messed up compared to other, newer areas of the final product.

I don't care, I still bet on Duke :arms:

 

[firemane]

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2013/03/29/subtle-hints-suggest-half-life-3-was-shown-at-gdc/

The above seems to have gotten overlooked in the troll scroll this year, but I do sincerely think it is the most promising foundation for hope in HL3 we have yet. Valve showed something at GDC in March, and even now, no one has mentioned what it was? What else but HL3 would call for such secrecy?

And now, just to keep everyone's hope alive (mine included), GDC is having another convention, the first of its kind, Nov. 5-7 this year, called GDC Next. Developers have a habit of of announcing stuff at the GDC, and in the March convention, Valve showed "something nice" at the "physics for game programmers" keynote. Quite possibly that was Source 2, and if so, they had to use some short snippet of a game to do so. May well have been a "proof of concept reel."

 

[Lobster]

The above seems to have gotten overlooked in the troll scroll this year, but I do sincerely think it is the most promising foundation for hope in HL3 we have yet.

http://www.valvetime.net/threads/updated-valve-reportedly-showing-nice-things-at-gdc-2013.243324/

 

[Aizawa]

Duke Nukem was received poorly for being very bad, and because they had been in constant hype mode for a decade with the game always "near completion".

people also always forget that between Half-Life 1 and Half-Life 2 there were 6 years. Its 6 years now since Episode 2, so its almost the same if HL3 comes out in a year or 2. I think they also NEVER talked about Half-Life 2 until E3 2003.
For me waiting for HL3 is almost the same as waiting for HL2, only that the ending of episode 2 was so open