Nerdist Podcast interview with Gabe Newell

[gundato]

Yeah. I got the Resistance 3 bundle that came with the PS move and Sharpshooter. While there are a few wonky issues (mostly combining it with gestures for actions), I really like it and actually prefer it to a mouse/keyboard for non-competitive FPSes. The sharpshooter itself (think lightgun, but with a glowing motion tracker) is okay, but doesn't translate well (you can't really "aim" the gun). But just using the tracker in one hand is REALLY intuitive and REALLY fun. And the precision is actually pretty damned good too.

[Henke]

Listening to part 2 of the interview right now. It's a lot more personal about Gabe and his nerdy obsessions. It contains some more hints about Valve's mystery-project, it is indeed some kind of AR thing. There's also hints about why HL3 isn't being released: they just don't know how to make it as great as it should be.

In a way I respect that. I think a lot of studios would just churn something out and slap the HL3 label on it, safe in the knowledge that it'd sell like hotcakes because it's part of a beloved franchise. Valve doesn't know how to make HL3 great so they're simply not going to make it until they figure that out.

Sensitive listeners are warned that this episode also contains a particularly startling revelation: Gaben is a brony. 8|

[DaftPunk]

What the hell is brony :D ?

[ado]

It's always fascinating to hear Gabe talk, especially these days since Valve seems to be experimenting with all kinds of crazy and cool shit like biometrics, AR, the Steam Box and even a stronger step in to film (very excited about the new TF2 film he mentioned). I'm also really intrigued about the idea to allow Steam users to have their own stores and even profit from them... It sounds like one of those "crazy enough it might work" ideas that Valve seems to have the patent on.

Too bad that he did not share too much on any game they may be working on. That's what I'm most curious about, what the fuck is next in the pipeline for them after DOTA2?

[soldant]

Too bad that he did not share too much on any game they may be working on. That's what I'm most curious about, what the fuck is next in the pipeline for them after DOTA2?

Left4Dead 3? Heh, I'd laugh if it was.

As a fan of the Half Life series of course I'd like for the series to continue, but I have no faith in Valve to deliver either the game or something that was at least as good as the others in the series. They seem to have no idea what to do with it, and I suspect they've worked themselves into a corner. The storyline was approaching a LOST-style "answer every question with another question" approach to storytelling which was getting old by the end of Ep2. Both Portal and the Half Life games are pulled forward by mystery and deliberately unanswered questions. Like with indie art games looking enigmatic is fine but if you're telling a story eventually it has to go someplace. I don't think Valve know where they want it to go and have given up.

As for biometric feedback etc... it's all very interesting but I don't know if it'll take off. I worry that the implementation will be fairly gimmicky and not particularly useful for games at large.

[DaftPunk]

Kinda stupid to say they don't know what to do with the game..They have so many good options,i mean they're fucking devs think a little bit for christ sake. Also for story,they could do allot with it..

[ado]

Left4Dead 3? Heh, I'd laugh if it was.

As a fan of the Half Life series of course I'd like for the series to continue, but I have no faith in Valve to deliver either the game or something that was at least as good as the others in the series. They seem to have no idea what to do with it, and I suspect they've worked themselves into a corner. The storyline was approaching a LOST-style "answer every question with another question" approach to storytelling which was getting old by the end of Ep2. Both Portal and the Half Life games are pulled forward by mystery and deliberately unanswered questions. Like with indie art games looking enigmatic is fine but if you're telling a story eventually it has to go someplace. I don't think Valve know where they want it to go and have given up.

As for biometric feedback etc... it's all very interesting but I don't know if it'll take off. I worry that the implementation will be fairly gimmicky and not particularly useful for games at large.

I very much agree with the Lost/HL parable (it's one that I make quite often myself) but I wouldn't put Portal in there as well. Both Portal games have pretty definitive endings* while HL is totally a cliffhanger game series in the sense of Lost.

And I think story wise they can wrap up HL quite elegantly, as there is no need to answer all the questions, just wrap up the combine invasion plotline and presto! But like someone else touched upon already, the problem of HL3 is not a story based one but the fact that Valve does not know how to bring something new to the design and gameplay of the series while staying true to the HL brand. In that sense it is quite understandable and a bit admirable that they do not want to put out HL3 just as fanservice/cashgrab.

But then again most fans would be quite happy with that...

*P1 had at least, until they tacked on the robot bit that left room open for a sequel... but then the sequel gave an even more definitive ending.

[Adamant Consternation]

Eh, HL3 would be grand. However my Steam backlog of 50+ games is keeping me quite busy and very happy.

[Nalano]

Left4Dead 3? Heh, I'd laugh if it was.

As a fan of the Half Life series of course I'd like for the series to continue, but I have no faith in Valve to deliver either the game or something that was at least as good as the others in the series. They seem to have no idea what to do with it, and I suspect they've worked themselves into a corner. The storyline was approaching a LOST-style "answer every question with another question" approach to storytelling which was getting old by the end of Ep2. Both Portal and the Half Life games are pulled forward by mystery and deliberately unanswered questions. Like with indie art games looking enigmatic is fine but if you're telling a story eventually it has to go someplace. I don't think Valve know where they want it to go and have given up.

I'm not averse to that mode of thinking, as you may indeed be correct. But what I find interesting about that interpretation is that it means that Valve is keeping up to a standard of quality control - they don't want to release something that's crap - that flies in the face of their fans, who would likely buy shit in a box if it had HL3 on the label. That, I'd say, is quite commendable.

Not to mention it's not terribly far from my interpretation, which is that it's been so long since the last HL that no game, even if it was mana from heaven, would be good enough in comparison to what fans have spun in their minds at this point.

[soldant]

Kinda stupid to say they don't know what to do with the game..

If they knew what to do with it, they'd have released it already. I'm sure you know the development history of HL and HL2, they had several points where they didn't really know where they were going with it.

Both Portal games have pretty definitive endings*

True, but much of the appeal comes from the mystery of Aperture Science and what's going on outside the walls. You're right that they have proper endings, unlike the HL games, but one of the major devices they use is "oooh, sooo mysterious." It's far worse in the HL games where they flat out don't explain some things because you're Gordon Freeman, and that excuse wore thin in HL2.

And I think story wise they can wrap up HL quite elegantly, as there is no need to answer all the questions [...] But like someone else touched upon already, the problem of HL3 is not a story based one but the fact that Valve does not know how to bring something new to the design and gameplay of the series while staying true to the HL brand.

I'd somewhat disagree because they've set the framework up to explain some things. The Combine's motives don't necessarily need an explanation (beyond CONQUEST, which is pretty much what they've been established as so far) but I think people want closure on who the GMan is and what his role is in everything. Of course then the risk is developing a case of deus ex machina like the Star Child in Mass Effect 3. As for gameplay - does it really need to be new? HL1 through to Ep2 haven't really got that much new in the way of gameplay. HL2's two big contributions were better facial animation and physics puzzles, which amounts to solving the same see-saw puzzle again and again. It doesn't necessarily need a new gameplay mechanic, it's a story-driven game.

But what I find interesting about that interpretation is that it means that Valve is keeping up to a standard of quality control...

They do. And as you say, it's been so long that the chances of it being mind-blowingly good is very little. However with the quality control thing, the other side of the story is that they keep going over it again and again which leads to that protracted development cycle. Sometimes it seems like they just can't plan it out properly. We've seen the same issues going back to Half Life - they start building content, go "Oh no, we don't actually have a game!" and then start chopping things out until they get something playable.

[ado]

True, but much of the appeal comes from the mystery of Aperture Science and what's going on outside the walls. You're right that they have proper endings, unlike the HL games, but one of the major devices they use is "oooh, sooo mysterious."

I completely agree that much of Portal's appeal lies in the mystery of Aperture, but pretty much everything you'd want to know about that place is discovered by you, the player, in those two games. It is never told to you blatantly, this is this (ok, maybe some of the backstory is in P2), but the game lets you discover most of those things by simply playing the game and paying attention to the surroundings. And for my money this is a vastly superior way to divulge exposition or backstory of any kind in a visual medium like video games.

Other Valve games do this as well, including Half-Life.

The Combine's motives don't necessarily need an explanation (beyond CONQUEST, which is pretty much what they've been established as so far) but I think people want closure on who the GMan is and what his role is in everything. Of course then the risk is developing a case of deus ex machina like the Star Child in Mass Effect 3. As for gameplay - does it really need to be new? HL1 through to Ep2 haven't really got that much new in the way of gameplay. HL2's two big contributions were better facial animation and physics puzzles, which amounts to solving the same see-saw puzzle again and again. It doesn't necessarily need a new gameplay mechanic, it's a story-driven game.

The Combine's motives are clear and they do not need much explanation, but what Valve needs to do with the next HL game IMO (if they ever make the next) is finish that story plotline, give it closure and resolution. That is what the fans of HL want, a definitive and satisfying ending instead of another cliffhanger.

As for the G-Man, you are right to assume that they'd pretty much ruin a lot of things if they explained who or what he is and what his role may be. There is a clear explanation to his nature in my mind, but he is one of those story devices that just cannot be explained in plot without sounding stupid or ruining the story of the overall piece (like Bob in "Twin Peaks" or the island in "Lost"). But on a more subtextual plane of storytelling he makes perfect sense and can easily be explained.

On the gameplay note... I personally do not play HL2 for its story - I never did. I do enjoy the characters and the lore but the plot of HL always seemed to me as a roadmap to the next awesome set-piece. "Gordon you must go here and do this... HURRY!!!"

No. I play it almost annually for the amazing world/level/art design, pacing, atmosphere and gameplay, all elements that in my mind are yet unmatched (let alone surpassed) by other liner FPS games of this kind. Metro recently gave it a good swing but also fell short by a wide margin. Bioshock never even tried really (although they did get some of the story beats better) :P

[Juan Carlo]

Innovation is overrated. They just need to appraoch "Half Life" as a conscious throwback and finish the series to wrap up the story. They don't need to reinvent the wheel. They pretty much created the genre of the cinematic on rails FPS. So why not just make the best cinematic on rails FPS they could possibly make, even if it means that it will be the last one they ever make?

But honestly the longer they wait the harder it's going to be to finish the series as "Half-Life" (with its silent protagonist, on-rails gameplay, etc, etc) becomes more and more dated every year.

[TixyLixx]

Valve just make dumbed down games for focus groups now.

[ado]

Valve just make dumbed down games for focus groups now.

Hence DOTA 2...

[soldant]

...but pretty much everything you'd want to know about that place is discovered by you, the player, in those two games.

There is some discovery yes, but still lots of things are shrouded in mystery. Things are mostly implied.

Other Valve games do this as well, including Half-Life.

I disagree, Half Life 2 in particular does a terrible job. Lots of the characters talk to Gordon (who is of course the player) as if he already knows what's going on or has a handle on some background information. In Half Life you could get away with it a bit because Gordon worked at Black Mesa. In HL2 it becomes blatantly obvious that it's an excuse not to explain plot points. It's a tired device.

That is what the fans of HL want, a definitive and satisfying ending instead of another cliffhanger.

Exactly. Ep2 had a build-up to something important, a goal that might tip the balance (or at least a tie-in with Portal), along with Eli's death to add a bit of oh noes! to the mix. Then... nothing. Valve screwed up. If they had have released Ep3 soon after Ep2 there would have been no argument over innovation or anything. Now that it's been so long, people will be expecting more.

As for the G-Man, you are right to assume that they'd pretty much ruin a lot of things if they explained who or what he is and what his role may be.

Maybe, but he's been such an important element and they've gone to some lengths to highlight his enigmatic nature and his "employers" (or lack there-of after HL2's ending possibly) that it'd be a little bit frustrating not to have some details fleshed out. He has a more personal relationship with Gordon than with most of the other characters (and therefore with the player), unlike say the Reapers who could have remained a mystery for all it really mattered because angry machines don't necessarily need a reason to do anything. Something motivates the GMan and it's probably not incomprehensible, I don't think it'd ruin too much if they resolved a few things about him.

No. I play it almost annually for the amazing world/level/art design

Valve have definitely got pacing down pat. What interests me about the HL2 level design is how largely undetailed it is. To clarify, if you pull apart say a HL2 map and a Doom 3 map, you'll find a lot more geometry and clutter objects in the D3 map than the HL2 map. It sounds obvious but a lot of their maps are giant BSP blocks with static and dynamic models sparsely scattered around. The textures ultimately carry the maps and they do a spectacular job. Valve's texture artists are incredibly good with their world textures.

[TixyLixx]

Hence DOTA 2...

Valve focus grouped it to Asians, I'm sure over there it's dumbed down shit.

[Battlehenkie]

Valve focus grouped it to Asians, I'm sure over there it's dumbed down shit.

Every thread visitor since this historic post is now dumber for reading those words. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

In other words: I've moved from Holland to Singapore and the it's hard to compare the differences since it's the same game, you sillynilly you.