6 ms·
If it were purely a profit case and they really don't want to make a new game. Then why doesn't valve sell the IP to publishers that want to make HL3, Portal3,
by Cypher 7y ago
If it were purely a profit case and they really don't want to make a new game. Then why doesn't valve sell the IP to publishers that want to make HL3, Portal3, Left4Dead3 etc? they'll collect a check with no effort and enable fans to have a new game.
- downrightmike 7y agoValve is treading water with their current games. Their current ecosystem is broadly based on goodwill of that system. If other publishers make a Valve game, like BattleField 2, and it gets called out and shunned, that ruins the good will that fuels Valve. And as long as they don't release games like that, they don't rock their boat. The problem with Epic is that they don't have any goodwill to start with that they can lose and they are smearing studios in a level of hate that is destroying those studio's goodwill. At the end of it both will make money, but Valve will come out smelling like roses and able to pick the winners after Epic destroys the low hanging fruit.
- darkpuma 7y agoBecause HL3 would suck. First person shooters today are very different than what first person shooters were when HL2 was released. It's Quake vs Overwatch. So Valve is between a rock and a hard place; do they make HL3 in the modern style and alienate all their original fans? Or do they make HL3 in the dated style and risk a flop because the market for that dated style has only gotten smaller over the past decade and new players aren't interested in it? That's why HL3 would suck. No matter which path they take, and no matter how expertly they make it, it will almost certainly be something that leaves a TON of people dissatisfied. So it's better for Valve to not make it. They'd rather HL3 be an urban legend than a disappointment. That's better for their image as experts in their craft.
- rgoulter 7y agoI don't quite see why a HL3 would necessarily be bad. Doom 2016 managed to be good despite shooters having changed a lot since Doom 1, 2.
- darkpuma 7y agoDoom 2016 was a nice tribute I suppose, but compare it to the massive success of Doom 1&2. It's not the same sort of cultural phenomenon. What I will give it though is it nailed the attitude. Doom 1&2 had a certain raw metal attitude, and Doom 2016 captured that well. I've never seen the HL series expressing attitude like Doom did. What Valve really wants to avoid is a Doom 3 moment. When an old franchise is given a modern tuneup and the result is something nobody really thinks does the IP justice.
- thrower123 7y agoI think one could argue that the original Doom had more in common with Fortnite than with its newer iteration. A Doom level wasn't that big, and it was for the most part a quick little stand-alone experience, almost arcadey; you could hop in, frag some demons, and play the same levels over and over. There was no story, no RPG elements, I don't even recall whether your health and ammo and weapons carried over between levels.
- darkpuma 7y agoAs for size and complexity, there were original Doom levels that surpass the 2016 levels in every quantifiable measure. Larger maps, huge mazes, etc. All thanks to the WAD system that allowed Doom to have such long legs thanks to community driven content. With the new graphics system of 2016, community generated content was just never going to be a real thing with 2016. That is where 2016 and the original differ the most. As for unwanted RPG elements, 2016 at least has a mode that ignores that and dumps you into any level you want. To your point though, the RPG elements did alienate some fans of the original games, which goes back to my original point. 2016 was moderately successful. It got a lot of praise just for being stylistically Doom in every way that Doom 3 wasn't. But I don't think that Doom 2016 counts as strong evidence that HL3 could be made in a way that satisfies fans of the original games without alienating younger/modern gamers.