this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
49 points (88.9% liked)
PC Gaming
8576 readers
251 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And the first Defense of the Ancients was originally a mod for a completely different game. The common theme is polishing gameplay. Team fortress existed and was popular, but between the release of TF classic, with the announcement of TF2, and the actual release there were almost 9 years and a complete rewrite between two radically different versions of the game. At one point people compared it with Duke nukem, claiming it was vaporware and would never release. Truth is, it was in development hell for a long while. They didn't like what the game was at that time. TF classic and TF2 only common thread is class based team death match. Everything else is different. The producers have said that TF2 was resurrected to perfect the netcode, lighting, facial animation rigging, particle system and shading tech for the source engine in anticipation of the visual and gameplay improvements they wanted for HL2ep1 and 2. All three games were produced by the same guy and Gabe noticed what he experimented with on TF2 was worth developing into a finished game. Specially because they dropped all the ideas they didn't like and stripped down the gameplay.
The other side of the coin being that Valve had learned the importance of visual packaging and marketing with Ricochet. With pure gameplay, although wildly acclaimed for being super fun, it didn't reach the mass appeal and cultural impact of half-life. It had great repayable value, but no eye candy or lore to hook people long term. So, when TF2 was a success with its character based marketing narrative, it became the test bed for a myriad of things we now take for granted. Matchmaking, micro transactions, cosmetics stores, etc. (All things that were made to develop the Steam store social features, which was produced by the other guy who made the TF mod originally) Valve only goes hard on things they think are innovative or interesting tech, or at least plain fun to do. If the internal sponsor of an idea get bored or loses support from colleagues, the project just halts.
Yeah, i kind of agree with everything you've said, and history as i remember it kind of backs up what you've said about tf2.
But I don't agree that they don't care about story and only do it for marketing. I think halflife's episodes are all about an attempt at continuing that story.
I think that the Cave and Glados bits of portal are a large part of what made those games (of course the gameplay loops are really tight there.
I think the only way to know would to be an insider. I also don't think it really matters, the games they make are good.
I never said that, but sure, you're free to disagree with the thing I never said.
And, as I said earlier, they got bored, found it to not be a satisfying thing to do and stopped and never did it again. Episode 2 was 17 years ago. There will never be an episode 3 or half-life 3.
That part sold those games but funnily enough they aren't even half of the game. Most of Portal 2's content is on the multiplayer coop puzzles. They have more levels and a play through runs for more hours than the single player portion.
We have them, I'm not making shit up. There are dozens of interviews, documentaries, in-game commentary and books written by Valve staff themselves saying exactly what I have been summarizing in these comments. This idea isn't mine, I'm just repeating what people at Valve have publicly said about game development.