R.I.P. Half Life 3

[SecretlytruenudeM92]

  if you haven't heard by now hl3 is finally really actually confirmed by the guy who wrote the script as never ever being released. All we are getting is a bit of writing that says what happened, the end thanks for the money , i mean playing goodbye. Join me in a moment of silence for yet another beautiful work of art being destroyed by money and greed...

[Brendarella]

Such a shame. I loved the first one and all the expansion packs. But I did get suspicious when they couldn't even get the sequence right.  I mean, they released Half Life 2 and followed it by Half Life 2: Episode One. No one knew what order they were supposed to be in.

[DrgHybrid]

It's no surprise though. Realistic fans of Half-Life let it go a long time ago. And maybe it's for the best. I never let go of the hope for Duke Nukem and we waited over a decade for it to come out...to be given a pile of steaming shit. I mean, the game is horrible. They pieced it together from the bits and pieces that were made and injected it from an engine that looks like it came from the original Xbox. Just so bad. So at that point, might be good that Half-Life 2 ended on a good note.

But can just look at their track record. Valve really doesn't do sequel 3 games.

Dota
Team Fortress
Half-Life
Portal
Left 4 Dead

.... All just 1&2...it's what we expect.

Especially since they have Steam. As big as it is, Valve doesn't need to make another game ever. Steam ain't going down.

[Brendarella]

Can't argue with that - the facts speak for themselves. 

For what it's worth, the best (and worst) "threequel" was Dead Space 3.  It surpassed the other two in story, set pieces and high-end graphics, but was hamstrung by the worst Save-Game mechanism in gaming history, just because they wanted to have a real book-style storyline AND have it multi-user.  The result was utter chaos and a beautiful game was crippled beyond repair.  They tried to cobble together a patch but it was too little, too late.

[Longingtobenude]

Its better this way I think.  At least they didn't flop out some half assed money grab and call it HL3. 

[DrgHybrid]

Can't argue with that - the facts speak for themselves. 

For what it's worth, the best (and worst) "threequel" was Dead Space 3.  It surpassed the other two in story, set pieces and high-end graphics, but was hamstrung by the worst Save-Game mechanism in gaming history, just because they wanted to have a real book-style storyline AND have it multi-user.  The result was utter chaos and a beautiful game was crippled beyond repair.  They tried to cobble together a patch but it was too little, too late.

It's all subjective of course. I'm sure there were people out there that loved Duke Nukem Forever, even though critics don't agree. Dead Space 3 (for me) was alright. No complaints really. Critics and all scored it pretty well with it being 8/10 in a lot of places or an 80% rating system. When looking at a success rate, you pretty much have to follow the stats and reviews. It's the only way to get a good idea of whether it's commercially successful.  Also for example is Minecraft...I HATE this game to no end, but I acknowledge that it rates high with a 4/5, 93% mostly, and a 9.5+ plus on it's reviews.

Either way, DS3 wasn't made by Valve either, lol. I can name a ton of games where the sequels are just trash for me.

[Brendarella]

Like I said, DS3 was excellent, but the inability to save properly meant some people reported having to replay huge chunks of it again because they got catapulted backwards through the game once they had saved it - including me.

[Brendarella]

And don't get me started on Minecraft....

[Longingtobenude]

I never played Dead Space 3.  From what I heard though, it was the pay to win aspect that made most people mad. 

[Brendarella]

Pay to Win? Not aware of that. Do you have more info?

[Longingtobenude]

Pay to Win? Not aware of that. Do you have more info?

The micro transactions that make the game easier.  I haven't played Dead Space 3 so I don't know any specifics.  For example though, in the Battlefield series you can pay real world money to buy in game items for an advantage. 

From what I heard, Dead Space, you could grind kills for materials to upgrade your guns and armor or you could pay(real world money) to get those things immediately. 

At this point, is the difficulty there to make the game more enjoyable and accomplishments feel more significant?  In some cases its just an excuse for game companies to squeeze more money at cost to enjoyment of the game. 

[Brendarella]

In Dead Space 3, you could construct new equipment and weapons by assembling them from parts collected or scavenged as you play. I don't remember having the option to purchase them but maybe that wasn't in the PC version.