Half-Life 2: Episode Two to be Longer (Too)

Just wanted to set a record for "two" homophones in one headline. Anyway, Valve: Half-Life 2 Episode 2 Will Be Longer on Fringe Drinking (thanks xXBatmanXx) has word from Valve's Doug Lombardi that Half-Life 2: Episode Two will offer about eight hours of gameplay, compared with the approximately six hours of gameplay in episode one, and offers details on planned Steam features that will enhance its community support. Doug also says that in spite of Episode 2's delayed release, their development cycle for episodic content is getting shorter:
"Episode 1 took 18 months to complete and Episode 2 will end up being about 13 to 14 months, so we’re trimming it down," he said. "I think we’ll get closer to a year and be on a 12 month cycle. We’ll see how it goes after this trilogy is done."
View : : :
33.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 9, 2007, 14:41
33.
Re: No subject Mar 9, 2007, 14:41
Mar 9, 2007, 14:41
 

And it's not like they are holding your kid hostage or anything. So it takes a bit longer - who really cares? It's a video game. For those complaining about it, what are you - an ADD 8 year old?
Yes.

I'm just wondering whether, at ANY point in the history of video games, gamers actually DIDN'T whine constantly about release dates.
The whining started the moment the games industry started promoting and advertising games like they do with movies. However, the powers that be didn't realize that movies don't get delayed (not regularly, anyway), and that people don't complain about movies taking a while to come out (for some reason). Release date whining was a unavoidable side effect of the games industry growing up and becoming the behemoth that it is now. Dammit, now I'm getting all nostalgic for the early 90's and word-of-mouth advertising.

What makes this even worse is that when the Elder Scrolls expansion comes out in two weeks, it will have been about one year (12 months) since the release of the main game...meaning that a confirmed 40 hour RPG game expansion was done in less amount of time then a 6 hour FPS episode. Don't you find that really pathetic?
Don't count on the Oblivion expansion being anywhere close to the game length they're advertising. The number I saw was "30-40" which means 25 for most of us.

And to answer your question, no, I don't find that really pathetic. RPG expansions, unlike FPS expansions, have to deal with already godlike characters (at least the ES games do) and have to make the game challenging for them again. With FPS games all you have to do is take away the player's guns. But Bethesda has never reset characters for its expansions, so that option is out. The problem with sandbox RPGs is that the sandbox is boring and pointless once you're a god. Why should I continue to harvest alchemical ingredients when I don't need potions or money any more? Don't get me wrong - I thoroughly enjoyed Morrowind and Oblivion until I finished the story and became a godly character. Continuing the character is just boring though - fighting the thousandth troll in Oblivion just doesn't have the same appeal as fighting the thousandth combine soldier in HL2. And replaying the game makes me quickly lose interest. It doesn't have the story and scripted moments to make replaying fun - unlike HL2, Episode 1, NOLF, JK2, and my other favorite FPSs. Considering Bethesda's track record with expansions vs. Valve's, I'll take Episode 2 over Shivering Isles any day.

This comment was edited on Mar 9, 14:48.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
4.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
26.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
2.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
3.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
12.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
  Re: Um
5.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
6.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
8.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
11.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
13.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
15.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
16.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
     Re: No subject
18.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
     Re: No subject
19.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
      Re: No subject
20.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
       Re: No subject
22.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
        Re: No subject
25.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
         Re: No subject
27.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
          Re: No subject
28.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
           Re: No subject
29.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
           Re: No subject
30.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
            Re: No subject
35.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
             Re: No subject
46.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
             Re: No subject
52.
Mar 10, 2007Mar 10 2007
              Re: No subject
53.
Mar 10, 2007Mar 10 2007
               Re: No subject
54.
Mar 10, 2007Mar 10 2007
                Radical idea
50.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
            Re: No subject
51.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
             Re: No subject
55.
Mar 10, 2007Mar 10 2007
              Re: No subject
56.
Mar 10, 2007Mar 10 2007
               Re: No subject
41.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
         Re: No subject
42.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
          Re: No subject
43.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
          Re: No subject
45.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
           Re: No subject
47.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
            Re: No subject
49.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
            Re: No subject
44.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
          Re: No subject
21.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
       Re: No subject
24.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
     Re: No subject
14.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
36.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
39.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
     Re: No subject
 33.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
   Re: No subject
7.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
9.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
10.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
17.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
23.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
31.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
32.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
34.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
37.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
38.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
40.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007
48.
Mar 9, 2007Mar 9 2007