Looks ok, too bad almost no one is ever going to play it. Thanks for pretty much nothing Valve!
You anti-VR guys crack me the fuck up.
how exactly should VR ever succeed if there is not a single game that makes people think damn I should buy VR to play this game?
If there is no experience on VR that makes you interested in getting VR, why would anybody ever get it?
by definition for any new entertainment medium to succeed it must offer experiences you can't get without buying into it, because otherwise why would you make the buy-in?
Some people do not care about VR or whether it succeeds.
Litterally some people can't even use VR at all.
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
not to mention that this is far from the first VR game of this level of quality. it's the first original VR game to leverage a recognisable and long term PC gaming franchise like Half-Life, rather than being an adaptation like Minecraft, but I don't think it necessarily is setting some glorious new bar in quality. Asgard's Wrath, Lone Echo, Stormland, No Man's Sky, Skyrim, Astro Bot, Moss, Chronos.
If your perception of VR is stuck in 2017 when every game was more or less a tech demo for VR itself rather than a solid game in its own right, maybe it's time you update yourself.
+3
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Some people do not care about VR or whether it succeeds.
Litterally some people can't even use VR at all.
I'm not saying that consumers should care whether VR succeeds or not.
in fact, exact opposite. VR absolutely should fail if it can't provide compelling experiences to justify it's existence. Yet here it is, with a shining example of just such an experience, one that leverages a well known and recognisable long-running franchise, and people are confused why they've done it?
Edit: like, I understand why it's frustrating to know you've got to upgrade your gaming setup in some way to enjoy an exciting new experience, and to feel like you'll miss out if you don't. Understand, though, that's exactly the point. It is really no different to an exciting new console exclusive or needing to upgrade your GPU for a new game.
Some people do not care about VR or whether it succeeds.
Litterally some people can't even use VR at all.
I'm not saying that consumers should care whether VR succeeds or not.
in fact, exact opposite. VR absolutely should fail if it can't provide compelling experiences to justify it's existence. Yet here it is, with a shining example of just such an experience, one that leverages a well known and recognisable long-running franchise, and people are confused why they've done it?
People are scatchung their heads over how the first Half-Life game in over a decade is going to be limited to an expensive platform owned by a small percentage of users.
If people had gotten an actual HL3 announcement or release at some point over the last few years instead of still being left waiting for a conclusion to a cliffhanger, they'd probably have a different reaction to this game.
Some people do not care about VR or whether it succeeds.
Litterally some people can't even use VR at all.
I'm not saying that consumers should care whether VR succeeds or not.
in fact, exact opposite. VR absolutely should fail if it can't provide compelling experiences to justify it's existence. Yet here it is, with a shining example of just such an experience, one that leverages a well known and recognisable long-running franchise, and people are confused why they've done it?
People are scatchung their heads over how the first Half-Life game in over a decade is going to be limited to an expensive platform owned by a small percentage of users.
If people had gotten an actual HL3 announcement or release at some point over the last few years instead of still being left waiting for a conclusion to a cliffhanger, they'd probably have a different reaction to this game.
Yeah, this is what's getting me. People have been clamoring over getting an HL3 sequel ever since Valve blueballed everybody with Episode 2. Nobody has been asking after a non-sequel restricted to the relatively tiny handful of people with the interest or cash to buy the full unrestricted VR experience. Valve shot reaaaalllly wide of the mark on this one, if their goal is to get people interested in VR at all.
Some people do not care about VR or whether it succeeds.
Litterally some people can't even use VR at all.
I'm not saying that consumers should care whether VR succeeds or not.
in fact, exact opposite. VR absolutely should fail if it can't provide compelling experiences to justify it's existence. Yet here it is, with a shining example of just such an experience, one that leverages a well known and recognisable long-running franchise, and people are confused why they've done it?
People are scatchung their heads over how the first Half-Life game in over a decade is going to be limited to an expensive platform owned by a small percentage of users.
If people had gotten an actual HL3 announcement or release at some point over the last few years instead of still being left waiting for a conclusion to a cliffhanger, they'd probably have a different reaction to this game.
Yeah, this is what's getting me. People have been clamoring over getting an HL3 sequel ever since Valve blueballed everybody with Episode 2. Nobody has been asking after a non-sequel restricted to the relatively tiny handful of people with the interest or cash to buy the full unrestricted VR experience. Valve shot reaaaalllly wide of the mark on this one, if their goal is to get people interested in VR at all.
What? If they'd decided to make Half-Life 3: VR then people would be far angrier about it than a prequel, because they'd be mad they couldn't play it without a VR setup. If they'd made a non half-life game for VR people would have just made fun of it for being a VR game and complained about not getting Half Life 3. Those people would have never been happy unless they abandoned VR aspect, which was the entire point, and made Half Life 3. And even then they would probably just complain about it being 12 years late.
Also anyone who's followed VR discussion over the last few years can tell you there's just some people out there who don't like VR and like to take every opportunity to complain about how worthless it is.
+10
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Valve shot reaaaalllly wide of the mark on this one, if their goal is to get people interested in VR at all.
Really? Because given how strongly everyone seems to feel about it being VR only, I'd say it hit exactly on the mark.
If a really good experience is made that requires VR to enjoy, and people get upset that they might not be able to enjoy it, that seems like exactly the goal Valve was shooting for.
VR, outside of the tiny percentage of people who are biologically incapable of ever adjusting to it, is not as inaccessible as it's made out to be. A top of the line headset costs as much as a midrange GPU, and VR system requirements haven't increased in years. If you have a PC that could play a game like HL:Alyx on a monitor, you already have a PC that could play it in VR.
I buy their line that it just wouldn't really work well without VR. They want to try something new and different for the franchise, and none of this really works as a non-VR game to be anything that's going to break new ground. The gravity gun was awesome at the time, but almost every big game in the last 10 years has had a pretty solid physics system bolted on.
But as a VR title they can make it special. Valve's smaller VR offering so far have been super polished and just feel really good. They've said it's taking testers longer to finish than half life 2 did -- if they deliver a full length title, and make it of the quality they're capable of with a movement and physics systems that just works really well, it will manage to be groundbreaking and stand out just from that.
The trailer was really promising! It looks amazing, feels like Half Life 2 but with a modern engine update, and stands to gain a lot with the grip gloves and the advantages of their control scheme.
Well, as someone who loves the Half-Life franchise but doesn't have and doesn't have the money for VR equipment (and probably couldn't enjoy it if he did due to wearing glasses), I am disappointed.
RT800 on
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Well, as someone who loves the Half-Life franchise but doesn't have and doesn't have the money for VR equipment (and probably couldn't enjoy it if he did due to wearing glasses), I am disappointed.
I understand life is tough in different ways for people, but is the demographic of "able to participate in AAA gaming with expensive CPUs and GPUs, while simultaneously unable to afford a $399 headset" a really huge venn diagram overlap?
I'm asking only because it's very easy to not know the current state of VR if you don't follow it, and I've seen plenty of people who still have the impression that all forms of PCVR cost $1k+
It's very much not for a single game. If people do buy into VR for HL:Alyx they're going to find there's plenty of games of equal quality (if admittedly with nowhere near the gaming pedigree of the HL franchise) that will justify the purchase.
2019 and 2020 have and will be the years of AAA VR becoming an actual thing, and HL:Alyx may be the most notable, but far from the only.
+4
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
this game looks cool im gonna wear the power glove... its so bad
I'm kind of surprised that folks are shocked. This is kind of Valves MO? They seem to love doing new things and don't care what anyone thinks about them. They could have just kept pumping out Half life games and spin-offs, printing money along the way. Instead they developed their own platform and store for digital content. They switched from full games to episodic (which didn't work out and they just stopped). They refined their own engine and then released it for all to use for basically free. They were one of the first to mess around with HDR in engine. They tried to redesign controllers to work for PC games. They tried standardizing PC's in the living room. And I'm sure I'm missing stuff.
For them to want to do a full AAA VR game based on a property they own seems seems right up their ally.
Well, as someone who loves the Half-Life franchise but doesn't have and doesn't have the money for VR equipment (and probably couldn't enjoy it if he did due to wearing glasses), I am disappointed.
I understand life is tough in different ways for people, but is the demographic of "able to participate in AAA gaming with expensive CPUs and GPUs, while simultaneously unable to afford a $399 headset" a really huge venn diagram overlap?
Well, firstly, implying that everyone who wants to play a new Half-Life is going to have a cutting PC is misleading. Not only does Valve make sure their games scale well on older hardware, they also put out their singleplayer games on consoles (back when they still made them). Also, speaking as someone who has built many computers in his lifetime, being able to justify spending X bucks but not X+$400 bucks on a new machine is totally thing. (You can almost always spend more money than you currently are when you're building a computer) In fact, it's not hard to be LESS inclined to pick up a $400 headset when you've already dropped a ton of cash on expensive PC hardware.
It's very much not for a single game. If people do buy into VR for HL:Alyx they're going to find there's plenty of games of equal quality (if admittedly with nowhere near the gaming pedigree of the HL franchise) that will justify the purchase.
2019 and 2020 have and will be the years of AAA VR becoming an actual thing, and HL:Alyx may be the most notable, but far from the only.
That's a nice sentiment, but glosses over the fact that many Half-Life fans who have not yet gotten VR (I'd argue that'd probably be the vast majority) are looking at an additional $400 pricetag in order to get access to the game. Even if there is a robust library, it's still a barrier to entry. It doesn't go away because there are other games to play.
And again this is ignoring the fact that many people cannot do VR. I'm on medication that makes it incredibly easy for me to get nauseous, (I got incapacitated on a fishing trip earlier this year, even though I've done these kinds of trips on and off since I was a small child) and so now the expectation is I drop $400-$1000 on a device that I could very not not even be able to use, and there's not an easy way for me to find out.
or rather I suppose I should say that I choose not to play it, since resources are finite and choices must be made.
I can put 400 dollars into a headset to play literally one game (since Alyx is the only VR title I even remotely care about, and that ONLY because VR is the only option).
Or I can put 400 dollars into a PS5 later on.
Anyway, the trailer looked interesting. I'll be curious as to the reviews it gets. It's been a loooong time since Valve's made a Half-Life game. Hasn't most of the original team for that franchise left?
RT800 on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I think the thing you should keep in mind is that if HL: Alyx wasn't a VR game it probably wouldn't exist. The reason they went back to Half Life was that VR offered a chance to do something new or groundbreaking. Valve have never been a company like Blizzard, who just does what everyone else is doing but better. They always look for opportunities to try new things.
Half-Life had scripting and an interactive world. Half-Life 2 had physics and facial expression. Each was groundbreaking at the time.
Some personal speculation from me on why it took so long to get any Half-Life game at all is that there hasn't been anything that really grabbed Gaben's attention as something worth developing a totally new game off of. It may not be HL3, but this feels like the thing that really got Gaben and a dedicated team interested. I wouldn't be surprised if this is Valve testing the waters to get an install base before they push a new Gordon game that will also be VR.
Anyway, the trailer looked interesting. I'll be curious as to the reviews it gets. It's been a loooong time since Valve's made a Half-Life game. Hasn't most of the original team for that franchise left?
Gordon's voice actor at least has moved on. He did the male protagonist for Outer Worlds most recently.
Anyway, the trailer looked interesting. I'll be curious as to the reviews it gets. It's been a loooong time since Valve's made a Half-Life game. Hasn't most of the original team for that franchise left?
Gordon's voice actor at least has moved on. He did the male protagonist for Outer Worlds most recently.
Speaking of voice actors, it sounds like they switched up Eli's.
And most of the lines from Alyx herself sounded like they might've been chopped up and recycled from previous games.
Yeah I feel bad for folks that won't be able to try it. Many cities are starting to get VR cafe's and such, but that doesn't help out folks outside of them. I remember back in the day when I couldn't even play new PC games because my video card was too old.
On the plus side, if this game promotes VR sales, that could signal to the market that VR isn't dead. Which could lead to cheaper sets with better specs.
Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
+4
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Anyway, the trailer looked interesting. I'll be curious as to the reviews it gets. It's been a loooong time since Valve's made a Half-Life game. Hasn't most of the original team for that franchise left?
Gordon's voice actor at least has moved on. He did the male protagonist for Outer Worlds most recently.
Speaking of voice actors, it sounds like they switched up Eli's.
And most of the lines from Alyx herself sounded like it might've been chopped up and recycled from previous games.
Well, as someone who loves the Half-Life franchise but doesn't have and doesn't have the money for VR equipment (and probably couldn't enjoy it if he did due to wearing glasses), I am disappointed.
Most of the headsets do fine with glasses, and pretty much all of them have inserts you can buy for prescription lenses. Still a $ problem though.
Didn’t stop me from basically buying a PS4 for Horizon Zero Dawn.
Or an Xbox 360 for Rock Band.
Or upgrading my gaming PC to keep up with the times and increasing specs.
I get it, and I agree that it’s a lot of money.
But for HL:A and Beat Saber alone, I’m pretty much on-board.
Is it really that different from the big hit launch titles that try to sell a new console? Obviously it’s not a perfect 1:1 contrast, and yet I feel there’s a valid point there all the same.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I think the thing you should keep in mind is that if HL: Alyx wasn't a VR game it probably wouldn't exist. The reason they went back to Half Life was that VR offered a chance to do something new or groundbreaking. Valve have never been a company like Blizzard, who just does what everyone else is doing but better. They always look for opportunities to try new things.
Half-Life had scripting and an interactive world. Half-Life 2 had physics and facial expression. Each was groundbreaking at the time.
Some personal speculation from me on why it took so long to get any Half-Life game at all is that there hasn't been anything that really grabbed Gaben's attention as something worth developing a totally new game off of. It may not be HL3, but this feels like the thing that really got Gaben and a dedicated team interested. I wouldn't be surprised if this is Valve testing the waters to get an install base before they push a new Gordon game that will also be VR.
I don't think anyone is disputing that the game exists because Valve needed a big VR title; I think that's why some of them are upset, in fact! Also, it doesn't change the fact that
1. Many Half-Life fans are going to be left out in the cold because of this (people who can't afford VR, don't want VR, can't use VR or who own a console, though if Valve is smart they'll have a PSVR version in the works ASAP. Xbox owners are still screwed I guess.)
2. A Half-Life VR prequel still doesn't solve the actual problem people have; that there's still no word on Half-Life 3 and the conclusion to the cliffhanger Valve set up over 12 years ago.
Didn’t stop me from basically buying a PS4 for Horizon Zero Dawn.
Or an Xbox 360 for Rock Band.
Or upgrading my gaming PC to keep up with the times and increasing specs.
I get it, and I agree that it’s a lot of money.
But for HL:A and Beat Saber alone, I’m pretty much on-board.
Is it really that different from the big hit launch titles that try to sell a new console? Obviously it’s not a perfect 1:1 contrast, and yet I feel there’s a valid point there all the same.
Well, it may not have stopped you, but I'm sure there are many, many people it did stop.
Anywho, console comparisons, outside of the issues with VR I've outlined, isn't a terrible comparison. I wouldn't use Horizon Zero Dawn as a great example though as it isn't a new game in a beloved franchise that was previously available to a much wider audience. This would be more like if Call of Duty 23, for example, was suddenly Playstation exclusive (the whole game, not just some content). Xbox and PC users would be justifiably upset. Or, for another example, the Tomb Raider reboot was a well received multiplatform title, but the sequel, Rise of the Tomb Raider, was a timed exclusive on Xbox and people were pretty pissed about it.
Anyway, the trailer looked interesting. I'll be curious as to the reviews it gets. It's been a loooong time since Valve's made a Half-Life game. Hasn't most of the original team for that franchise left?
Gordon's voice actor at least has moved on. He did the male protagonist for Outer Worlds most recently.
Speaking of voice actors, it sounds like they switched up Eli's.
And most of the lines from Alyx herself sounded like it might've been chopped up and recycled from previous games.
Alyx is a new VA.
I think Eli's original VA passed away so his is new as well
+1
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
I've figured for a while that VR was gonna be the big thing for the next HL game, so that's fine. I'm a fan of VR, even if I have trouble doing it for very long at a time due to motion-sickness -- so much so that I got rid of my old Rift. I've heard the newer VR rigs are much less nauseating due to resolution, refresh rates, etc. I could definitely see myself getting back into it with a higher-quality rig than what I had before, especially for new Half-Life.
But I'mma need them to come off that $1000 price point.
I've figured for a while that VR was gonna be the big thing for the next HL game, so that's fine. I'm a fan of VR, even if I have trouble doing it for very long at a time due to motion-sickness -- so much so that I got rid of my old Rift. I've heard the newer VR rigs are much less nauseating due to resolution, refresh rates, etc. I could definitely see myself getting back into it with a higher-quality rig than what I had before, especially for new Half-Life.
But I'mma need them to come off that $1000 price point.
The Index is at that point, but the Rift S is part of the newer generation too, is $399, likely $349 for black friday, and while the index is better it's not 3x the price better.
I've figured for a while that VR was gonna be the big thing for the next HL game, so that's fine. I'm a fan of VR, even if I have trouble doing it for very long at a time due to motion-sickness -- so much so that I got rid of my old Rift. I've heard the newer VR rigs are much less nauseating due to resolution, refresh rates, etc. I could definitely see myself getting back into it with a higher-quality rig than what I had before, especially for new Half-Life.
But I'mma need them to come off that $1000 price point.
The Index is at that point, but the Rift S is part of the newer generation too, is $399, likely $349 for black friday, and while the index is better it's not 3x the price better.
On the other hand, the Index is the one with a higher refresh rate than a Rift. The Rift S is actually lower, IIRC, so if he was having motion sickness trouble it may not be the fix he was hoping for.
0
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
To be fair, my Rift was one of the early early models, a dev kit even IIRC. So I wouldn't even know for sure how it compares to the ones they're selling now.
To be fair, my Rift was one of the early early models, a dev kit even IIRC. So I wouldn't even know for sure how it compares to the ones they're selling now.
Yeah, the CV is much better than even than the devkits, and the Rift S and Index are even better than the Oculus CV
+2
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
To be fair, my Rift was one of the early early models, a dev kit even IIRC. So I wouldn't even know for sure how it compares to the ones they're selling now.
If it was the first generation dev kit then even more so, since that had rotational tracking only and this was very disorienting as it didn't track your movement through space.
Leaving Episode 2 on a huge cliffhanger for well over a decade and then returning to the series in a VR-only title that everyone *knows* is going to have limited accessibility is kind of a lame move, period. If you already have VR set up or are willing to dive in, more power to you - the trailer makes the game look promising, for sure. But for everyone else (aka, the majority of players) we're just left feeling uninvited to the party. It's not the party we were promised years ago, but it's still a celebration you can hear through the walls while you sit there in the dark alone.
Posts
You anti-VR guys crack me the fuck up.
how exactly should VR ever succeed if there is not a single game that makes people think damn I should buy VR to play this game?
If there is no experience on VR that makes you interested in getting VR, why would anybody ever get it?
by definition for any new entertainment medium to succeed it must offer experiences you can't get without buying into it, because otherwise why would you make the buy-in?
Litterally some people can't even use VR at all.
If your perception of VR is stuck in 2017 when every game was more or less a tech demo for VR itself rather than a solid game in its own right, maybe it's time you update yourself.
I'm not saying that consumers should care whether VR succeeds or not.
in fact, exact opposite. VR absolutely should fail if it can't provide compelling experiences to justify it's existence. Yet here it is, with a shining example of just such an experience, one that leverages a well known and recognisable long-running franchise, and people are confused why they've done it?
Edit: like, I understand why it's frustrating to know you've got to upgrade your gaming setup in some way to enjoy an exciting new experience, and to feel like you'll miss out if you don't. Understand, though, that's exactly the point. It is really no different to an exciting new console exclusive or needing to upgrade your GPU for a new game.
People are scatchung their heads over how the first Half-Life game in over a decade is going to be limited to an expensive platform owned by a small percentage of users.
If people had gotten an actual HL3 announcement or release at some point over the last few years instead of still being left waiting for a conclusion to a cliffhanger, they'd probably have a different reaction to this game.
edit: calling it now, the "close your eyes, honey" line is going to be the moment Eli loses his leg.
Yeah, this is what's getting me. People have been clamoring over getting an HL3 sequel ever since Valve blueballed everybody with Episode 2. Nobody has been asking after a non-sequel restricted to the relatively tiny handful of people with the interest or cash to buy the full unrestricted VR experience. Valve shot reaaaalllly wide of the mark on this one, if their goal is to get people interested in VR at all.
What? If they'd decided to make Half-Life 3: VR then people would be far angrier about it than a prequel, because they'd be mad they couldn't play it without a VR setup. If they'd made a non half-life game for VR people would have just made fun of it for being a VR game and complained about not getting Half Life 3. Those people would have never been happy unless they abandoned VR aspect, which was the entire point, and made Half Life 3. And even then they would probably just complain about it being 12 years late.
Also anyone who's followed VR discussion over the last few years can tell you there's just some people out there who don't like VR and like to take every opportunity to complain about how worthless it is.
Really? Because given how strongly everyone seems to feel about it being VR only, I'd say it hit exactly on the mark.
If a really good experience is made that requires VR to enjoy, and people get upset that they might not be able to enjoy it, that seems like exactly the goal Valve was shooting for.
VR, outside of the tiny percentage of people who are biologically incapable of ever adjusting to it, is not as inaccessible as it's made out to be. A top of the line headset costs as much as a midrange GPU, and VR system requirements haven't increased in years. If you have a PC that could play a game like HL:Alyx on a monitor, you already have a PC that could play it in VR.
But as a VR title they can make it special. Valve's smaller VR offering so far have been super polished and just feel really good. They've said it's taking testers longer to finish than half life 2 did -- if they deliver a full length title, and make it of the quality they're capable of with a movement and physics systems that just works really well, it will manage to be groundbreaking and stand out just from that.
The trailer was really promising! It looks amazing, feels like Half Life 2 but with a modern engine update, and stands to gain a lot with the grip gloves and the advantages of their control scheme.
I understand life is tough in different ways for people, but is the demographic of "able to participate in AAA gaming with expensive CPUs and GPUs, while simultaneously unable to afford a $399 headset" a really huge venn diagram overlap?
I'm asking only because it's very easy to not know the current state of VR if you don't follow it, and I've seen plenty of people who still have the impression that all forms of PCVR cost $1k+
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's very much not for a single game. If people do buy into VR for HL:Alyx they're going to find there's plenty of games of equal quality (if admittedly with nowhere near the gaming pedigree of the HL franchise) that will justify the purchase.
2019 and 2020 have and will be the years of AAA VR becoming an actual thing, and HL:Alyx may be the most notable, but far from the only.
For them to want to do a full AAA VR game based on a property they own seems seems right up their ally.
It's just I can't play it and that's a bummer.
Well, firstly, implying that everyone who wants to play a new Half-Life is going to have a cutting PC is misleading. Not only does Valve make sure their games scale well on older hardware, they also put out their singleplayer games on consoles (back when they still made them). Also, speaking as someone who has built many computers in his lifetime, being able to justify spending X bucks but not X+$400 bucks on a new machine is totally thing. (You can almost always spend more money than you currently are when you're building a computer) In fact, it's not hard to be LESS inclined to pick up a $400 headset when you've already dropped a ton of cash on expensive PC hardware.
That's a nice sentiment, but glosses over the fact that many Half-Life fans who have not yet gotten VR (I'd argue that'd probably be the vast majority) are looking at an additional $400 pricetag in order to get access to the game. Even if there is a robust library, it's still a barrier to entry. It doesn't go away because there are other games to play.
And again this is ignoring the fact that many people cannot do VR. I'm on medication that makes it incredibly easy for me to get nauseous, (I got incapacitated on a fishing trip earlier this year, even though I've done these kinds of trips on and off since I was a small child) and so now the expectation is I drop $400-$1000 on a device that I could very not not even be able to use, and there's not an easy way for me to find out.
I can put 400 dollars into a headset to play literally one game (since Alyx is the only VR title I even remotely care about, and that ONLY because VR is the only option).
Or I can put 400 dollars into a PS5 later on.
Anyway, the trailer looked interesting. I'll be curious as to the reviews it gets. It's been a loooong time since Valve's made a Half-Life game. Hasn't most of the original team for that franchise left?
Half-Life had scripting and an interactive world. Half-Life 2 had physics and facial expression. Each was groundbreaking at the time.
Some personal speculation from me on why it took so long to get any Half-Life game at all is that there hasn't been anything that really grabbed Gaben's attention as something worth developing a totally new game off of. It may not be HL3, but this feels like the thing that really got Gaben and a dedicated team interested. I wouldn't be surprised if this is Valve testing the waters to get an install base before they push a new Gordon game that will also be VR.
I always figured the best way to get them to make Half-Life 3 would be for someone to invent Smell-o-vision.
Gordon's voice actor at least has moved on. He did the male protagonist for Outer Worlds most recently.
Speaking of voice actors, it sounds like they switched up Eli's.
And most of the lines from Alyx herself sounded like they might've been chopped up and recycled from previous games.
On the plus side, if this game promotes VR sales, that could signal to the market that VR isn't dead. Which could lead to cheaper sets with better specs.
Alyx is a new VA.
Most of the headsets do fine with glasses, and pretty much all of them have inserts you can buy for prescription lenses. Still a $ problem though.
Didn’t stop me from basically buying a PS4 for Horizon Zero Dawn.
Or an Xbox 360 for Rock Band.
Or upgrading my gaming PC to keep up with the times and increasing specs.
I get it, and I agree that it’s a lot of money.
But for HL:A and Beat Saber alone, I’m pretty much on-board.
Is it really that different from the big hit launch titles that try to sell a new console? Obviously it’s not a perfect 1:1 contrast, and yet I feel there’s a valid point there all the same.
I don't think anyone is disputing that the game exists because Valve needed a big VR title; I think that's why some of them are upset, in fact! Also, it doesn't change the fact that
1. Many Half-Life fans are going to be left out in the cold because of this (people who can't afford VR, don't want VR, can't use VR or who own a console, though if Valve is smart they'll have a PSVR version in the works ASAP. Xbox owners are still screwed I guess.)
2. A Half-Life VR prequel still doesn't solve the actual problem people have; that there's still no word on Half-Life 3 and the conclusion to the cliffhanger Valve set up over 12 years ago.
Well, it may not have stopped you, but I'm sure there are many, many people it did stop.
Anywho, console comparisons, outside of the issues with VR I've outlined, isn't a terrible comparison. I wouldn't use Horizon Zero Dawn as a great example though as it isn't a new game in a beloved franchise that was previously available to a much wider audience. This would be more like if Call of Duty 23, for example, was suddenly Playstation exclusive (the whole game, not just some content). Xbox and PC users would be justifiably upset. Or, for another example, the Tomb Raider reboot was a well received multiplatform title, but the sequel, Rise of the Tomb Raider, was a timed exclusive on Xbox and people were pretty pissed about it.
I think Eli's original VA passed away so his is new as well
But I'mma need them to come off that $1000 price point.
But that it’s not actually all that uncommon (personally) for a big enough title to draw me into a comparable expenditure.
Just something that struck me as funny at the time.
the dude... then hurls
The Index is at that point, but the Rift S is part of the newer generation too, is $399, likely $349 for black friday, and while the index is better it's not 3x the price better.
On the other hand, the Index is the one with a higher refresh rate than a Rift. The Rift S is actually lower, IIRC, so if he was having motion sickness trouble it may not be the fix he was hoping for.
Yeah, the CV is much better than even than the devkits, and the Rift S and Index are even better than the Oculus CV
If it was the first generation dev kit then even more so, since that had rotational tracking only and this was very disorienting as it didn't track your movement through space.