-It was nearly done but died because the team was split whether to use Source 2 or Unreal
-Would have had PC and VR crossplay
-Eight survivors, each with unique gameplay
Wait, it was nearly done but they didn't know what engine they should use? That doesn't add up in the slightest.
Yeah it sounds like a load of bollocks, I'd think choosing the engine to be an early in development choice, not, we're done with the game, now which engine should we choose to run it, as though the code and everything will just magically work because that's how computers function.
The video says the game was suitable for early access on Source 2 and L4D3 would have been the premier Source 2 debut but half the team wanted to just move to Unreal because Source 2 was a mess at the
time and wasn't portable to consoles. Kind of sounds weird but it's Valve, you never know with them
I really would had loved a Left 4 Dead 3. There's Vermintide 2 and Deep Rock Galatic for a similar 4-player point A to point B objective horde-based co-op gameplay, but there's a certain itch that L4D scratches with its zombie setting and setpieces.
Left 4 Dead seems like the perfect franchise to hamfist in cosmetic MTX.
To be fair, Unreal is a pretty incredible engine, easy to use and the like. Honestly, if Valve had more focus then they'd want some of that engine-publishing pie and make Source 2 actually good instead of a fork of Source - The fact that some wanted to jump ship to Unreal is actually really telling on how bad Source 2 was or is.
Like if you want to know how good Unreal Engine 4 is? You can make texture varients of things RIGHT IN THE ENGINE ITSELF! Oh yes, like if you want your texture to be seamless or blend better or even scroll? The Material editor lets you do those things. I never fucked around with Source (why would I want to? Only Respawn still uses Source, and its a heavily modified fork of it to boot!) but I can't imagine it'll easily let you do such things at a relative whim.
I personally don't think I'd care if this game was "Not L4D3" because it'd be another shooter by valve. Valve has never made a shooter that's dogshit*, all the shooters they've put out have been at least decent (even if they age like cheese)
(if anyone says ricochete then I will punch you because that game does not exist)
It's all about $$$$ because valve only looks at owning markets. Gabe and about four others are so hard on for plio and biometrics because by the time management will literally dying of old age and vg workitis, the next admin of valve will LITERALLY be hardwiring customer purchases from the ground up, as owning the entire pipleine of what will be augmented reality, aka valve yet again unable to coexist unless they own everything and are the sole proprietor, and so this time they want to leapfrog streaming and corporate SKUs and go straight for AR as the defacto guys, which considering how long that shit is going to take to get right, current admin are pretty unlikely to even be alive to see.
Insulation is never a sum positive. ever.
When combined with flat management and cult of personality this the chicken waving at screen shit you end up with.
I understand the unreal ppls arguments I guess and consoles are good for cash but its fucking valve, like they need cash?
If the game was almost complete on source 2, just release it there. What valve needs is to salvage their image and releasing a game would have done that, even if the console port came later.
From what he said is true then I'm glad it didn't become a thing. I'd just prefer another L4D game that's well polished.
lets be honest here, it was almost finished but they decided to replace it with artifact :v
You shouldn't believe anything Tabloid Tyler says about unannounced Valve projects. His sources are sketchy at best and I'm almost certain he's been fooled by trolls more than once.
Why did they waste years on Artifact? It's not about "needing" cash. Its about always wanting more. They're completely corrupted by greed at this point. The Valve we loved is dead and is never coming back.
Somewhere down the line, their scope became more and more profit driven. Ordinary monetize-less games were no longer enough for them. You can speculate why, but it's pretty obvious it has been the case over the years when it comes to their games and their statements about single player, monetize-less experiences.
Companies rarely need cash, it just becomes their one goal sooner or later. Valve were kinda special in that they focused more on delivering content and tools to the community over maximum profits, but even they eventually fell in line with most triple A game developers.
This isn't a problem - Steam was created first and foremost as a way to gain capital without churning out games themselves as well as a form of copy protection. Had some growing pains, but now it's so good that people get angry when a game isn't on the platform.
No, the problem is that Valve seems to have lost all notions of sense. "So we're known for innovative FPS games. What should we focus on releasing next?" asks Gabe. Then someone as a joke yells "How about a card game based on DOTA?"
People look at him as if he's joking but Gabe isn't joking, he looks at it and goes "Perfect!" to the shock of everyone.
I'm pretty sure that's not what happened. I'm pretty sure Artifact was envisioned solely because Valve thought Dota 2 players and card game players would be dumb enough to support the greediest DTG in history, just because it had Valve's name on it.
Supposedly Valve is writing tools to help port Artifact to Unity right? Not to crazy to imagine them writing similar tools to port L4D3 to Unreal.
Pure speculation here, but it sounds more like "end of development" in this context means "feature complete" based on what the video says was supposedly completed. The key features and art were implemented, but with very little content or polish.
The engine discussion was probably more about how to build the rest of the game's content efficiently. Levels, additional game modes, ect. At the time, Source 2's tools probably were probably far from user friendly when compared to Unreal's tools.
Writing tools to port the dead game onto another engine where it can become "dead game: unreal edition (give us money plz guys)"
I'm curious about his sources since he never referenced to a single one.
This is the case with a lot of "Insider information." One reason you never release whom your sources are unless you're positive that they'll remain safe is because. Lets assume there could've been 25-50 people working on L4D3. And if one person is leaking information, they you'd need to find out who did it in theory you could just fire 50 people and plug the leak easily, but then you have the headline.
"Publisher lays of 50 developers over game information leak."
Which doesn't look good. But also if he revealed his sources, then he'll loose information that he could report on. The sources don't even need to be current employees or employees at all, it could be information given second hand so it's hard implication said person.
Probably a sect pushing for features of unreal and such. Mind that they almost certainly have a pipeline for porting assets, as all the VR stuff (portal 2, half life, tf2 assets etc) were in unreal.
remember when Gabe Newel's son went to Valve to ask about source 2, and whoever he asked directed him to someone they told him knew about it, and it happened again and again until he went full circle.
They call it the Newell stairs
I know it's not the exact same as L4D and L4D2, but if it's true that does sound really interesting imo, and would have loved to see how it turned out.
It's not too terribly weird, when you stop and think about it.
They wanted L4D3 to be the flagship Source 2 game. At the time, Source 2 was pretty much totally undeveloped - there were some prototypical ideas that made its way into Dota 2, but those were really just a glorified Source 1--a Source 1.5, if you will.
I suspect the plan was to develop Source 2 alongside L4D3. As L4D3's development team wanted new features in the engine, they'd just add them. They want PBR? Source 2 has PBR now. Deformable terrain? Put that in. Direct TGA+FBX support, rather than VTF+MDL? Just slap it in. Anything they wanted, they'd just add.
The problem, as I understand it, is that as they soft-finished the game (and so, simultaneously, Source 2), the end result was just... not good. From the sounds of it, the game itself was a janky, cobbled-together mess--and by extension, since the game effectively was the Source 2 engine, so, too, was Source 2. Lots of hacks and duct-tape-and-chewing-gum implementations and workarounds of previously-installed systems, likely due to the fact that, as Tyler points out in this video, Valve don't think ahead.
Game engines are absolutely huge behemoths of engineering. Every little mechanism has to be carefully tuned and designed for it to run smoothly. As such, game engines really need to be carefully brainstormed, planned, designed, and put through rigorous thought-experiments before so much as a single line of code is laid down. By the sounds of, Valve didn't do any of that - they just hit the road running, and effectively made decisions of what the engine should do and how it should do them in real-time. Which is terrible for a game engine. You get a lot of redundant code, legacy code, mystery / magic code (With the infamous "//DO NOT TOUCH THIS - NO ONE KNOWS HOW IT WORKS, BUT IT DOES" comments), work-arounds, hacks, and entire components actively working against each other.
Which is where the part of the team who wanted to move to Unreal would step in. To my understand, it's not as simple as a "just" move to Unreal - they wanted to effectively scrap the entire Source 2 project, port over all the assets they had made to Unreal, and effectively rewrite the entire game's systems from the ground up. This is a cataclysmic change to make in a game's development, especially at the end of its life-cycle. Remember Duke Nukem Forever's tortured development? It went through the same thing - three complete engine changes, if I recall correctly. Every time you change engines is a huge time investment, and the vast majority of all the work previously done is thrown out the window.
Under normal game development circumstances, it'd be weird for the game to be soft-finished and then have the decision to change engines come up. But this wasn't a normal game - it was an engine flagship. As I stated at the beginning, I suspect Valve literally built the engine in tandem with the game. So they had no idea if the engine would be any good until the game was finished. And then, when they did finish the game, they realized that the engine was a steaming pile of hot garbage.
It's disappointing, but I can understand the series of events that likely came about, if my assumptions are correct.
If we're taking the story to be true, I'm willing to bet the team split mostly down the engineer and artist lines of work, the artists probably just wanted shit to work (and not have to bug engineers randomly when their art went in-engine wrong) - and Unreal is just "good" at that. Meanwhile Engineers probably wanted to sink their teeth into really fleshing this engine out.
Eventually the artists probably just said "Listen, either we move to Unreal, or we're done" and the engineers said (rightfully so, mostly) that that wouldn't be feasible - and the L4D3 team basically goes their own directions.
They tried it in Vermintide and I honestly like it, although I can see the benefits of a more uniform experience for every player like in the original L4D games.
Remember when they announced Source 2 free SDK in 2015? It's been 4 years since. A former Valve dev once listed it among paid mods and Steam Machines when it comes to things that didn't work out as they initially hoped.
VNN just said he's been working on this for two years and posted it now since he got more confirmation from independent sources
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.