Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
First Person Shooters (Games)

Half-Life 2: Aftermath Delayed 29

exdeath writes " announced that Valve's follow-up to last years acclaimed shooter Half-Life 2 will not be releasing in November 2005 as originally planned. From the post: 'Just wanted to give you a quick update on Aftermath, specifically its ETA. We're working very hard to finish this new episode for HL2, however, its going to take us a bit more time to get it into top shape. As such, the target release for this one is now Feb/March of next year.'" Confirmed by Valve. Ensaddening.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Half-Life 2: Aftermath Delayed

Comments Filter:
  • Even if Aftermath is released when they are now saying it will be, Valve would still be doing better that its recent track record -- that is, it will be the first time that Valve has released a product less than nine months late in the past two years.

    That said, I have to wonder why anyone is surprised. I would be surprised to the point of speechlessness if it was out before the summer.
    • Considering that I still want to scream like a grandmother when I think of the Ultima: Ascension rush-to-market debacle, I have absolutely no problems with Valve taking the time that they need to get the product done right the first time. There are far too many games out there that were delivered with a "just get it shipped and we'll fix it later" attitude. See Battlefield 2 for a recent example of that. I've give Valve some time if they feel that they need it as long as I get effective code that doesn't
  • *blink* (Score:5, Funny)

    by Z0mb1eman ( 629653 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @05:29PM (#14011674) Homepage
    I feel like I've stepped into some kind of time warp...

    This FEELS like a dupe, even if it isn't :p
  • i think you mean "ensadenating"

    if we were to keep it in spirit with the original ilovebees joke []
    • just realized that you were at least partially right with your use of 2 d's

      should be ensaddenating

      yes, its quarter to 5 on a friday afternoon, and i really really really need to leave work
  • Well damn. (Score:2, Informative)

    by oskard ( 715652 )

    Fuckin A it is. I have to say, I'm not surprised. But you know what? Half-Life 2 was well worth the wait. In fact I felt that it was at least two years ahead of its time, a bargain for 2004. I know Aftermath will not just be an expansion pack, and will dig deeper in the story line just like Blue-Shift did to the first episode.

    Its also hard to be upset at Valve since they are promising me de_nuke and a few new models for CS:Source this month.
    • Blue-Shift? The only thing that kept that game from being "just" an expansion pack was that it wasn't actually an expansion at all since it was standalone. I don't regret buying it, and I enjoyed playing it for the couple (yes, about 2 or maybe 3 at a push) of hours that I spent playing it, but it's not a good example. Opposing Force, the first Half-Life expansion, now that's a good example of an expansion that went beyond just adding some more content. Experience the story from one of the other sides, squ
    • "I know Aftermath will not just be an expansion pack, and will dig deeper in the story line just like Blue-Shift did to the first episode."

      WHAAA?? On what are you basing this assumption? On the fact that HL2 had no discernable storyline, or that Blue shift did nothing to further the story other than rehash HL's story from a different perspective?

      Do you work for Valve or something?

      I've been playing nuke for about 5 years now, what are you waiting for? Them to fuck it up like they did with CS 1.6?
  • by popo ( 107611 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @05:47PM (#14011835) Homepage

    How is it possible that we *haven't* learned this by now?

    Companies that give release dates and stick to them, usually release buggy sub-par games.

    Companies that have a steadfast policy of *not* publishing release dates (ie: Blizzard) and adopt a "we'll release it when its done" policy -- usually release great software.

    The new middle ground of course, are companies like Bethesda and Valve who bravely make public statements and regularly push back titles.

    (It should be noted that Bethsoft caved to MSFT on an Xbox Morrowind release date and the results were disastrous. It wasn't until the re-release a year later that players saw all those horrendous bugs fixed)

    While pushing back a release date is the obviously responsible thing to do, it also pisses lots of people off. One wonders "why even offer release dates at all"?

    IMHO Blizzard has got it right. "Its done when its done".

    • by TychoCelchuuu ( 835690 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @06:34PM (#14012172) Journal
      Valve learned its lesson. They no longer give specific days and they not that all their dates are always subject to change.
    • by DingerX ( 847589 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @08:16PM (#14012783) Journal
      Well, because *this* is something fans have learned in the manner of the old saying:

      I've been puking so long I'm starting to like it

      Sorry man, but developers -- for all their artistic vision -- have very real budgets to keep. And, this may come as a surprise, but even in a speculative venture like a PC game, you can get a pretty decent estimate of how long it takes to develop something.

      Why, then, is stuff perpetually late, or rushed to market?

      Well, first, most titles aren't late or rushed. Most of them are on time and on budget. And most of them, most people wouldn't want to play. But they generate a steady budget. The others? Well, sure they're pushing the envelope. Why? Because they have a bunch of nuts at the helm who don't necessarily care about business. What happens when you pair those nuts with a distribution model? Bad things. Really bad things.

      What do I mean?
      Hell, when I set down to make something, I'm excited. I write the damn code, and it's fun and interesting. Then it's written. And I show it off, and folks want changes to the UI, or additional functionality, no matter how much of a pain in the ass. So I do that. Then I get the damn thing full of their functionality, and guess what? It's time to test it. And develop the game content to use the little engine, and test that. And mysteriously, the time from getting the idea to writing the initial draft of the code is pretty damn short. And to get myself through those dark hours, I convince myself that it's gonna work fine the first time, yeah sure.

      But too many folks out there actually believe it will. Crap, man, I see so many otherwise respectable game companies issue "coming soon" or "imminent" release notices on software they obviously haven't even gotten to beta stage. Yet anyone with a brain schedules beta to last 3x longer than alpha.

      You can predict how long a dev cycle will take, even with new hardware and questionable vendor support -- we now have several such generations of data available. And if you're in doubt, remember Scotty's advice from his TNG appearance.

      So sure, give a date, and put it way down the road. Get funding till then and everything's good; better yet, only give a date to those who are funding you, and get plenty of funding. Only declare a release date when you've inked the deals with the distributors. Really, "buzz" and "viral marketing" is one thing; "letting my community manager feel cool" is entirely something else. Learn the difference.

      But run your company so that you need to hit "miracle-coder" dates, and each project could sink you, and you won't be around for long.

      I'm amazed how many clods out there don't follow these basic rules.

      (scratches head, returns to fixing up the "trial balloon" he floated and the suits sold as a complete product to deliver in two months) errr... nevermind

  • No doubt this delay was caused by that source code theft they had last year.

  • Of course, they knew they would be pushing the schedule out a quarter sooner than this week. The problem with Valve is that they wait to push their schedules until the current published schedule. Why don't they learn not to do this?
  • It's the timing!

    Really... waiting until NOVEMBER to announce it won't be ready in NOVEMBER?

    And then saying you need another Five Months?

    Only a company with very deep pockets could get away with that crap. They have, so they do.

  • Valve delaying a game? Who would have thought!

I use technology in order to hate it more properly. -- Nam June Paik