I keep hearing people describe Valve as an innovative company; one that is driving the industry, etc.

Then I play the games.

Don't get me wrong. Half Life is a solid first-person shooter. Portal is a very well done first-person puzzle game. Counterstrike is a solid first-person, team-based shooter.

What I'm not seeing is the innovation. Doing things well isn't innovative. Valve certainly didn't invent, popularize, or even elevate the FPS with Half Life. Portal basically took the "portal" idea from several other games and used it as the main mechanic of the game. Counterstrike... well, that wasn't original in the least. Rainbow Six beat it by a year, even though it wasn't exactly the same type of game. They tried episodic gaming with HL2 and failed miserably.

Now comes Left 4 Dead - a first-person, survival horror shooter with team mechanics. Doom 3, Fear, etc. all covered first person horror and Resident Evil Online covered team-based survival horror. Additionally, there's already a HL2 mod on Steam that looks JUST LIKE Left 4 Dead!

So I need to ask: what exactly is Valve doing NOW that's original or innovative? If they innovated in the past, it seems to me that they're just coasting on their own legacy.

I can see what you mean... Maybe it's Steam that's driving the Industry, etc..?

I disagree. It's easy to look at the games, years later, and say they weren't important. At the time they were released, they were a big deal, and they were something unlike what came before. I see your point about Portal, but nothing is created in a vacuum. There's still nothing else quite like it. If nothing else, it is a very different game in a world where no one else will take the risk.

As for Left 4 Dead, it is very, very different from any other survival shooter. That mod (and I have played it) is not very much like Left 4 Dead at all except for the Zombie theme. Look up some facts on Left 4 Dead, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. Like all Valve games, Left 4 Dead is about to add something new and fresh to an established genre.

And that is why, years later, those with only a retrospective point of view won't appreciate it's contribution.

I don't really see your point here, I believe that it's widely accepted that both Half-Life 1 & 2 really stepped up the FPS genre. If you played FPS games prior to Half-Life, you'll know that every game was built explicitly in the Doom model: search a room for a key, unlock the door, move on. Half-Life was a revelation. People don't call it that for nothing, and if you were involved in PC gaming back in 1998 you will most definitely understand its impact.

Half-Life 2 blew off the doors with Valve's continued evolution of its focus on the first-person experience, where the player was never removed from the game. Despite the fact that Gordon never speaks a word, he is often considered a very strong character. (http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gordon-freeman-strongest-personality-in-gaming/a-20080118104744203035) In the game, it is possible to see this in the way that other characters respond to your actions.

And Portal? I don't recall any other games using a similar portal mechanic...

Counter-strike, uh, I don't really care for it. It is the first multiplayer game to really nail the tactical action realm, though. And, it's important because it's one of the first instances where a mod (yes, Counter-strike began as a mod years and years ago) was picked up by professional developers and turned into a retail product.

It seems that your comments on Left 4 Dead are that elements of the game have been done before. However, Resident Evil Online (???) didn't really set the world on fire and Left 4 Dead sounds like a really innovative take on horror gaming. If what they're promising comes true, it seems like the dynamic enemy placing, team mechanics, and zombie classes will make the game unique.

Plus, Valve has gotta be working on something other than Half-Life 2: Episode 3. Half-Life 2 came out four years ago, I would bet they've got something else in the pipeline.

Hmm I'm unsure about the other games but left4dead definately looks to be innovative. Yes yes survival horror has been done but look into this and it looks farly innovative with zombies being able to think and players being able to play as zombie bosses to hunt survivor players and if a player is attacked they "go down" and can only use sidearm until rescued by a friend.

edited- I always muddle up left4dead and deadspace sorry

You are not looking at why people call their games innovated. Half-life 1 was just a well rounded good game. Half-life 2 made sure it was fast pace and fun, it also was one of the first FPS to introduced physics, by today standards nothing new.

Portal is again a game that just rounded fun and the humor is what really stands out, don't get me wrong portal aspect is fun.

Counterstrike... well that's originally a mod, but it was a pretty damn good Multiplayer fun back in the day. I mean there was other stuff out there but everyone had Half-life for some reason;therefor, everyone played CS.

Left 4 Dead, Zombie games aren't new, it seems like every game is a zombie game. What is suppose to be innovated (I haven't played it so I won't judge it yet) is the fact of mandatory co-op. You are literally trying to survive a series of legs between safe houses. Its you, 3 other friends (or random people you don't know) trying to fight off hordes of zombies, with limited ammo, and a strong dependency on your allies. How is that not a formula for fun?

Everyone does the Episodic gaming its just not as obvious, they tend to call them expansion packs. This allows Valve to keep the same engine and not have to waste time on getting familiar with a new engine. The problem is that Valve was to get it perfect so they don't do timelines, and they basically look over every aspect of the game. And furthur more they do a hell lot of gameplay test. If you listen to their commentary a some parts they completely redesign levels because it's flow wasn't good enough.

I think I would call Valve innovated because they don't rush out and give you a mediocre game (I'm looking at you especially Ubisoft and EA) they don't cut corners and lets face it everyone else does.

Still, different isn't the same as innovative... which is what I'm trying to locate with Valve.

The Pac Man clones of the 80's were different from Pac Man, but they were still considered Pac Man clones.

Take Ladybug, for instance. One of my favorites. You go around a maze eating dots and avoiding enemies. Same as Pac Man, right? Not at all. You had no defense against the enemies (garden bugs, actually). There were no power pellets. You had to think tactically and time your actions. There's a lot more to the game and everyone should certainly check it out, but THAT game was innovative. It took the basic concept and took it to the next level... practically making it a whole new kind of game.

How is Valve doing that?

Eggo:
Valve is innovative because they consistently produce high quality games, they have Steam, and they provide an amazing place for a staggeringly awesome mod community to flourish.

As I stated, consistent quality is not innovation.

Valve doesn't do innovation, they do evolution very well though.

They arn't. Looking back at their games they seriously suck at it. IF Halo 3 can get pretty much 10's across the board and takes less time to make AND provide for a longer game you have to wonder? Where the hell are the valve employees? Or is it just 10 guys?

The difference between Valve to many other developers is the quality in the execution of an idea. They have often taken something and re-worked it, in doing so they often raise the standard and quality.

What you have to remember that is that Valve has been a very mod driven developer. Counterstrike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress and even Portal were not originally created by Valve. All started as mods or in the case or Portal, a project. From 1998 onwards these mods spawned off the release of Half-life, they became so popular they Valve hired these guys and many of them who originally created them are now working at Valve.

This stresses the importance of mods and its a shame when companies fail to support it, mods help make talented people break into the industry and bring new ideas to the table.

Counterstrike started life as a small mod made by two guys in uni, it became the most the played online action game of all time.

So are you saying that these guys shouldn't have made this game because it wasn't original enough?

I just want Valve to personally do the PS3 version. Please, do not leave it up to EA to do it. They will just futz it up big time.

And just because it is not "innovative" does not mean it will not be super big time fun. Ever play "Uncharted"? No really innovative but it was super big time fun.

Valve isn't inventing new Genres. We are really at the point where the only thing you can do is take a Genre redefine it, or hybrid two genre's together. RTS, Stagity, Sim, FPS, RPG and Action.

Lets take for example Half-life 2, they "produced something like nothing done or experienced" by introducing physics not just to rag dolls, but to almost everything in the game. It made it felt almost real. So when an explosion happen next to an enemy and a trash can, both the trash can and enemy flew away.

In this case what aspect would have been innovated? They advanced immersion they took it a extra step to make it feel like you were actually part of this world and not (which in reality) looking at a computer screen.

Some people call star wars innovated (the original trilogy.) By today standards its not. But back in 1977 moves were pretty crappy. Up to this point effects were not done to this scale. It story was compelling but not original.

However it is still considered innovated because it use several different aspects that allowed you to become a part of a sci-fi world. It has not really been done till 1977.

VALVe don't think of themselves as innovative. And they don't innovate, they take an old formula, give it a twist and make sure it's done right. Unlike, say, Ubisoft who claim to be innovative (which means turning Splinter Cell and PoP into Assassin's Creed, apparently).

And VALVe don't believe in release dates, no 'Out on 19th of November' and a frantic rush to finish the game, they say 'It'll be done when it's ready.' This has lead to the creation of VALVe Time.

Breaking down your argument in the order that you presented it:

* What really made Half-Life 1 innovative was the fact that it had an actual engaging story. Sure, that's commonplace now, but before Half-Life, games like Doom and Quake just focused on killing every living thing and making it to the next level in the game.

* What "portal" mechanic from other games? Most games with, ahem, "portals" were just glorified doors that led to a different room in the map without having to actually put a hole in the wall so you could just walk there. The only thing that comes close are the portals from "Prey", and that's only because you can see through them to know where they lead and objects can pass through them both ways. The portal mechanic in "Portal" focuses heavily on the laws of physics, emphasizing things like continuous forward momentum and the constraints of gravity upon exiting the portal.

* Rainbow Six and Counter-Strike are far from being alike. The only real shared aspect between them is the theme of terrorists against counter terrorists. Team-based objective gameplay aside, the big deal here is that Counter Strike started out as a mod and was later made into a full-fledged retail game, which was an industry first.

* Valve's goal, as far as I can tell, wasn't really to make HL2 an episodic game, it was more about continuing the story of the series without making a "direct" sequel.

* Left 4 Dead is very different from games like Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. There just isn't any room for comparison, and saying that they're alike is pretty damn ignorant. As for Zombie Panic, the only thing in common is zombies. Where Left 4 Dead breaks the mold is that it forces a group of four players to work together to progress through a series of missions. An "AI Director" controls what enemies spawn where and how the environment changes based on the player's performance.

In addition to all that, the Team Fortress franchise pioneered the concept of class-based gameplay in a team game, predating Battlefield 1942 by a few years. Valve has also made the most advanced and effective physics engine the industry currently has to offer, Source.

Finally, there's Steam. Steam has revolutionized the videogame industry by presenting the digital distribution model. Valve was the first company to do it, and it can be argued that they do it the best. With Steam, Valve is also able to give publishing tools to small indie developers, making it easier than ever to get their games out to the people.

Any more questions, or are you good?

Dr Spaceman:
I don't really see your point here, I believe that it's widely accepted that both Half-Life 1 & 2 really stepped up the FPS genre. If you played FPS games prior to Half-Life, you'll know that every game was built explicitly in the Doom model: search a room for a key, unlock the door, move on. Half-Life was a revelation. People don't call it that for nothing, and if you were involved in PC gaming back in 1998 you will most definitely understand its impact.

How exactly is "find the switch that unlocks the door" of Half Life different from the "find the key that unlocks the door" of the ID-esque games, essentially? You're still doing basically the same action. Find A which opens Door B so you can get to area C. In fact, Doom was a whole lot LESS linear than Half Life, anyway. You never have to re-explore any areas in Half Life. It's basically just one long corridor from start to end. I'm not convinced.

Half-Life 2 blew off the doors with Valve's continued evolution of its focus on the first-person experience, where the player was never removed from the game. Despite the fact that Gordon never speaks a word, he is often considered a very strong character. (http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gordon-freeman-strongest-personality-in-gaming/a-20080118104744203035) In the game, it is possible to see this in the way that other characters respond to your actions.

Okay, I read that article, and this is my response: it reads like an English paper from a high school senior. Anyone can read too much into a game (I'm referring directly to all that "rebirth of a stronger Gordon" stuff). The main way HL2 was not the experience others seem to feel it is: Valve failed the two most important tests when it comes to characters.
1. Who are you?
2. Why should I care?
We all run this test automatically for everything we watch, read, and play. You learn the names of all the characters and their relationship to Gordon, but what's never expressed is why you should care. And for all the hype surrounding the "emotional" experience of Half Life 2, Valve misses the point. People care about others who are useful to themselves, not burdens. Every time I had to defend Alyx while she does X, I felt like I was being subject to yet another tired video game cliché. Also, she's invincible. Human life is finite and I'm supposed to care about Alyx... but I know she's never going to die anyway, so why should I care? There's no reason to get emotionally involved in a character who isn't alive and is invulnerable anyway!

And Portal? I don't recall any other games using a similar portal mechanic...

Research Prey and Narbacular Drop to name just two games.

Counter-strike, uh, I don't really care for it. It is the first multiplayer game to really nail the tactical action realm, though. And, it's important because it's one of the first instances where a mod (yes, Counter-strike began as a mod years and years ago) was picked up by professional developers and turned into a retail product.

I know it was a mod... and I don't really care for it, either. Moving along.

It seems that your comments on Left 4 Dead are that elements of the game have been done before. However, Resident Evil Online (???) didn't really set the world on fire and Left 4 Dead sounds like a really innovative take on horror gaming. If what they're promising comes true, it seems like the dynamic enemy placing, team mechanics, and zombie classes will make the game unique.

Just because Resident Evil Online wasn't that popular doesn't mean it wasn't first. And I did mention the HL2 mod, too.

Eggo:

Consistent quality over a range of markedly different games (even though they are largely in the same genre) is innovative.

No, no it's not. That's great that they always make a great game but it is not innovative to make a great game (people have been doing that for a very long time).

i think to understand alot of what Valves games are about, i terms of what they achieve, u need to play with source SDK abit...

In the case of Left 4 Dead, the idea behind L4D came from Counterstrike. Counterstrike had a zombie mod, in the zombie mod you had a few players armed to the teeth and say 20 bots only armed with knifes (and often extra health).

Mike Booth, an AI programmer and boss at Turtle Rock Studios who originally created the bots saw the potential for this and created the idea for the game. 2006 Left 4 Dead is first announced in PC GAMER UK, i remember reading it and it looked and sounded even then like a fantastic idea.

The game slowler came together but because of how well the playtests with the press and public have been going, Turtle Rock decided to join Valve and they have put more development time into the project and in that time they have expanded the game further.

You can simply call it co-op but its like no other co-op game you have played. Its another example of a simple idea and expanded to create something new.

OuroborosChoked:

And Portal? I don't recall any other games using a similar portal mechanic...

Research Prey and Narbacular Drop to name just two games.

Narbacular Drop was created by the design team that Valve took up to create Portal.

And for the record, the main innovation made by Valve in Half Life 1 was believable enemy AI, which was revolutionary in the time when it came out (where enemies would just run straight at you whenever they saw you).

When the point fails, we resort to semantics. Well, if only the creation of a new genre can constitute innovation, than no, VALVe isn't innovative.

If, on the other hand, unprecedented use of physics as an important game mechanic, story presentation unlike what came before, weapons never before seen in games, level designs that advanced the genre by light-years, proper fusion of platforming and FP shooting, pacing that was different and legendary to this day, unprecedented support of the third party and modding communities, adoption of third party creations into the companies offerings, and Gary's Mod are innovative, then so is VALVe.

I know I missed a few things, can anybody that was there help me out?

Is it possible to be innovative within an existing genre? Who is innovative, if not VALVe?

Take a quick look at Team Fortress 2 and how Valve constantly updates and expends on that game with new levels, weaponry, and gamemodes without charging a damned thing. Most developers will shamelessly pack a couple extra features into a box and call it an "expansion" and then expect you to pay for it.

OuroborosChoked:

How exactly is "find the switch that unlocks the door" of Half Life different from the "find the key that unlocks the door" of the ID-esque games, essentially? You're still doing basically the same action. Find A which opens Door B so you can get to area C. In fact, Doom was a whole lot LESS linear than Half Life, anyway. You never have to re-explore any areas in Half Life. It's basically just one long corridor from start to end. I'm not convinced.

You do realise that backtracking is a lazy way of extending a game. HalfLife had many different areas which made you feel like you were in a complex but the areas differed.

Research Prey and Narbacular Drop to name just two games.

Prey's portals were doors on the map. Narbacular Drop was made by the guys who made Portal. The whole team was hired by VALVe.

Just because Resident Evil Online wasn't that popular doesn't mean it wasn't first. And I did mention the HL2 mod, too.

Zombie Panic is NOTHING like L4D. If you die in ZP you are switched to the zombie side, if you die in L4D you have to wait for your friends to rescue you.

Vanguard1219:
Breaking down your argument in the order that you presented it:

* What really made Half-Life 1 innovative was the fact that it had an actual engaging story. Sure, that's commonplace now, but before Half-Life, games like Doom and Quake just focused on killing every living thing and making it to the next level in the game.

* What "portal" mechanic from other games? Most games with, ahem, "portals" were just glorified doors that led to a different room in the map without having to actually put a hole in the wall so you could just walk there. The only thing that comes close are the portals from "Prey", and that's only because you can see through them to know where they lead and objects can pass through them both ways. The portal mechanic in "Portal" focuses heavily on the laws of physics, emphasizing things like continuous forward momentum and the constraints of gravity upon exiting the portal.

* Rainbow Six and Counter-Strike are far from being alike. The only real shared aspect between them is the theme of terrorists against counter terrorists. Team-based objective gameplay aside, the big deal here is that Counter Strike started out as a mod and was later made into a full-fledged retail game, which was an industry first.

* Valve's goal, as far as I can tell, wasn't really to make HL2 an episodic game, it was more about continuing the story of the series without making a "direct" sequel.

* Left 4 Dead is very different from games like Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. There just isn't any room for comparison, and saying that they're alike is pretty damn ignorant. As for Zombie Panic, the only thing in common is zombies. Where Left 4 Dead breaks the mold is that it forces a group of four players to work together to progress through a series of missions. An "AI Director" controls what enemies spawn where and how the environment changes based on the player's performance.

In addition to all that, the Team Fortress franchise pioneered the concept of class-based gameplay in a team game, predating Battlefield 1942 by a few years. Valve has also made the most advanced and effective physics engine the industry currently has to offer, Source.

Finally, there's Steam. Steam has revolutionized the videogame industry by presenting the digital distribution model. Valve was the first company to do it, and it can be argued that they do it the best. With Steam, Valve is also able to give publishing tools to small indie developers, making it easier than ever to get their games out to the people.

Any more questions, or are you good?

You didn't actually agree with or refute any of my points. You just talked about the games and how they weren't the same exact thing as what came before. On Portal, you basically just stated that Portal used portals AND physics. Yeah, and? That's like saying ice cream with sprinkles is completely different from ice cream without sprinkles.

And Left 4 Dead... you disagree, but don't explain why. Zombie Panic has players trying to solve objectives (on certain maps) while fighting against zombies which spawn dynamically, too.

And Steam. Digital distribution... you're heard of Infinium Labs' Phantom console, right? Yes, it wasn't ever made. The whole idea behind the system WAS digital distribution, remember? And it was first announced in 2002! All Valve did was use the idea... and not even all that well. It's gotten a lot better over the years, but it's still pretty glitchy and a bit of a resource hog. Keep in mind, the ONLY reason Valve created Steam was because they were getting screwed by their publisher, Sierra, and didn't want anyone else to publish their games.