Ramblings in Valve Time - Michael Abrash's Valve Blog
(I searched and didn't see anything about this, if I missed it my apologies)
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/
So Michael Abrash has started a blog about the inner workings and goings on inside of Valve Software. I was wondering what you guys thought about this?
I sounds like an absolute dream come true to be in the environment that he describes here. No management scheduled work, creative teams brainstorm and do the projects that they 'want' to do and that they feel they are the best fit for, and lets be honest, IT WORKS.
I admire this company and its people to no end. Since some time around 1999 or early 2000, after finally playing Half Life, I was hooked. Valve is, in my opinion, a beacon of hope for the industry and for gamers.
What do you think it takes to land a job there? I don't think they are looking for the same thing other studios are looking for. It seems to me like, even the best looking and technically sound gears of war esque, heavy metal fantasy or elven archer just isn't what they want to see. They want something different, something fresh. How big of a climb is it to Valve studios?
also, what do you guys think of the apparent sighting of Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), seen leaving Valve the other day?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/13/apple_ceo_tim_cook_spotted_at_valves_gaming_headquarters.html
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/
So Michael Abrash has started a blog about the inner workings and goings on inside of Valve Software. I was wondering what you guys thought about this?
I sounds like an absolute dream come true to be in the environment that he describes here. No management scheduled work, creative teams brainstorm and do the projects that they 'want' to do and that they feel they are the best fit for, and lets be honest, IT WORKS.
I admire this company and its people to no end. Since some time around 1999 or early 2000, after finally playing Half Life, I was hooked. Valve is, in my opinion, a beacon of hope for the industry and for gamers.
What do you think it takes to land a job there? I don't think they are looking for the same thing other studios are looking for. It seems to me like, even the best looking and technically sound gears of war esque, heavy metal fantasy or elven archer just isn't what they want to see. They want something different, something fresh. How big of a climb is it to Valve studios?
also, what do you guys think of the apparent sighting of Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), seen leaving Valve the other day?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/13/apple_ceo_tim_cook_spotted_at_valves_gaming_headquarters.html
Replies
(I am no where near good enough to even think about it)
Valve is kinda like the Disney of games. I know it is my dream to get there one day, maybe when I'm 50, but hey I'm just gonna' keep toying around and having fun until then!
EDIT: On a side note, does anyone have any portfolios or blog links to known valve artists? I'd like to see some of their work, see what sets them apart from the pack. I've seen mr. kites work, and it is AWESOME, and still different then most of the work I've seen. I'd love to see more.
Probably just updating Gabes iPad to the newest model
Yeah Valve are a great company, but they are a million to one unfortunately. Companies look like they have a bright future, they sell out to assholes in suits, then said assholes realise the can't afford to run these studios, fire everyone, and the whole process starts again. While the sell-outs who started the companies are off on yachts somewhere. Hurray!!
Valve need to release more games to make the games industry seem less depressing. :poly117:
I went to their hiring presentations and had long personal 1 on 1 chats with their Art Director and a few others.
Valve is the type of studio that doesn't look for the same things that other studios look for. What they care essentially is more or less to be said "how well do you operate, and what do you do that makes your consumer more than less interested in what you participate in?"
Unlike most gaming studios, its yeah, about the portfolio. Your years of experience, blah blah blah................[same old shi']
With valve, they don't depend on years of experience. But more about the practicality of what experience you have and how you took advantage of the "Feedback" (remember that one...."feedback" you received) while working on what you were working on. How quickly you can iterate one idea and build upon it, and execute it. While not being a cliche' in secret with everything.
Valve is what I would say the "PIXAR" of video game companies of the gaming industry. They do their own thing, and they know from their "smart decisions" and creative "production planning" that money will come to them. Rather than do what has to be done so the money will come.
Valve likes people who think outside the box, and those who can tackle on a few things where possible to be creative and provide feedback and creativity in.
That being said of it all, really the chances of seeing what gets people jobs are not going to get any easier than seeing someone like Minh Le and Jesse Cliff who made Counter-Strike, or Robin Walker and others whom did Team Fortress.
If you can create something that is already done, or brand new. W/O years of experience. But something that captivates an audience. Yeah, Valve will no doubt not overlook you to hire. But sure, if you come from film background, like some of them there are from. Or have a portfolio that shows your taking yourself above the current level. Valve admires stuff like that. Having someone from valve know you well is good, but it doesn't do much difference. People from other studios will say otherwise, but really it's what do you have to offer that makes you great? Can they see it, load it up, play it? get immersed and experienced with it? really simple stuff.
Hope this helps!
Dota 2 is nice, and cs go passable... nothing really good compared to other games. They must give a big jump with their newer titles.
When i look towards korea, i see more quality in productions like lineage eternal or bless, and their teams are not so huge.
Does it? Playing Devil's Advocate, their episodic HL2 model has seen the final chapter MIA for quite some time. EP2 came out five years ago now, and it's been eight years since Half-Life 2. In this sense at least, they've failed quite a few fans - imagine if come 2015 and Mass Effect 3 still had never materialised? Somehow because it's Valve, people are more lenient.
Other than that, the majority of their recent titles have been 'pick-up-titles'; they haven't developed them entirely (or in some cases not the majority) internally. Instead they've taken already existing projects onboard and seen them polished to completion. The last title Valve actually developed internally was Half-Life 2 way back in 2005, or arguably Portal in 2007, although the concept is still derived from a team they acquired.
Those things aside, and no longer playing Devil's Advocate where it clearly doesn't seem to be working is in the tech-side. With no clear direction to develop into, Source as an engine is rapidly becoming ever increasingly redundant. It's asset pipeline was behind the times when it arrived, and now it's just vintage. Source was a rival to CryEngine and Unreal Engine 2 and it's age is long beginning to show; there is only so long you can tack and bolt features onto it before you will need to replace it. There are some fantastic looking Source games arriving recently, but they just don't look as good as they could do, and they only look as good as they do because the art style is in their favour. With Unreal 4 and no doubt other rival engines looming on the horizon, you've got to sit down and question what Valve are going to do meet modern visual demands, because you're not going to see Samaritan running in Source, and you're going to see Source games falling behind in visual fidelity to the incoming console generation.
Clearly valve has many different kind of incomes to have such a long schedule, and it wouldn't hold up anywhere else, I wouldn't say fans have been failed, they just grow ever so more hungry every year.
But do remember how long dragon age was in development and that it looked different before becoming dragon age origins, and the noticable effects of having crammed dragon age 2 in 1.5 years after the first one released, one being much less content and variation at the same price.
There's a lot of people that wouldn't mind if each bioware title got one more year.
They've been technically behind for a very very long time, their games are nearly entirely built up on fantastic artstyle and content, and it has served them well.
In addition to looking absolutely fantastic, it ran insanely fast even on modest computers, and would run faster if they'd fully utilize FXAA or something instead of MSAA. Source games still feature some of the best artwork available, and is up there with top animation. They've got plenty of time to blow on better graphics if it's only taking a few milliseconds per frame.
If you want to see something that looks dated, try looking at games that came out in the same year as HL2.
Because those are dated? I'm not sure how this argument works. HL2 was a good looking game when it came out - but that was eight years ago. That's the same timeframe and implied comparison as Quake to Half-Life 2. I would perhaps suggest that we've seen a comparable level of advancement in 3D rendering across both of those timeframes.
Compare Portal 2 to something that came out at the same time, and it doesn't fare well. Dear Esther is also great, but it still looks quite dated, despite how well they've managed to hide it.
Edit: (people still make great looking games on Quake engine derivatives, but there's still only so far they do go)
Valve will continue to put out great games with awesome art - but there's only so long that they can continue without replacing their tech.
Having said that, Valve has a lot of great programmers on staff so I don't doubt a new engine/tools is in development. They hired a lot of heavy duty graphics guys over the years.
So what I'm getting at? Valve seems to aim to build a long-term customer base and get as many people interested in their products as possible. By keeping their graphics a few years behind, they can sell their games to more than those few gamers with beefed up machines.
On the other hand I do agree that they should upgrade their tech. They could probably achieve some graphical improvements without making their games more demanding. They still seem to rely on BSP's in their levels and that's starting to show. Also, the loading times in their games could use some love and their games could be made to perform even better across different hardware configurations.
They're probably working on something that will surprise us all. They have tons of money to spend on R&D, but knowing Valve we won't know until it's decent and we all had been dead for 10 years.
But you don't get a joke like Valve Time by accident. A business built on complete freedom is awesome... Until your release dates become a running joke. They've unquestionably proven themselves to be the tortoise that wins the race in my eyes... but imagine a Valve without Valve Time.
The company earned my respect a long time ago, and they've obviously been a huge success, so I'm in no position to correct their methods, I just think they still have room to improve in that regard.
I'm excited to see what both the company and this blog bring in the future!
What? Portal 2 looked incredible! Some really nice lighting.
How does this logic hold up, when Unreal Engine 3 has been publicly visible and used for just as long as the Source Engine has?
Upgrading and *Replacing* are different things.
This. Valve has been pretty much just acquiring already-existing titles/concepts. I'm afraid it's going to eventually bloat too much and start careening under the weight of too many creative people doing everything but make games.
Although with a big, fat cushy blank check that is Steam, that may not be for a very long, long time.
i'll take your word for it
[ame="
It took quite some time for them to even get that kind of dynamic shadowing, which is not something new in games.
I never say that portal 2 looked bad, I attributed valves games to their fantastic art.
I agree there, valve can add things to source whenever they feel like it, and that's what they've been doing years, the source back then and the source now are quite different, but source is still not as flexible a toolset as something like UDK.
Epics focus have been on how others can use their engine, engine-licensing was never valves focus.
Unreal 3 is also actively being replaced, we've known this for some time. If UE4 is to UE3 what UE3 was to UE2, how is Source supposed to hold up to that?
There's only so long you can bolt-on features to an engine that wasn't originally built to support them. Valve need some new tech if they're going to remain competitive.
Well that's the thing, people can use unreal engine 3 all the want, but valve will still win due to making actual better games.
There has been nothing indicating that less people are buying valves games because of a lacking engine, most people don't care at all, and even more people keep praising source engine still.
But again, in short: It doesn't really matter as long as valve can get the job done and make a really good game.
It's just the same as with people saying that dx9 is holding back games visually.
I highly disagree. The Source Engine is a nightmare to work with even when you know what you're doing. It's also near impossible to do a large outdoor map with Source without taking shortcuts. And you can forget large sandbox levels. Portal, L4D, and HL2 all rely heavily on stages that fold inwards on each other. When it comes to play space, IIRC, UE3 supports a few dozen of what the Source Engine offers. Then there's the simple fact it bakes lighting NOTORIOUSLY slow and suffers from 'leaks' if you don't seal the level perfectly... So yea, they make do with what they have, of course. But I think the limitations that the Source engine imposes are becoming more than a tad out dated and inconvenient.
While it's true that a lot of the artist frontend stuff, physics and the renderer were hugely overhauled, a lot of the behind the scenes stuff that handles the actual gameplay is ancient and unbelievably buggy. Unrealscript has not been overhauled. It's been extended and bolted onto but it still has the same parsing bugs and often nonsensical design it did years and years ago, just more.
Try putting spaces around the equals in a Begin Object statement for a kickoff. Also note how DefaultProperties works on a VB syntax with horrid parsing while the rest of the language is a little more robust and works on curly brace. If there ever was a direction to it, it's gone now.
Oh, and it's single threaded. Thankfully there's enough going on to use up other cores now but when there's 16+ CPU cores?
I'm hoping UE4 throws out UnrealScript. The renderer is fantastic as it is with Lightmass, etc. and the materials editor is an ingenious way to expose the power of HLSL/GLSL.
Most of my frustrating with Source comes from their refusal to be all things to all people like Epic or Unity who depend largely on having a lot of features that they might never use. Valve makes games and updates Source as necessary. Epic makes an engine and creates games almost as a secondary function to promote the engine. Both seem to be good business models that work out pretty well.
Source is really good at making content that is fairly similar to what Valve has already created if you want to use it to make something completely different its not going to work out so well. For example if you tried to use source to release a 2D side scroller or a RTS game on mobile it's going to be pretty tricky to pull off.
By only focusing on the things Valve needs to improve to make the games they are working on, they don't waste time and resources on things they won't ever use or could be quickly outdated and need to be maintained. They update only what is necessary and only what is what is pertinent to their games.
Still that hasn't stopped them from making some of the best games the industry has ever produced. So if they are using the same tools they release to the public, I can only call them geniuses.
1) The asset pipeline is really a big hassle. Maybe I'm not doing it right but I went through a period of time where I wanted to do a custom L4D2 level with new assets and I just threw in the towel Getting custom meshes and materials into that engine is like pulling teeth.
2) Say what you will about UnrealScript, content creators using Unreal will be almost entirely working in Kismet - which is something Source has no equivalent to. Unless there's something I don't see, it looks like all game logic and level specific stuff is still done via entities triggering each other which is a very dated concept.
It's true that they still produce great games ... but I feel that they do that in spite of their tools, not because of them.
UnrealScript is completely optional, it's just a script layer on top of C++ code. It's generally used for gameplay code that doesn't need to be exceptionally quick, and it's the best place to store data structures / values since it offers very short iteration times; building a large unrealscript package takes around 30 seconds or less. Compiling the binary (Epic why you no DLLs???) every time takes quite a few minutes. Back in the day (~2006ish), making significant native code changes was absolutely laborious as a build could take upwards of fifteen minutes, and a nasty header change would often mean it takes double that.
If you need more than one core for your basic gameplay code, you're doing it very, very wrong. UnrealScript and UE3 doesn't give a shit about 16+ CPU cores because no current consumer hardware has more than four or six (eight with hyperthreading), and because consoles don't either. Yes, Xeons like the one I work on go all the way up to twelve physical cores, but that CPU costs $4000 a piece and isn't exactly consumer hardware.
It'll still be there, but it's role will be increasingly diminished (it'll still be used for things like data structures, for sure). I fully expect a composite DLL based solution instead of a single monolithic binary for a number of reasons (for example patching issues, iteration times that kind of thing).
Source is a tricky one, but once you get a workflow that works for you the troubles disappear quickly. They have a whole bunch of tools we don't have for getting models from 3D software into Source as well.
Regarding comments about Episode 3... Hopefully they'll say something, anything, at E3. I know they ditched the episodic style with episode 2 so chances are it's a much longer game, but I really feel they should have at least said something by now. Not a release estimate, not a proper status report, just something. Instead every time they're asked they just say nothing, quite unfair to fans
Ever since Valve got burned with the whole knowingly-fobbed HL2 release date fiasco, they've understandably turtled up in PR; what I don't understand is why can't they see that swinging in the entirely opposite end of the PR spectrum may be just as detrimental.
I think my dream job location just changed today. Valve, it may take me a few years, but you're exactly what I'm thirsting for.