Half-Life 3 is in the Final Phase of Development – Rumour

100% it's coming with the Steam Machine. Been saying this the moment that device was announced.
Oh you mean as a bundle? Yeah sure, I can see that.

Will be weird to have their flagship title, one of the most anticipated games of all time, be running at a mere 60fps with medium settings at an upscaled resolution though lol.
 
Last edited:
Oh you mean as a bundle? Yeah sure, I can see that.

Will be weird to have their flagship title, one of the most anticipated games of all time, be running at a mere 60fps with medium settings at an upscaled resolution though lol.
So now 60FPS is not good anymore?

Also, this isn't Unreal 5, this will prob be a tailored made engine and prob very optimized.
 
So now 60FPS is not good anymore?

Also, this isn't Unreal 5, this will prob be a tailored made engine and prob very optimized.
It's 100% Source 2 engine with some upgrades.
So it should run well even on older hardware.
I just hope we get some extra eye candy for better than steam machine hardware, like more or better RT.
 
So now 60FPS is not good anymore?

Also, this isn't Unreal 5, this will prob be a tailored made engine and prob very optimized.
I mean on TV it's fine I guess but that's literally the bare minimum these days. 144hz monitors are so ubiquitous that I suspect most expect to run their games at least at 120fps or above.

UE5 isn't an excuse either, I run Arc Raiders on high settings at 130-165fps on 1440p. Granted that's with FSR 4 but considering how sharp the game still looks and how minimal the visual impact is overall I'm very happy with that. I'd go to native AA and dial back some settings if it meant I had to use FSR 3 or lower though, that shits ass.
 
I mean on TV it's fine I guess but that's literally the bare minimum these days. 144hz monitors are so ubiquitous that I suspect most expect to run their games at least at 120fps or above.

UE5 isn't an excuse either, I run Arc Raiders on high settings at 130-165fps on 1440p. Granted that's with FSR 4 but considering how sharp the game still looks and how minimal the visual impact is overall I'm very happy with that. I'd go to native AA and dial back some settings if it meant I had to use FSR 3 or lower though, that shits ass.
The huge majority of folks are completely fine with 60 FPS as it's smooth enough for most people and most people still uses 1080P anyway.
 
So now 60FPS is not good anymore?

Also, this isn't Unreal 5, this will prob be a tailored made engine and prob very optimized.
For real, most people don't give a crap about 4K or 120 FPS , 240 FPS or whatever. 60 FPS would be fine for a huge percentages of people whether it's on tv or a monitor. And most people would be fine with med settings as long as the game looks great enough and aren't worried about upping up every possible setting to the max either.
 
I actually thought that Alyx lived up to the hype... it could have been called HL3 and it wouldn't bother me. It was a gigantic leap in the experience of that universe, and absolutely incredible in its polish and attention to detail.
Yeah Half Life Alyx looks amazing and I think it'll be good enough to most if Half Life 3 looks like that graphic wise. Besides the graphics better way better than part 2. They also have more vibrant colors to them making it seem like a mix of 1 and 2. Half Life 3 is guaranteed to be both vr and non VR too in order to get the majority of the players in. So it's going to be a giant success.
 
For real, most people don't give a crap about 4K or 120 FPS , 240 FPS or whatever. 60 FPS would be fine for a huge percentages of people whether it's on tv or a monitor. And most people would be fine with med settings as long as the game looks great enough and aren't worried about upping up every possible setting to the max either.
To be fair, most people don't even have a high refresh rate monitor. Worst of all, many believe (after experiencing > 100 FPS on a 60Hz screen) there's won't be any difference even if their monitor was 120Hz+, and thus they refuse to upgrade, sometimes spreading nonsense online, claiming they're right and that the people with high refresh monitors were brainwashed.
 
To be fair, most people don't even have a high refresh rate monitor. Worst of all, many believe (after experiencing > 100 FPS on a 60Hz screen) there's won't be any difference even if their monitor was 120Hz+, and thus they refuse to upgrade, sometimes spreading nonsense online, claiming they're right and that the people with high refresh monitors were brainwashed.
I think everyone or at least a lot of people could tell the difference between 60 fps and higher fps just like people could tell the differences between 1080p and 4k.

It's just a big percent don't care for it as 60fps is more than enough for most people, same with 1080p and 1440p.

1080p is the most used and is just recently moving towards 1440p. Even in 5 years, I doubt 4k monitors would become the majority perhaps in another decade. But 60fps would be fine for most still even a decade or more from now.
 
Last edited:
If it doesn't get announced this year it'll be another clear sign to never trust any of these "Insider claims", and if Valve releasing their own system isn't motivation enough to reveal HL3 (which they always said they used to push medium forward) nothing ever will be
 
Top Bottom