This is an interesting take, especially coming from a non-gaming focused tech website like Ars Technica. I feel like it’s been too long since people were truly hyped about half life 3 though, and this wouldn’t be enough, even if Valve did go through with it.
People are increasingly unhappy with windows though, and the EoL of windows 10 may push people to Linux anyways.
It won’t suck because Valve playtests the hell out of their games, but it might be bland/old fashioned feeling. The biggest issue with Valve is that they’ve really lost their edge. They used to be this young scrappy company that would innovate as easily as breathe, but over time they’ve begun to become so senior-heavy that now they just foster promising talents more than actually produce games.
Would be described as sucking by many
A competent, fun-to-play game that does nothing new doesn’t suck IMO, thus the distinction.
Saying anything that doesn’t do something new or exciting sucks is a pretty bad take IMO.
Like you wouldn’t say a new horror movie sucks just because it’s about a serial killer holding a family captive in their house and there’s like 50 movies with that premise already, y’know? Execution counts and Valve is still amazing at execution, is my main point. They would absolutely make a fun game that feels intuitive to play with great level design. It just might not necessarily be anything special in terms of mechanics. Mechanically I haven’t seen much new from them since maybe Portal 2.
Lol perfect classic example of something I would say sucks for the exact reason you named