I must say that that actually surprises me a bit. NS, if I remember correctly, was very VERY popular in its hay day and was (dare I say it) revolutionary for its time. I'm surprised Valve didn't bring you guys in to their fold like they did the Team Fortress and CS guys... Not that I'm complaining :)
<!--quoteo(post=1769993:date=May 6 2010, 06:23 PM:name=cmc5788)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cmc5788 @ May 6 2010, 06:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1769993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry but popularity disagrees with you. Majority rules, and whatever your elitist ideas of what makes a game challenging or skillful or worthwhile are, they clearly don't always translate into sales.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By that standard, MW2 is the best game ever made and all Map Packs should cost $15 and only give you 3 new maps, and 2 maps copied over from a previous title with no additions whatsoever. :rolleyes:
If you are going to suggest that Half-Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, and all recent Valve games are anything other than big success (according to critics, and sales, they are)...please provide some real criticisms. Saying that Left 4 Dead was a beta (game was actually very bug free at launch), or that Team Fortress 2 has no skill ceiling (the competitive community would say otherwise), is just flame baiting. The TF2 one is very commonly heard from TFC players that are mad that Valve decided not to recreate a dated game, and instead went and made a very unique, different experience that forces players to use teamwork and not just spam grenades.
By any measure, Valve is one of the most successful PC developers ever, second perhaps only to Blizzard. Their games and Steam are a huge component of this, without which, PC gaming as a whole would be deeply troubled with no unifying structure. Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.
<!--quoteo(post=1770121:date=May 7 2010, 08:08 PM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 7 2010, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you are going to suggest that Half-Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, and all recent Valve games are anything other than big success (according to critics, and sales, they are)...please provide some real criticisms. Saying that Left 4 Dead was a beta (game was actually very bug free at launch), or that Team Fortress 2 has no skill ceiling (the competitive community would say otherwise), is just flame baiting. The TF2 one is very commonly heard from TFC players that are mad that Valve decided not to recreate a dated game, and instead went and made a very unique, different experience that forces players to use teamwork and not just spam grenades.
By any measure, Valve is one of the most successful PC developers ever, second perhaps only to Blizzard. Their games and Steam are a huge component of this, without which, PC gaming as a whole would be deeply troubled with no unifying structure. Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Successful =/= Great games...
Again, if this were true, MW2 would be the best game of all time.
<!--quoteo(post=1770158:date=May 7 2010, 08:48 PM:name=Shamtree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shamtree @ May 7 2010, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770158"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Too bad that's not what competitive TFC was like at all, and required more coherent teamwork than TF2 could ever require.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you ever played competitive Team Fortress 2? I have and it requires as much skill as any other game and leaps and bounds more teamwork than Team Fortress Classic or any classic Team Fortress game like Fortress Forever. The game's inherent mechanics require it, with the game focusing around the building of ubercharges and then the subsequent pushes, defenses, and counterattacks. It's a back and forth struggle that requires perfect synergy between players to succeed at the upper tiers of competition. Older Team Fortress games play much differently, without a Medic that is actually a Medic.
The only people who dismiss Team Fortress 2 as a casual game are the people who can't see past the stylized art direction, lack of grenades, and slower paced movement. No, 32 man 24/7 2fort servers are not a competitive experience. But neither is a public game of Call of Duty 4, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress Classic.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, if this were true, MW2 would be the best game of all time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In video games, more than any other entertainment medium, great quality usually leads to great sales. This is not the movie industry where Transformers 2 makes $800M at the worldwide box office. There are of course exceptions to this rule, you listed one of them. But at the same time, the vast majority of gamers, hardcore and casual alike, would list Valve's games as some of the greatest of all time. This is not to be dismissed. You represent a minority. Half-Life is considered to be the game that brought storytelling into the forefront of games, away from trashy non-existent stories like in Quake. Half-Life 2 expanded on this by providing a unique and interesting setting, along with a believable and likable AI character unlike any other, Alyx. She alone is a milestone in gaming. Team Fortress 2 has also made a huge impact by successfully implementing 9 completely different gameplay styles into one package, a balanced and beautiful package as well. On top of that it has redefined what Downloadable Content should be. It has more tripled, even quadrupled the number of initial maps, and added dozens of new weapons that change the game in significant ways, all for free. Portal is a stroke of genius, with a creative gameplay mechanic, captivating story, and some of the wittiest black humor in any medium. Then there's Left 4 Dead, which is truly the pinnacle of co-op gaming, creating a system where you are not just encouraged to stay with your teammates, but you HAVE to in order to survive or the zombie hordes will devour you. You can't forget that it has created 8 wonderful, likable characters that all join you on your journey. Other co-op games pale by comparison. I know that most gamers would agree with me on all these points, whether its your average Steam user, or your most seasoned hardcore game critic. Valve's impact and quality is undeniable.
Somehow I think all of you wanting to see Natural Selection 2 be a great success, and Unknown World's success alone, not Valve's...is how should I put it...making you hostile? If my hunch is right, then that's fine, this game should be Unknown Worlds. Valve did not conceive it and should not get credit for it.
I also think Charlie, Max, Matt and Cory are all probably fans of Valve too. Am I right?
<!--quoteo(post=1770247:date=May 8 2010, 03:36 PM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 8 2010, 03:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only people who dismiss Team Fortress 2 as a casual game are the people who can't see past the stylized art direction, lack of grenades, and slower paced movement. No, 32 man 24/7 2fort servers are not a competitive experience. But neither is a public game of Call of Duty 4, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress Classic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHHsG1fTM-s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHHsG1fTM-s</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1770247:date=May 8 2010, 05:36 AM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 8 2010, 05:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also think Charlie, Max, Matt and Cory are all probably fans of Valve too. Am I right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1770247:date=May 8 2010, 01:36 AM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 8 2010, 01:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have you ever played competitive Team Fortress 2? I have and it requires as much skill as any other game and leaps and bounds more teamwork than Team Fortress Classic or any classic Team Fortress game like Fortress Forever. The game's inherent mechanics require it, with the game focusing around the building of ubercharges and then the subsequent pushes, defenses, and counterattacks. It's a back and forth struggle that requires perfect synergy between players to succeed at the upper tiers of competition. Older Team Fortress games play much differently, without a Medic that is actually a Medic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because a game has and requires teamwork mechanics to succeed, doesn't automatically mean it requires much more teamwork than other team games. TFC and CS both require a tremendous amount of teamwork without any mechanics forcing you to use them besides being on the same team. I will concede that they all do require teamwork, just different kinds of teamwork, along with different skill levels. TF2 requiring 'leaps and bounds' more teamwork than TFC is just ridiculous, though.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only people who dismiss Team Fortress 2 as a casual game are the people who can't see past the stylized art direction, lack of grenades, and slower paced movement. No, 32 man 24/7 2fort servers are not a competitive experience. But neither is a public game of Call of Duty 4, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress Classic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Weren't you the one who stated that TFC was just 'grenade spam'. If you're going to complain about people dismissing TF2 because of what it generally looks like in pubs, then don't dismiss TFC because of the same thing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In video games, more than any other entertainment medium, great quality usually leads to great sales. This is not the movie industry where Transformers 2 makes $800M at the worldwide box office. There are of course exceptions to this rule, you listed one of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You state that the video game industry places more emphasis on great games usually leading to great sales, yet you then state MW2 is an exception to the rule. How does Transformers 2 not apply as the 'exception to the rule' in the movie industry. Does the Halo series apply to this as well? What about WoW? Doesn't this just mean that whatever caters to the majority gives great sales? I would say that Valve is the exception to the rule of 'cater to the majority = great sales' by actually making their games decent as well. The majority of gamers have tastes that a significant minority would say is bad (like some on this forum), so what defines quality? The use of the word quality is just too ambiguous.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But at the same time, the vast majority of gamers, hardcore and casual alike, would list Valve's games as some of the greatest of all time. This is not to be dismissed. You represent a minority.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just like how this minority, including you, judges MW2 to be crap? I don't think I care about what the majority views to be great games, and I'd say quite a few on this forum don't care either.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Half-Life is considered to be the game that brought storytelling into the forefront of games, away from trashy non-existent stories like in Quake.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In FPS games, not games in general. There were games in other genres that did this before Half-Life.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Half-Life 2 expanded on this by providing a unique and interesting setting, along with a believable and likable AI character unlike any other, Alyx. She alone is a milestone in gaming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The HL fanbase is actually pretty divided on whether HL2's more open setting was good or not (and whether the entire game was a worthy successor or not). Valve releasing episodic content after HL2 really didn't help, either. As to Alyx being a milestone in gaming... what?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Team Fortress 2 has also made a huge impact by successfully implementing 9 completely different gameplay styles into one package, a balanced and beautiful package as well. On top of that it has redefined what Downloadable Content should be. It has more tripled, even quadrupled the number of initial maps, and added dozens of new weapons that change the game in significant ways, all for free.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will agree that TF2 did fix some issues in TF/TFC, but Valve cannot take all the credit for the 9 different gameplay styles. As to the updates in TF2, frivolous cosmetic items are pretty much the forefront of most DLC, Valve just made them free. Most of those maps were from the community, and most aren't really played except in leagues. Some of the additional weapons just pissed off the community, though I do agree some of them did actually give new styles in gameplay. If it really has redefined what DLC is, then why can't Valve apply it to the Left 4 Dead franchise competently?
I'm not saying that Valve is a bad game development company, they are actually pretty good, especially when most other game developers are just horrible and overrun by their publishers. I just think many give them too much credit, and they have screwed up in the past. I would rather UWE have complete control over their game since they have no reason to become affiliated with Valve, but this really isn't an issue.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because a game has and requires teamwork mechanics to succeed, doesn't automatically mean it requires much more teamwork than other team games. TFC and CS both require a tremendous amount of teamwork without any mechanics forcing you to use them besides being on the same team. I will concede that they all do require teamwork, just different kinds of teamwork, along with different skill levels. TF2 requiring 'leaps and bounds' more teamwork than TFC is just ridiculous, though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is just my opinion from my experience with all of these games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Weren't you the one who stated that TFC was just 'grenade spam'. If you're going to complain about people dismissing TF2 because of what it generally looks like in pubs, then don't dismiss TFC because of the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this discussion really isn't about TFC vs. TF2...although, if you would like to have that debate, I'm certainly not opposed to it. I don't have a problem with TFC. But I do have a problem with people insulting TF2 out of miscplaced anger that Valve didn't make a game catered to their niche audience. If TFC is such a transcendent game that is far superior to TF2 (as many would try to suggest), then why is Fortress Forever such a stunning failure of a mod? It's graphics are fine, it's gameplay is only an improvement on TFC's without changing much, and there are plenty of good maps.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You state that the video game industry places more emphasis on great games usually leading to great sales, yet you then state MW2 is an exception to the rule. How does Transformers 2 not apply as the 'exception to the rule' in the movie industry. Does the Halo series apply to this as well? What about WoW? Doesn't this just mean that whatever caters to the majority gives great sales? I would say that Valve is the exception to the rule of 'cater to the majority = great sales' by actually making their games decent as well. The majority of gamers have tastes that a significant minority would say is bad (like some on this forum), so what defines quality? The use of the word quality is just too ambiguous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let me find you some statistics. Since the only real concrete facts we can use are public score voting, press reviews, and sales...we will have to go with that. For this I will use Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo.
Here were the top movies in 2007: Spider-Man 3 - $336M Shrek the Third - $322M Transformers - $319M
Among top critics, these movies scored 42%, 49%, and 69% respectively. I think what we have here is a disconnect, where the critics see these movies as average and the average movie goer doesn't care.
In video games, this disconnect does not exist. Gamers interests and critics interests are often the same, and a game's success or failure can be determined by reviews. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV is the top reviewed Xbox 360 game of all time, and also one of the best selling. But not all AAA titles make a profit, as in the movie industry where a seemingly bad movie with lots of special effects makes a lot of money (G.I. Joe), like Bionic Commando, which had a lot of hype but failed to make money because it was sunk by a relatively low metacritic score of 70.
My opinion on why Modern Warfare 2 represents an exception to this rule is because it is the sequel to a very good game, Call of Duty 4, that had a metacritic score in the low 90s on all the major platform. Critics liked it, gamers liked it, and lots and lots of people bought it. By any measure, Call of Duty 4 is a great game. Modern Warfare 2 comes out and everyone buys it initially because there is no real way of telling how it might differ in quality. The metacritic score on the PC does reflect a dip in quality though, with an 8 point drop from Call of Duty 4. So critics didn't care for it as much, but gamers who were caught up in the hype bought it anyway. Ultimately though, it seems they may not have liked it because it as a user score of 3.5. This is uncommon. The best selling games of all times score better than this.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just like how this minority, including you, judges MW2 to be crap? I don't think I care about what the majority views to be great games, and I'd say quite a few on this forum don't care either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is the majority's opinion any less valid than yours? When the majority of gamers say Half-Life 2 is one of the greatest games of all times, there is something to be said about that. Like I said, this is not the movie industry where bad products do well. Only the best succeed in video games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The HL fanbase is actually pretty divided on whether HL2's more open setting was good or not (and whether the entire game was a worthy successor or not). Valve releasing episodic content after HL2 really didn't help, either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree, the Half-Life fanbase is not divided. This is not an issue of contention, Half-Life 2 is as good as Half-Life 1. I will again use statistics. Half-Life 2 matches Half-Life 1 with a metascore of 96, and a user score that is .2 higher at 9.3. Perhaps the fans think it is better?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As to Alyx being a milestone in gaming... what?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand how you are confused on this issue, but yes, Alyx is a milestone in gaming. She is a huge step forward in realistic and believable AI companions in a video game. She's a three dimensional character that the player actually cares about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I will agree that TF2 did fix some issues in TF/TFC, but Valve cannot take all the credit for the 9 different gameplay styles. As to the updates in TF2, frivolous cosmetic items are pretty much the forefront of most DLC, Valve just made them free. Most of those maps were from the community, and most aren't really played except in leagues. Some of the additional weapons just pissed off the community, though I do agree some of them did actually give new styles in gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valve has added 12 maps to TF2 of their own creation, tripling the original amount. They have also added 26 new weapons. If you can name any FPS multiplayer game that can match that, I would be very interested to hear about it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it really has redefined what DLC is, then why can't Valve apply it to the Left 4 Dead franchise competently?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Left 4 Dead really has nothing to do with Team Fortress 2, but they have actually added quite a bit of free content to both Left 4 Dead games.
I had a post prepared earlier, but ironically Shamtree said everything I was about to. Wisp you haven't been around long enough - that's what makes the majority useless: experience. Most lack it. This is not a new theme, critics, buffs, pundits, they exist in every industry <b>in the minority</b> yet their taste and expertise is much more valued than the majority because it contains clout and wisdom. And the game industry has exactly become hollywood along with every mainstream culture since gaming - and geek culture in generally - had been accepted as "cool" around the console boom in '05.
As for DLC, if I sell you a buggy beta, then add a map does that make my game suddenly "great"? Go google the promises Lombardi sold L4D on: constant updates as in TF2 (yeah right, where's the 199 updates for L4D?), new maps, modes and weapons (survivor and two pathetic maps since the release of the game, that's it?) and a slew of many other things that were never implemented, only sold as ideas and empty promises further proving the once-honest gaming industry with once-honest companies like Valve is falling prey to the wiley, slimy tactics of suits and politicians.
<!--quoteo(post=1770506:date=May 9 2010, 06:09 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ May 9 2010, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770506"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for DLC, if I sell you a buggy beta, then add a map does that make my game suddenly "great"? Go google the promises Lombardi sold L4D on: constant updates as in TF2 (yeah right, where's the 199 updates for L4D?), new maps, modes and weapons (survivor and two pathetic maps since the release of the game, that's it?) and a slew of many other things that were never implemented, only sold as ideas and empty promises further proving the once-honest gaming industry with once-honest companies like Valve is falling prey to the wiley, slimy tactics of suits and politicians.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that I'm saying you're lieing but you got those articles for the L4D theory? Would be nice to read them, find it interesting that L4D was promised with constant updates as I always assumed it was just free DLC but more often than once a year.
Also Team Fortress 2 has recently had a 119th update, not 199th.
<!--quoteo(post=1770517:date=May 9 2010, 02:13 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ May 9 2010, 02:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770517"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not that I'm saying you're lieing but you got those articles for the L4D theory? Also Team Fortress 2 has recently had a 119th update, not 199th.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What's 119 and 199 compared to 5 or 6? They're not articles on lies but rather articles that contain lies from the L4D devs that the L4D2 boycott community dug up on L4D2's announcement. They mostly include interviews with Lombardi and Falisek that contain blatant, flagrant and quite frankly offensive lies. When I was more heavily involved I had a collection of articles on standby but as I don't feel like digging them all up again, I'll simply link this video which (although obviously slanted) does a nice job of collecting all of the lies into one short-length video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQWylFmqnwM&feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQWylFmqnwM...feature=related</a>
Renagade, for someone who claims to be "experienced" (as if having registered on this forum 4 years before means something...), you should know that critics, who do generally have more clout and wisdom than the mainstream, almost always like the best selling games. Well reviewed games sell well. This is not the case with movies, books, and music always. It's a different medium and in this case, praise for Valve is almost unanimous.
You represent a small minority whose sense of entitlement and cynicism is disgusting. I'm sorry, but the whole Left 4 Dead 2 boycott was a joke. You can try and dismiss the Left 4 Dead 1 DLC, but it was free content and it's a lot more than your average game gets. What percentage of FPS multiplayer games get free maps? 25%? Anyone who actually owns Left 4 Dead 2 knows that its a great game and is actually deserving of being a sequel. It changes the original game in significant ways that would not have worked as DLC. And now, a few months later, we've gotten a whole new campaign, 2 new weapons, a new infected type, multiple new game modes, and there is more on the way. And guess what? They are even releasing more Left 4 Dead 1 content...FOR FREE!
If you knew anything about Valve, you would know that all creative decisions are made collectively. All of the Left 4 Dead 1 developers got together and <i>chose</i> to make Left 4 Dead 2. It was not an evil cash hungry mandate by Gabe Newell. Doug Lombardy, who doesn't develop the games, was not lying to the public to try and get more sales for Left 4 Dead 1 by saying there would be plenty of DLC. He simply told the public what he thought at the time was going to happen. But then Valve decided to go down a different, perfectly understandable, route. Get over it.
I guess all that Team Fortress 2 content was a rip off, it should have been free DLC for TFC.
You truly are naive if you think I based your lack of experience off a couple numbers in a forum profile. It's obvious in your tone, your posts: firstly if you knew anything about the gaming industry you'd know where to find a real pundit and that most do not as you say "like" the best selling games (let me guess, you think metacritic and IGN are reputable sources?). I've little to gain with those so misinformed they think "free" is the globally utmost boon, with no attention paid to reneged promises and trust at your word. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about Valve knows that it's Gabe, and not some "team" who signs off on all decisions and that it was Gabe (not the whole team) who gave Falisek the go ahead. After that the Left 4 Dead series was almost entirely ex-Turtle Rock's project. As for their saying one thing, doing another... I suppose it makes sense you see no problem with this - mainstream games and two-faced politics are a natural fit.
Just one comment to make on this interesting yet incredibly-off-topic thread.
Was Alyx interesting as a character? Sure. Were there moments that were cool? Definitely. Was she a breakthrough or a milestone? Hell no. Just another AI who's intended purpose is to give the player a warm fuzzy feeling.
<!--quoteo(post=1770531:date=May 9 2010, 09:00 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ May 9 2010, 09:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You truly are naive if you think I based your lack of experience off a couple numbers in a forum profile. It's obvious in your tone, your posts: firstly if you knew anything about the gaming industry you'd know where to find a real pundit and that most do not as you say "like" the best selling games (let me guess, you think metacritic and IGN are reputable sources?). I've little to gain with those so misinformed they think "free" is the globally utmost boon, with no attention paid to reneged promises and trust at your word. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about Valve knows that it's Gabe, and not some "team" who signs off on all decisions and that it was Gabe (not the whole team) who gave Falisek the go ahead. After that the Left 4 Dead series was almost entirely ex-Turtle Rock's project. As for their saying one thing, doing another... I suppose it makes sense you see no problem with this - mainstream games and two-faced politics are a natural fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Learn to argue, buddy. By making assumptions about me you are setting yourself up for embarrassment. I've been playing games for over a decade.
I usually buy my games based off my own impressions from trailers, general review consensus, what I read from players on forums, and the critic I admire most, Chris Remo of Gamasutra. I don't particularly care for IGN.com, but I'm not so elitest that I say they are not reputable or their opinion is some how less than my own or others. Their interests simply do not line up with my own as much as I would like, so I do not listen to them as much as I would do from some other reviewer. Metacritic is pretty reputable...it tracks the scores from every major publication and website. I don't always like how they substitute a score if there is not one, but generally they are a good metric for quality.
Frankly, I don't care at all whether a company is honest or not. They are not an elected official, their job is not to be open and fair. Their job is to make money. I accept that, and if they deliver a quality product at a good price, I will purchase it. Valve does that, and the free content is an added bonus for me. You really don't have any right to criticize them for releasing free content that plenty of gamers would pay for. I usually think their DLC is so good, I would pay for it. Valve has made some of my favorite games of all time, so why should I be upset with them?
I never called into question your length of play. No one can force you to care; care that a company keeps its promise over its profit; that can only come with vested interest/time/etc. Suffice to say many have reason to care and be concerned, about Valve and the state of the industry today; some of those reasons are listed here, some you may have heard elsewhere; whether gamers care or simply take what comes down the pipe is their choice.
As for the topic, I think Cory put it succinctly enough that there's little left to be asked (or worried about) so I'll leave it at that.
<!--quoteo(post=1770121:date=May 7 2010, 07:08 PM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 7 2010, 07:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you are going to suggest that Half-Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, and all recent Valve games are anything other than big success (according to critics, and sales, they are)...please provide some real criticisms. Saying that Left 4 Dead was a beta (game was actually very bug free at launch), or that Team Fortress 2 has no skill ceiling (the competitive community would say otherwise), is just flame baiting. The TF2 one is very commonly heard from TFC players that are mad that Valve decided not to recreate a dated game, and instead went and made a very unique, different experience that forces players to use teamwork and not just spam grenades.
By any measure, Valve is one of the most successful PC developers ever, second perhaps only to Blizzard. Their games and Steam are a huge component of this, without which, PC gaming as a whole would be deeply troubled with no unifying structure. Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1770556:date=May 10 2010, 11:00 AM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ May 10 2010, 11:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770556"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the topic, I think Cory put it succinctly enough that there's little left to be asked (or worried about) so I'll leave it at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Damn I was really looking forward to reading more of this.
<!--quoteo(post=1770121:date=May 7 2010, 07:08 PM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 7 2010, 07:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you are going to suggest that Half-Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, and all recent Valve games are anything other than big success (according to critics, and sales, they are)...please provide some real criticisms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Half-life 2 consisted mostly of cut scenes, dead weight and load screens. When you're having NPCs spewing irrelevant garbage at you and you can't move along, that's a cut scene. If you're driving the car or hovercraft without needing to pay any attention to what you're doing, that's dead weight. The sort of low level combat and navigation in the first hour of the game, that's just dead weight. Every 2 minutes you hit a load screen and have to wait ~20 seconds. The actual game was perhaps 1 hour out of the ~5 hours it took to complete. Movement was clumsy in comparison with HL1, weapon switching was too sluggish to play an interesting part in active combat, enemies were either too weak or too few, ammo was too ubiquitous, weapon spread was too high to differentiate the pistol and SMG from the shotgun. The best feature of HL2 is the engine, it is also the primary reason I bought the game, modability and the existing mod community carried over from HL.
Portal was GOTY, hands down.
Team fortress 2 removes the key components of TFC that makes it enjoyable to play, the grenades and the movement skill. Not even curious enough to try the free weekend, I'd much rather play TFC or fortress forever.
<!--quoteo(post=1770113:date=May 7 2010, 04:51 PM:name=Rehnquist)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rehnquist @ May 7 2010, 04:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770113"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I must say that that actually surprises me a bit. NS, if I remember correctly, was very VERY popular in its hay day and was (dare I say it) revolutionary for its time. I'm surprised Valve didn't bring you guys in to their fold like they did the Team Fortress and CS guys... Not that I'm complaining :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even in NS1 "hayday", it still was far from CS's popularity and even with the aged TFC in decline then, NS1 still struggled to pass it. The main reason why Valve didn't touch it.... I suspect... are legality issues with some of NS1's features. As NS1 fans, we could see the similarities to games like Warcraft (e.g. Onos stomp).
The other deciding issue also was that Valve already had their hands full and a focus on building Steam. IMO, this was their best business decision to date. Even if it were possible for them to release a failed game, they glean so much from the sales and marketing of all the other games thanks to Steam. Even in a down economy, they still have funds flowing in. Not to mention, they've built, hands-down, the best gaming focused social network in the world (which, I'm sure some of the elitists in this thread would argue against).
<!--quoteo(post=1770121:date=May 7 2010, 05:08 PM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 7 2010, 05:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By any measure, Valve is one of the most successful PC developers ever, second perhaps only to Blizzard. Their games and Steam are a huge component of this, without which, PC gaming as a whole would be deeply troubled with no unifying structure. <b>Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although, I agree with many of your defensive arguments, I have to disagree with this last sentence. Valve started out as an unkown developer that released a hit in HL1 on top of a modified Quake 1 engine. Who knew that they'd be where they are today. They're still a growing contender against the likes of Blizzard.
To say that UWE would *never* match Valve's success is pretty doom-and-gloom this early in their business growth. They have yet to deliver NS2, their main title. From the UWE team's perspective, <b>if they believed that last line</b>, then wtf are they doing trying to make NS2? After all, there's no way in hell they could be as successful as Valve... so why try?
Instead, they actually have a vision and a viable business, not to mention an existing fan base already that even put $ down on a game over a year [perhaps even 2 years] before it releases. It's now all on them to actually <b>deliver</b>.
And to the elitists in this thread... <img src="http://homepages.nyu.edu/~kmg357/pictures/xkcd2/xkcd22.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This thread is full of a lot of jibba jabba that I just sorta skim through without putting much thought into.. but i cant help but respond to this statement...
<!--quoteo(post=1770121:date=May 7 2010, 08:08 PM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 7 2010, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how can you say that "as-a-matter-of-fact"?
have you seen the final product? better yet, have you seen the future? no game design company starts designing a game knowing they are going to be the next big thing.
whoever invested money into NS2 did so because they want to see the final product, not because they want another Valve/Blizzard.
Comments
No.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I must say that that actually surprises me a bit. NS, if I remember correctly, was very VERY popular in its hay day and was (dare I say it) revolutionary for its time. I'm surprised Valve didn't bring you guys in to their fold like they did the Team Fortress and CS guys... Not that I'm complaining :)
By that standard, MW2 is the best game ever made and all Map Packs should cost $15 and only give you 3 new maps, and 2 maps copied over from a previous title with no additions whatsoever. :rolleyes:
By any measure, Valve is one of the most successful PC developers ever, second perhaps only to Blizzard. Their games and Steam are a huge component of this, without which, PC gaming as a whole would be deeply troubled with no unifying structure. Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.
Too bad that's not what competitive TFC was like at all, and required more coherent teamwork than TF2 could ever require.
By any measure, Valve is one of the most successful PC developers ever, second perhaps only to Blizzard. Their games and Steam are a huge component of this, without which, PC gaming as a whole would be deeply troubled with no unifying structure. Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Successful =/= Great games...
Again, if this were true, MW2 would be the best game of all time.
<!--quoteo(post=1770158:date=May 7 2010, 08:48 PM:name=Shamtree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shamtree @ May 7 2010, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770158"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Too bad that's not what competitive TFC was like at all, and required more coherent teamwork than TF2 could ever require.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^^ this
I don't think I would give that up either :)
The only people who dismiss Team Fortress 2 as a casual game are the people who can't see past the stylized art direction, lack of grenades, and slower paced movement. No, 32 man 24/7 2fort servers are not a competitive experience. But neither is a public game of Call of Duty 4, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress Classic.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, if this were true, MW2 would be the best game of all time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In video games, more than any other entertainment medium, great quality usually leads to great sales. This is not the movie industry where Transformers 2 makes $800M at the worldwide box office. There are of course exceptions to this rule, you listed one of them. But at the same time, the vast majority of gamers, hardcore and casual alike, would list Valve's games as some of the greatest of all time. This is not to be dismissed. You represent a minority. Half-Life is considered to be the game that brought storytelling into the forefront of games, away from trashy non-existent stories like in Quake. Half-Life 2 expanded on this by providing a unique and interesting setting, along with a believable and likable AI character unlike any other, Alyx. She alone is a milestone in gaming. Team Fortress 2 has also made a huge impact by successfully implementing 9 completely different gameplay styles into one package, a balanced and beautiful package as well. On top of that it has redefined what Downloadable Content should be. It has more tripled, even quadrupled the number of initial maps, and added dozens of new weapons that change the game in significant ways, all for free. Portal is a stroke of genius, with a creative gameplay mechanic, captivating story, and some of the wittiest black humor in any medium. Then there's Left 4 Dead, which is truly the pinnacle of co-op gaming, creating a system where you are not just encouraged to stay with your teammates, but you HAVE to in order to survive or the zombie hordes will devour you. You can't forget that it has created 8 wonderful, likable characters that all join you on your journey. Other co-op games pale by comparison. I know that most gamers would agree with me on all these points, whether its your average Steam user, or your most seasoned hardcore game critic. Valve's impact and quality is undeniable.
Somehow I think all of you wanting to see Natural Selection 2 be a great success, and Unknown World's success alone, not Valve's...is how should I put it...making you hostile? If my hunch is right, then that's fine, this game should be Unknown Worlds. Valve did not conceive it and should not get credit for it.
I also think Charlie, Max, Matt and Cory are all probably fans of Valve too. Am I right?
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHHsG1fTM-s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHHsG1fTM-s</a>
Fail gamers am I right?
Yes.
--Cory
Just because a game has and requires teamwork mechanics to succeed, doesn't automatically mean it requires much more teamwork than other team games. TFC and CS both require a tremendous amount of teamwork without any mechanics forcing you to use them besides being on the same team. I will concede that they all do require teamwork, just different kinds of teamwork, along with different skill levels. TF2 requiring 'leaps and bounds' more teamwork than TFC is just ridiculous, though.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only people who dismiss Team Fortress 2 as a casual game are the people who can't see past the stylized art direction, lack of grenades, and slower paced movement. No, 32 man 24/7 2fort servers are not a competitive experience. But neither is a public game of Call of Duty 4, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress Classic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weren't you the one who stated that TFC was just 'grenade spam'. If you're going to complain about people dismissing TF2 because of what it generally looks like in pubs, then don't dismiss TFC because of the same thing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In video games, more than any other entertainment medium, great quality usually leads to great sales. This is not the movie industry where Transformers 2 makes $800M at the worldwide box office. There are of course exceptions to this rule, you listed one of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You state that the video game industry places more emphasis on great games usually leading to great sales, yet you then state MW2 is an exception to the rule. How does Transformers 2 not apply as the 'exception to the rule' in the movie industry. Does the Halo series apply to this as well? What about WoW? Doesn't this just mean that whatever caters to the majority gives great sales? I would say that Valve is the exception to the rule of 'cater to the majority = great sales' by actually making their games decent as well. The majority of gamers have tastes that a significant minority would say is bad (like some on this forum), so what defines quality? The use of the word quality is just too ambiguous.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But at the same time, the vast majority of gamers, hardcore and casual alike, would list Valve's games as some of the greatest of all time. This is not to be dismissed. You represent a minority.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just like how this minority, including you, judges MW2 to be crap? I don't think I care about what the majority views to be great games, and I'd say quite a few on this forum don't care either.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Half-Life is considered to be the game that brought storytelling into the forefront of games, away from trashy non-existent stories like in Quake.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In FPS games, not games in general. There were games in other genres that did this before Half-Life.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Half-Life 2 expanded on this by providing a unique and interesting setting, along with a believable and likable AI character unlike any other, Alyx. She alone is a milestone in gaming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The HL fanbase is actually pretty divided on whether HL2's more open setting was good or not (and whether the entire game was a worthy successor or not). Valve releasing episodic content after HL2 really didn't help, either. As to Alyx being a milestone in gaming... what?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Team Fortress 2 has also made a huge impact by successfully implementing 9 completely different gameplay styles into one package, a balanced and beautiful package as well. On top of that it has redefined what Downloadable Content should be. It has more tripled, even quadrupled the number of initial maps, and added dozens of new weapons that change the game in significant ways, all for free.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will agree that TF2 did fix some issues in TF/TFC, but Valve cannot take all the credit for the 9 different gameplay styles. As to the updates in TF2, frivolous cosmetic items are pretty much the forefront of most DLC, Valve just made them free. Most of those maps were from the community, and most aren't really played except in leagues. Some of the additional weapons just pissed off the community, though I do agree some of them did actually give new styles in gameplay. If it really has redefined what DLC is, then why can't Valve apply it to the Left 4 Dead franchise competently?
I'm not saying that Valve is a bad game development company, they are actually pretty good, especially when most other game developers are just horrible and overrun by their publishers. I just think many give them too much credit, and they have screwed up in the past. I would rather UWE have complete control over their game since they have no reason to become affiliated with Valve, but this really isn't an issue.
This is just my opinion from my experience with all of these games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Weren't you the one who stated that TFC was just 'grenade spam'. If you're going to complain about people dismissing TF2 because of what it generally looks like in pubs, then don't dismiss TFC because of the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this discussion really isn't about TFC vs. TF2...although, if you would like to have that debate, I'm certainly not opposed to it. I don't have a problem with TFC. But I do have a problem with people insulting TF2 out of miscplaced anger that Valve didn't make a game catered to their niche audience. If TFC is such a transcendent game that is far superior to TF2 (as many would try to suggest), then why is Fortress Forever such a stunning failure of a mod? It's graphics are fine, it's gameplay is only an improvement on TFC's without changing much, and there are plenty of good maps.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You state that the video game industry places more emphasis on great games usually leading to great sales, yet you then state MW2 is an exception to the rule. How does Transformers 2 not apply as the 'exception to the rule' in the movie industry. Does the Halo series apply to this as well? What about WoW? Doesn't this just mean that whatever caters to the majority gives great sales? I would say that Valve is the exception to the rule of 'cater to the majority = great sales' by actually making their games decent as well. The majority of gamers have tastes that a significant minority would say is bad (like some on this forum), so what defines quality? The use of the word quality is just too ambiguous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let me find you some statistics. Since the only real concrete facts we can use are public score voting, press reviews, and sales...we will have to go with that. For this I will use Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo.
Here were the top movies in 2007:
Spider-Man 3 - $336M
Shrek the Third - $322M
Transformers - $319M
Among top critics, these movies scored 42%, 49%, and 69% respectively. I think what we have here is a disconnect, where the critics see these movies as average and the average movie goer doesn't care.
In video games, this disconnect does not exist. Gamers interests and critics interests are often the same, and a game's success or failure can be determined by reviews. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV is the top reviewed Xbox 360 game of all time, and also one of the best selling. But not all AAA titles make a profit, as in the movie industry where a seemingly bad movie with lots of special effects makes a lot of money (G.I. Joe), like Bionic Commando, which had a lot of hype but failed to make money because it was sunk by a relatively low metacritic score of 70.
My opinion on why Modern Warfare 2 represents an exception to this rule is because it is the sequel to a very good game, Call of Duty 4, that had a metacritic score in the low 90s on all the major platform. Critics liked it, gamers liked it, and lots and lots of people bought it. By any measure, Call of Duty 4 is a great game. Modern Warfare 2 comes out and everyone buys it initially because there is no real way of telling how it might differ in quality. The metacritic score on the PC does reflect a dip in quality though, with an 8 point drop from Call of Duty 4. So critics didn't care for it as much, but gamers who were caught up in the hype bought it anyway. Ultimately though, it seems they may not have liked it because it as a user score of 3.5. This is uncommon. The best selling games of all times score better than this.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just like how this minority, including you, judges MW2 to be crap? I don't think I care about what the majority views to be great games, and I'd say quite a few on this forum don't care either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is the majority's opinion any less valid than yours? When the majority of gamers say Half-Life 2 is one of the greatest games of all times, there is something to be said about that. Like I said, this is not the movie industry where bad products do well. Only the best succeed in video games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The HL fanbase is actually pretty divided on whether HL2's more open setting was good or not (and whether the entire game was a worthy successor or not). Valve releasing episodic content after HL2 really didn't help, either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree, the Half-Life fanbase is not divided. This is not an issue of contention, Half-Life 2 is as good as Half-Life 1. I will again use statistics. Half-Life 2 matches Half-Life 1 with a metascore of 96, and a user score that is .2 higher at 9.3. Perhaps the fans think it is better?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As to Alyx being a milestone in gaming... what?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand how you are confused on this issue, but yes, Alyx is a milestone in gaming. She is a huge step forward in realistic and believable AI companions in a video game. She's a three dimensional character that the player actually cares about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I will agree that TF2 did fix some issues in TF/TFC, but Valve cannot take all the credit for the 9 different gameplay styles. As to the updates in TF2, frivolous cosmetic items are pretty much the forefront of most DLC, Valve just made them free. Most of those maps were from the community, and most aren't really played except in leagues. Some of the additional weapons just pissed off the community, though I do agree some of them did actually give new styles in gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valve has added 12 maps to TF2 of their own creation, tripling the original amount. They have also added 26 new weapons. If you can name any FPS multiplayer game that can match that, I would be very interested to hear about it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it really has redefined what DLC is, then why can't Valve apply it to the Left 4 Dead franchise competently?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Left 4 Dead really has nothing to do with Team Fortress 2, but they have actually added quite a bit of free content to both Left 4 Dead games.
As for DLC, if I sell you a buggy beta, then add a map does that make my game suddenly "great"? Go google the promises Lombardi sold L4D on: constant updates as in TF2 (yeah right, where's the 199 updates for L4D?), new maps, modes and weapons (survivor and two pathetic maps since the release of the game, that's it?) and a slew of many other things that were never implemented, only sold as ideas and empty promises further proving the once-honest gaming industry with once-honest companies like Valve is falling prey to the wiley, slimy tactics of suits and politicians.
Not that I'm saying you're lieing but you got those articles for the L4D theory? Would be nice to read them, find it interesting that L4D was promised with constant updates as I always assumed it was just free DLC but more often than once a year.
Also Team Fortress 2 has recently had a 119th update, not 199th.
What's 119 and 199 compared to 5 or 6?
They're not articles on lies but rather articles that contain lies from the L4D devs that the L4D2 boycott community dug up on L4D2's announcement. They mostly include interviews with Lombardi and Falisek that contain blatant, flagrant and quite frankly offensive lies. When I was more heavily involved I had a collection of articles on standby but as I don't feel like digging them all up again, I'll simply link this video which (although obviously slanted) does a nice job of collecting all of the lies into one short-length video:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQWylFmqnwM&feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQWylFmqnwM...feature=related</a>
You represent a small minority whose sense of entitlement and cynicism is disgusting. I'm sorry, but the whole Left 4 Dead 2 boycott was a joke. You can try and dismiss the Left 4 Dead 1 DLC, but it was free content and it's a lot more than your average game gets. What percentage of FPS multiplayer games get free maps? 25%? Anyone who actually owns Left 4 Dead 2 knows that its a great game and is actually deserving of being a sequel. It changes the original game in significant ways that would not have worked as DLC. And now, a few months later, we've gotten a whole new campaign, 2 new weapons, a new infected type, multiple new game modes, and there is more on the way. And guess what? They are even releasing more Left 4 Dead 1 content...FOR FREE!
If you knew anything about Valve, you would know that all creative decisions are made collectively. All of the Left 4 Dead 1 developers got together and <i>chose</i> to make Left 4 Dead 2. It was not an evil cash hungry mandate by Gabe Newell. Doug Lombardy, who doesn't develop the games, was not lying to the public to try and get more sales for Left 4 Dead 1 by saying there would be plenty of DLC. He simply told the public what he thought at the time was going to happen. But then Valve decided to go down a different, perfectly understandable, route. Get over it.
I guess all that Team Fortress 2 content was a rip off, it should have been free DLC for TFC.
Was Alyx interesting as a character? Sure. Were there moments that were cool? Definitely. Was she a breakthrough or a milestone? Hell no. Just another AI who's intended purpose is to give the player a warm fuzzy feeling.
Learn to argue, buddy. By making assumptions about me you are setting yourself up for embarrassment. I've been playing games for over a decade.
I usually buy my games based off my own impressions from trailers, general review consensus, what I read from players on forums, and the critic I admire most, Chris Remo of Gamasutra. I don't particularly care for IGN.com, but I'm not so elitest that I say they are not reputable or their opinion is some how less than my own or others. Their interests simply do not line up with my own as much as I would like, so I do not listen to them as much as I would do from some other reviewer. Metacritic is pretty reputable...it tracks the scores from every major publication and website. I don't always like how they substitute a score if there is not one, but generally they are a good metric for quality.
Frankly, I don't care at all whether a company is honest or not. They are not an elected official, their job is not to be open and fair. Their job is to make money. I accept that, and if they deliver a quality product at a good price, I will purchase it. Valve does that, and the free content is an added bonus for me. You really don't have any right to criticize them for releasing free content that plenty of gamers would pay for. I usually think their DLC is so good, I would pay for it. Valve has made some of my favorite games of all time, so why should I be upset with them?
As for the topic, I think Cory put it succinctly enough that there's little left to be asked (or worried about) so I'll leave it at that.
By any measure, Valve is one of the most successful PC developers ever, second perhaps only to Blizzard. Their games and Steam are a huge component of this, without which, PC gaming as a whole would be deeply troubled with no unifying structure. Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This ^
Also, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.
Damn I was really looking forward to reading more of this.
Half-life 2 consisted mostly of cut scenes, dead weight and load screens. When you're having NPCs spewing irrelevant garbage at you and you can't move along, that's a cut scene. If you're driving the car or hovercraft without needing to pay any attention to what you're doing, that's dead weight. The sort of low level combat and navigation in the first hour of the game, that's just dead weight. Every 2 minutes you hit a load screen and have to wait ~20 seconds. The actual game was perhaps 1 hour out of the ~5 hours it took to complete. Movement was clumsy in comparison with HL1, weapon switching was too sluggish to play an interesting part in active combat, enemies were either too weak or too few, ammo was too ubiquitous, weapon spread was too high to differentiate the pistol and SMG from the shotgun. The best feature of HL2 is the engine, it is also the primary reason I bought the game, modability and the existing mod community carried over from HL.
Portal was GOTY, hands down.
Team fortress 2 removes the key components of TFC that makes it enjoyable to play, the grenades and the movement skill. Not even curious enough to try the free weekend, I'd much rather play TFC or fortress forever.
Don't have an opinion on left for dead.
Even in NS1 "hayday", it still was far from CS's popularity and even with the aged TFC in decline then, NS1 still struggled to pass it. The main reason why Valve didn't touch it.... I suspect... are legality issues with some of NS1's features. As NS1 fans, we could see the similarities to games like Warcraft (e.g. Onos stomp).
The other deciding issue also was that Valve already had their hands full and a focus on building Steam. IMO, this was their best business decision to date. Even if it were possible for them to release a failed game, they glean so much from the sales and marketing of all the other games thanks to Steam. Even in a down economy, they still have funds flowing in. Not to mention, they've built, hands-down, the best gaming focused social network in the world (which, I'm sure some of the elitists in this thread would argue against).
<!--quoteo(post=1770121:date=May 7 2010, 05:08 PM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 7 2010, 05:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By any measure, Valve is one of the most successful PC developers ever, second perhaps only to Blizzard. Their games and Steam are a huge component of this, without which, PC gaming as a whole would be deeply troubled with no unifying structure. <b>Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although, I agree with many of your defensive arguments, I have to disagree with this last sentence. Valve started out as an unkown developer that released a hit in HL1 on top of a modified Quake 1 engine. Who knew that they'd be where they are today. They're still a growing contender against the likes of Blizzard.
To say that UWE would *never* match Valve's success is pretty doom-and-gloom this early in their business growth. They have yet to deliver NS2, their main title. From the UWE team's perspective, <b>if they believed that last line</b>, then wtf are they doing trying to make NS2? After all, there's no way in hell they could be as successful as Valve... so why try?
Instead, they actually have a vision and a viable business, not to mention an existing fan base already that even put $ down on a game over a year [perhaps even 2 years] before it releases. It's now all on them to actually <b>deliver</b>.
And to the elitists in this thread...
<img src="http://homepages.nyu.edu/~kmg357/pictures/xkcd2/xkcd22.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1770121:date=May 7 2010, 08:08 PM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ May 7 2010, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unfortunately Unknown Worlds will never match this success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how can you say that "as-a-matter-of-fact"?
have you seen the final product? better yet, have you seen the future? no game design company starts designing a game knowing they are going to be the next big thing.
whoever invested money into NS2 did so because they want to see the final product, not because they want another Valve/Blizzard.