what would you prefer? lots of games which are crap, or few games that are awesome? I take quality over quantity, thus why i love valve so much...
I have had it with Valve
- Thread starter Krylock
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You're allowed to not introduce any new IP's for years and years if nothing you ever make is considered less than spectacular.
Sorry, I got the number wrong. But thanks for snipping out the 50 OTHER lines of text I posted along with that.Nintendolover222 said:
Exactly! Valve only hires the best in the business. They have fewer than 100 employees. Look at all the things they did with updates/expansions/mods/and engine changes just this year. They do all that AND develop new games. They work extremely hard, they get things done in their own good time. And when they're done its dammed amazing.Firetaffer said:
[sub][small]still don't get it.MiracleOfSound said:Gee, I dunno.... just about every other recent major release.monkey_man said:
L4D 2
The lighting effects, textures and modelling are clearly inferior to all of the below.... look how that white balcony barely looks pasted onto the wall, and the big blocky 'gamey' looking hands. Ugly.
Other games....
I think today's graphics spoiled you big time It still looks fine to me, and the other games look slightly better, but not noticable.
Besides, Valve games aren't about graphics, they are about gameplay. Which, in my opinion, matters most.
Like MW2. It's completely arse in it's big sellingpoint; the multiplayer. Oh sure it LOOKS good. but that isn't important when I am not playing the game anymore. I am still playing l4d2 from time to time.
(haven't played the others, so no opinion.)[/small][/sub]
You just said everything that was needed. Thank youkoriantor said:
...But bacon adds +5 awesomeness to those solved problems.binnsyboy said:
and then some more problems, and then those are solved (in about 2 seconds)adding +5 awesomeness, etc etc.
Thanks for your wall of text, but I never said anyone should care about graphics, nor did I say they were more important than gameplay.koriantor said:
I just pointed out that L4D2 was visually ugly, someone disagreed and I posted pictures to back it up. You're talking to someone who spent a big part of this year playing Morrowind, Fallout 1 and 2, Silent Hill 2 and Ocarina Of Time so spare me your graphics v gameplay lecture.
Funny, I keep hearing this 'graphics don't matter!' argument from the same Valve fanboys who 6 years ago were constantly boasting about how good Half Life 2 looked (and probably bitching that it was coming to consoles).monkey_man said:
Beside, I never said graphics were more important than gameplay. But it'as nice when a game gets both right, it helps suck you into the experience.
HL2 is one of my top 3 games of all time, and a big part of my enjoyment stems from living in the world they created, which is given its atmosphere and feel from being beautifully visually designed.
Being a PS3 owner I can only judge Valve on the few games of theirs that I have played and My verdict is: pretty good. Keep in mind Valve hates my chosen console. I played portal and the orange box and loved it. I have a few 360 owning friends and when I have access to their consoles I cannot put down Left 4 Dead 2 (or Gears, or Vesperia but I'll stay on topic). Sorry to you L4D fans but I didn't jump on the L4D train till the 2nd game was released and I have to say it would be a different game if Ellis was not in it. In one moment your adrenaline is pumping, you're anxious and maybe a little scared then Ellis will randomly say something hilariously stupid that makes you laugh and breaks the tension. "This one time my buddy Keith [insert Ellis trademark punchline]", sorry but that added greatly to my experience. Also another apology to you fans of Valve, I do not find the cult classic series Half-Life to be entertaining. I am an avid gamer so I respect Half-Life in all its glory for what it is but it just isn't my brand of whiskey.
With all that being said, I think Valve is pretty good. I think we have learned that for the most part, and I will repeat for emphasis, 'for the most part', games that take a while to come out are worth the wait (let us not think of exceptions like FF13 for the moment) so I've got no problem waiting for Portal 2. Also, what is the big deal about engines? Do you realize how many games run off of the same engine even if they seem newer or better than their previous iteration? Do you even know just how many games are using the Havoc and Unreal engines?
First of all, a software engine is usually very versatile so it can be used in may different ways and what kind of software is used only a part of what makes a great game. The most important thing about a game is its overall presentation; it is all about how well it performs with what it is working with. We all keep crying for better graphics and new engines but I challenge you to find just one gamer who does not still enjoy classic games. Heck, that's why Nintendo is still making money. Also, crying for new software is dangerous talk. If those types of cries were always answered by developers then you would be crying "games shouldn't cost so much." If you noticed, developers have a strong since of high financial entitlement, which is not unreasonable. So if they deliver more, they believe they're paychecks should be higher we the gamers should be willing to gratefully pay more. I know have stated more than you have asked yet I just wanted to share a few thoughts.
With all that being said, I think Valve is pretty good. I think we have learned that for the most part, and I will repeat for emphasis, 'for the most part', games that take a while to come out are worth the wait (let us not think of exceptions like FF13 for the moment) so I've got no problem waiting for Portal 2. Also, what is the big deal about engines? Do you realize how many games run off of the same engine even if they seem newer or better than their previous iteration? Do you even know just how many games are using the Havoc and Unreal engines?
First of all, a software engine is usually very versatile so it can be used in may different ways and what kind of software is used only a part of what makes a great game. The most important thing about a game is its overall presentation; it is all about how well it performs with what it is working with. We all keep crying for better graphics and new engines but I challenge you to find just one gamer who does not still enjoy classic games. Heck, that's why Nintendo is still making money. Also, crying for new software is dangerous talk. If those types of cries were always answered by developers then you would be crying "games shouldn't cost so much." If you noticed, developers have a strong since of high financial entitlement, which is not unreasonable. So if they deliver more, they believe they're paychecks should be higher we the gamers should be willing to gratefully pay more. I know have stated more than you have asked yet I just wanted to share a few thoughts.
It's not. Despite all the zombies running around, L4D2 is actually quite aesthetically pleasing.MiracleOfSound said:
You could argue that the graphics are aged, but not that they're ugly. Different things, and quite subjective, unless you're incapable of judging a picture by anything but technique.
The word 'ugly' is often used in the gaming community to describe graphics that are sub-par on a technical level, as opposed to an artistic one.JediMB said:
The Assassins Creed one may be slightly touched up but the others are all from gameplay, I'v eplayed all the games there and they're all lookers.Phoenix Arrow said:
Also, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood runs on an engine that can have 40-50 NPCs walking around at any given time with complex AI routines, all while constantly loading in gorgeous high resolution building and environmental textures with a draw distance that stretches for miles around.
This in both single and multiplayer.
Whatever. I didn't start the trend.JediMB said:
And a 'graphics whore' is someone who places more value on graphics than other aspects.
There are two things wrong with the comment you just posted - for one, if the OP actually did take the time to examine the various previews which have been released regarding Portal 2, then his comment of it being "more of the same" would come off as even more idiotic than it already did, since Portal 2 clearly features not only environmental alterations, but a wide array of new gameplay mechanics as well. Anyone who can watch any of those trailers and say "oh yeah, that's just going to be exactly like Portal" is someone I'd rather never have to meet, as they clearly lack the ability to formulate any sort of coherent or rational thought inside their thick skull.Cuy said:
However, most importantly, I'd just have to ask - how long have you been gaming? Judging by your comment, I'd assume it to be a matter of days, since the previews which are offered in game magazines or on gaming websites are, more often than not, incredibly poor indicators of a game's actual quality. Seriously, one could write a book on the number of games which looked absolutely incredible in their previews, but ended up being complete piles of tripe. Your sarcasm is both ignorant and unnecessary - congratulations.
I think more of us are suckers for nice graphics than we care to admit. Hell, I played Far Cry 2 way more than I should have because it was so pretty.JediMB said:
And I'd bet that the same Valve fanboys now saying 'graphics whores! graphics don't matter!' are the same ones who 6 years ago were boasting to everyone else about how good Half Life 2 looked.
Personally I really loved playing with fire in Far Cry 2. Of course it's not like I can't appreciate advances in the technical aspects of graphics, since they also open up for gameplay innovations, but for surface alone I'll choose aesthetics over tech any time of the week.MiracleOfSound said:
Can't really recall what I said about Half-Life 2's graphics back in the day. I think I might have been too busy going with the flow of the game, and having fun. Well, I think the most impressive graphical bits were the backdrops, since HL2 was the first game I played that didn't just rely on sky boxes and other lazy 2D backgrounds.