While the metaphor is questionable because you do still have a gun and you do still shoot that logic is good enough for me. I will still wait for reviews if it is long enough to buy or rent but yeah you convinced meTheComedown said:
Portal 2 is "Absolutely the Best" Game Valve Has Ever Made
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Sure as heck didn't let me down.The Rockerfly said:
If you aren't used to valve time, and understand why they do it, you don't deserve to play it.
However, you had nothing to compare the game to. The first Portal may have excited people, but they didn't know how it'd turn out. Now you have a game that's predecessor is considered one of the best games ever made (in popular opinion) and it has to not only live up to that, but throw enough new things out there that it's a new experience. There are more factors weighing against Portal 2 than the first one. The element of surprise is a lot bigger than you can ever expect, and with Portal 2 we know what we want, the first Portal was entirely unique and no matter what you didn't expect what you goDexiro said:
You must be well aware though that many fans of the first were seriously disappointed with the second game.Arcticflame said:
You can't just cover up a company' incompetence and say I don't deserve to play a game because of it, nothing would get improved if we just accepted every flaw a company brings us.
Really with Valve they should just stop giving out release dates until they have a secure predicted date.
I'm not sure, I think everyone's pretty fed up of Portal 1 and it's meme's now. I mean I still appreciate that it's a good game but It's kind of old news, I've played and heard about it far too much.CheckD3 said:
With Portal 2 on the other hand I really don't know what to expect, even moreso than with the first one. From everything I've heard the 2 games really don't seem to share that much in common, I mean the 2nd game is atleast a lot more story heavy.
A no greater proportion than usual. Hyped up boycotting failed, the game was a total success. Outsold the original and is played by more than the original is.The Rockerfly said:
But that is my point, you are saying they are incompetent for delaying titles, I am saying that its extremely important to the quality of their games, they don't release games until they are happy with them. They don't half bake like it seems the majority of other game developer in the world do.
You are calling a very important skill incompetence. Putting out a project of any sort with glaring flaws in it is a bad idea.
I am saying you don't deserve to play their titles if you can't even understand that.
Half-life 2 was delayed ridiculously, and what happened? Possibly the greatest video game of all time.
If it was released many years earlier, it would be a half baked, average at best shooter. Valve aren't wizards, they still go through the same hoops as everyone else, one of the key (not only difference, but certainly a major factor) differences being that they take their time.
I will never understand people who are unhappy with a company due to release dates being delayed, you haven't lost anything, you never had it in the first place. Maybe you should treat all games as vaporware until release? The game will still be released, better than had they released it earlier, and if it is truly vaporware, you have lost nothing.
Sales mean nothing towards a games qualityArcticflame said:
Final Fantasy XIII- most final fantasy fans disliked it 5.5 million units
Homefront received on average negative reviews (71 metacritic)- over a million units
Most zynga games barely qualify as games and people play them all the time
It is incompetence though. I have nothing against long development times but when a company keeps giving out release dates and not actually delivers it disappoints fans.
Time doesn't equal quality, it's relative but it doesn't equal it, for example Gran Turismo took 5 years to develop and was considered pretty but nothing revolutionary. In the same time, forza 2 and 3 were released on the xbox and were considered about as good, if not better in some respects (GT - 84 metacritic, forza 3 - 92). Also it means that Duke Nukem should be the best game ever and Too Human should have been incredible
Most developers that release games on time like: Epic games, Dice, Bungie, 2K, Rockstar, Capcom, Infinity Ward, Ubisoft, Harmonix, Blizzard, Rocksteady and Visceral. All released some of the best games this generation and all on time. They all might have taken a long time on their games but they didn't delay and cause disappointment.
Okay so if you are promised something and you don't get it back on time you don't care? Cool let me take a loan out from you and see how much you care then
and yet you didnt reply to the other points I made, more people play l4d2 than l4d. It's metacritic score is directly the same as the original, despite it being a sequel. None of anything you've said seems to justify it being a disappointment.The Rockerfly said:
And I said it was a key, but not the only issue, nothing you've said disagrees with my logic.
The time valve takes certainly impacts the quality of the game.
Duke Nukem's absence is not due to a development cycle, it's down to it being dropped, picked up, dropped, picked up again, changed devs, etc etc. This wasnt a sustained effort by one developer.
All you did there was reiterate that it is incompetence, then prattle on about something not even related. Nothing you noted demonstrates incompetence on valve's part. Those games had crippling flaws in their design, development, etc etc. that meant no amount of time could fix.
If valve did the same, they would drop the project, as they have done in the past. If they can improve their product, and not drop it, they take the damn time to do it. If anything you've demonstrated once again that valve are anything but incompetent on releases. They release when they are happy with it, and not before.
Except the majority on that list -have- delayed and caused disappointment. And the disappointment you mention is, what I consider, stupidity. Many of those that haven't delayed have been crippled with bugs on release, which the entire community has criticised.
Well way to throw away any shreds of logic you may of had. We both know that analogy does not come close to what a release date implies. But hell, I'll humour you.
The only way this analogy stands up (at all, and even then I still disagree) is a pre-order.
Valve doesn't give pre-orders until a concrete release date. If you pre-ordered a game from a retail seller, then that's stupidity, because they have nothing to do with the actual release of a game. Portal 2 was not available for preorder until the actual release date was concrete. You might as well have pre-ordered duke nukem forever 10 years ago.
Besides this, even if they delayed release on a game you pre-ordered, it doesn't change that you bought an investment, not the actual product. And that any time extra they take to make the game, you benefit from a better product.
Again doesn't make it a better game. Even more players doesn't qualify it as a good game, it was an unnecessary sequel, Modern Warfare 2 has more players on it than Call of Duty 4 does that make it a better game?Arcticflame said:
So? You said development time, even if was switching hands. I have disproved that while it's correlated, it's not a cause of a good game. Good games have come out in short periods of time.
Left 4 dead 2 was also released in 18 months and yet you think it's a good game so that disproves your logic
Because I have no idea what goes on in Valves production method that's why I can't prove incompetence on Valves behalf with actual proof but if you don't judge timing incompetence on promised release dates what the hell do you judge them on. If a game has a bad game design especially a core one, they would have to change most of the gameplay and would add several millions to a games development, it's much easier to improve on a sequel or try and make minor changes with a patch if it becomes a big problem
They wouldn't drop it, they would be too far into development and just patch it. Games find bugs much quicker than a small team of bug testers anyway
Most haven't and you are saying half life 2, left 4 dead and portal hadn't had any bugs when released? Most of the aren't crippled with bugs on release so don't be so over dramatic about about one or two minor bugs. Not that I can think of and if they have, it hasn't been multiple times and for well over half a year at a time
Stupidity?
Your logic doesn't qualify for a universal logic, I have disproved your logic multiple times with evidence and reviews while you just state your opinion so you are really not in that sort of position.
Many games don't have preorders though so it's not a very good way to judge games universally but again whatever. Duke Nukem got a concrete release date and was preordered now 10 years later it is still being pushed back and it will have glitches and bugs
So you spend £10 on a preorder for a popular game and you don't see said popular game for say 4 months you don't consider it a bad thing? So to make a game have a few less bugs you would rather a company add millions to development cost, make you wait much longer when it would be much faster for the community to find bugs. There is a reason why only one company uses that production method, it is flawed