|
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2.
|
hahaha man that sounds like an awesome company to work at.
|
On April 22 2012 02:31 Djzapz wrote:
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2.
I'm not sure if you're a terrible troll or an amazingly delusion person. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Ubisoft, EA and Activision :D
|
On April 22 2012 02:37 Resilient wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 02:31 Djzapz wrote:
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2. I'm not sure if you're a terrible troll or an amazingly delusion person. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Ubisoft, EA and Activision :D
Errr... He must be an employee of a competitor. lol
|
Valve should never become Blizzard/Bioware etc. because they aren't publicly owned and Steam lets them do whatever they want. It's basically a perfect scenario for creative freedom.
|
On April 22 2012 02:37 Resilient wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 02:31 Djzapz wrote:
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2. I'm not sure if you're a terrible troll or an amazingly delusion person. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Ubisoft, EA and Activision :D
I have much, much worse things to say about those especially about EA and Activision. Tell me how I'm deluded though, please. Why did they start making a LOT more money and their games got a LOT worse at the same time? You'd think games would get better.
On April 22 2012 02:56 ZenDeX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 02:37 Resilient wrote:On April 22 2012 02:31 Djzapz wrote:
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2. I'm not sure if you're a terrible troll or an amazingly delusion person. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Ubisoft, EA and Activision :D Errr... He must be an employee of a competitor. lol
Crazy, I have none of the skills required to be hired at any of those companies. (Except at game testing, but that's too dreadful for me).
|
On April 22 2012 03:24 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 02:37 Resilient wrote:On April 22 2012 02:31 Djzapz wrote:
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2. I'm not sure if you're a terrible troll or an amazingly delusion person. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Ubisoft, EA and Activision :D I have much, much worse things to say about those especially about EA and Activision. Tell me how I'm deluded though, please. Why did they start making a LOT more money and their games got a LOT worse at the same time? You'd think games would get better. Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 02:56 ZenDeX wrote:On April 22 2012 02:37 Resilient wrote:On April 22 2012 02:31 Djzapz wrote:
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2. I'm not sure if you're a terrible troll or an amazingly delusion person. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Ubisoft, EA and Activision :D Errr... He must be an employee of a competitor. lol Crazy, I have none of the skills required to be hired at any of those companies. (Except at game testing, but that's too dreadful for me).
HL2:E3 isn't coming out, they've already said they're on to HL3.
Do you understand how much work it is to build a new 3D engine? Its fucking awful. You've also got some idea that since an engine came out in 2005 it hasn't been updated since, which is also wrong. I haven't seen CS:Go so I can't say wether it looks amazing or not, but the Source engine is the one they have full control over, so yea I'd expect their internal games to use it. How do you know they're not working a new engine? I'm just not sure why they're so horrible if you don't have any real insight into what they are working on.
Steam has done a lot of things unrelated to making games, in a lot of ways it has fostered the indie game making scene and let more people play more games (Find some articles on the economics of steam sales).
TF2 was solid, if you are falling back on the tired "ITS ALL HATS WTF" argument you are over-generalizing. I also think that your nostalgia for the previous titles is ensuring that *nobody* could make the game you want in this franchise.
After reading the Valve guidebook and the blog from the guy who is working on wearable computing at Valve, I believe they aren't just about making standard games. I think they're doing all sorts of things behind the scenes that fail, that don't pan out. But they're out there on the edge doing interesting things. Ultimately they can't make everyone happy and I think you are way too harsh on an entire company because you are mad they didn't make the exact game you wanted to play
BTW: Why is not liking dota a reason to shit all over a game that hasn't yet been released? I think the competitive community has gotten behind Dota2 and only recently did they even give a hint as to its payment structure (F2P "With a Twist") so how about you cool your jets and either 1)Shut the fuck up because you aren't going to play it anyway or 2)Wait until its actually released and see how this new experimental system works out.
|
On April 22 2012 04:13 Clues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 03:24 Djzapz wrote:On April 22 2012 02:37 Resilient wrote:On April 22 2012 02:31 Djzapz wrote:
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2. I'm not sure if you're a terrible troll or an amazingly delusion person. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Ubisoft, EA and Activision :D I have much, much worse things to say about those especially about EA and Activision. Tell me how I'm deluded though, please. Why did they start making a LOT more money and their games got a LOT worse at the same time? You'd think games would get better. On April 22 2012 02:56 ZenDeX wrote:On April 22 2012 02:37 Resilient wrote:On April 22 2012 02:31 Djzapz wrote:
Valve is a horrible company, even though it was formerly respectable before about 2005-ish. Gabe Newell is pretty much swimming in money, but Steam is incredibly profitable while requiring just about no work, and TF2 is a cash cow.
They haven't managed to make HL2:E3 come to life even though it's yet another POS on their outdated Source engine, which probably requires a few millions of dollars in development. And yeah, all their upcoming games are going to be on Source, an engine from 2004. Have you guys seen CS:GO? It looks, uh, acceptable for today's standards. A disgrace for a company like Valve that could do some solid work.
Valve is a company that figured out a way to get as much money as possible by doing as little as it can. That's why they don't spend the money writing a better engine, and that's why only a tiny portion of their budget actually goes to making games.
I may be biased, however, because I consider that DOTA2 is a not a game but the bastard child of a terrible genre, and its free-to-play business model is nothing short of despicable, and it disgusts me.
Valve gave us a semi-functional platform, and the rest is garbage since HL2. I'm not sure if you're a terrible troll or an amazingly delusion person. I'd love to hear what you have to say about Ubisoft, EA and Activision :D Errr... He must be an employee of a competitor. lol Crazy, I have none of the skills required to be hired at any of those companies. (Except at game testing, but that's too dreadful for me). HL2:E3 isn't coming out, they've already said they're on to HL3.
Is that so? Maybe you're right, show me your source because I'm not finding that.
Do you understand how much work it is to build a new 3D engine? Its fucking awful. You've also got some idea that since an engine came out in 2005 it hasn't been updated since, which is also wrong. I haven't seen CS:Go so I can't say wether it looks amazing or not, but the Source engine is the one they have full control over, so yea I'd expect their internal games to use it. How do you know they're not working a new engine? I'm just not sure why they're so horrible if you don't have any real insight into what they are working on.
Stop drooling on yourself and stop being a fanboy. Just look at CS:GO. All Valve game since Portal look years behind of their time, so does CS:GO.
I'll give valve that the Portal games are a great concept though. I just wish they weren't 4-5 hours long each. Cost me $120 for less than 9 hours of gameplay.
And yes engines are hard and costly to develop, which is exactly why you'd expect a wealthy enterprise like Valve to develop a new one instead of using an old updated POS which is obviously extremely limited in usage. Instead, they're being cheap about it because suckers will buy anything. Despite Source's updates, CS:GO doesn't look good.
Steam has done a lot of things unrelated to making games, in a lot of ways it has fostered the indie game making scene and let more people play more games (Find some articles on the economics of steam sales).
Fair enough. It's good, but don't mistake it for something they did out of the goodness of their heart. Expanding the indy business is extremely profitable to them.
TF2 was solid, if you are falling back on the tired "ITS ALL HATS WTF" argument you are over-generalizing. I also think that your nostalgia for the previous titles is ensuring that *nobody* could make the game you want in this franchise.
TF2 was* (reasonably) solid. Right now it's an infected, putrid has-been POS.
After reading the Valve guidebook and the blog from the guy who is working on wearable computing at Valve, I believe they aren't just about making standard games. I think they're doing all sorts of things behind the scenes that fail, that don't pan out. But they're out there on the edge doing interesting things. Ultimately they can't make everyone happy and I think you are way too harsh on an entire company because you are mad they didn't make the exact game you wanted to play
I'm not bitter because they're not giving me what I want, I have basically no expectations from Valve. It used to be this great little company, then it expanded and IMO, became a soulless piece of garbage which has the potential of doing great things, but prefers to ride Steam's wave while other enterprises do the work for them.
I don't even hate Valve, but I don't see why it has any fans at all at this point.
BTW: Why is not liking dota a reason to shit all over a game that hasn't yet been released? I think the competitive community has gotten behind Dota2 and only recently did they even give a hint as to its payment structure (F2P "With a Twist") so how about you cool your jets and either 1)Shut the fuck up because you aren't going to play it anyway or 2)Wait until its actually released and see how this new experimental system works out.
What's with that "shut the fuck up" thing? Grow up or get back in your cage, seriously.
|
The handbook seems pretty neat, but I'd be interested to hear from an actual employee instead of basing my entire view of a company from reading their handbook. That's like reading state propaganda and saying "this seems legit, I'll believe everything this says."
With as cynical and sardonic as the internet seems to be about any company that makes money these days, it seems a little odd how quick people are to stand behind the moral and ethical integrity of a company because they have a cool handbook and they make good (and few) games.
|
Okay, I'm still waiting for any actual points that Valve fails at, Source is getting massive upgrades with every new game and I like it when games don't require a small power plant to run at decent settings. Blizzard games can also look dated and nobody cares. Steam making money is why they run a business, not a charity. Even gog.com is ran for profit. CS:GO is beta and can change rapidly. TF2, just find a decent server with stable community and it's still great. Portal 1+2 never cost 120$, because Portal 1 was part of Orange Box and both of those games were incidentally some of the best moments in my gaming over the last 5 years.
Yeah, you are shitting on them just because you want to.
I'm standing behind them because they have flawless track record and I use their products almost daily, only other company like that is Blizzard.
|
@Djzapz
Not sure how you can say their games got worse. Portal 2 _was_ amazing regardless of it's length and clearly worth the money to me.
And even though you seem to hate Dota 2/the genre in general, it's an incredible game and a fantastic almost 100% port of Dota 1. You also have to pay homage to the coding and developing they put into Dota 2. They gave us a direct spectator client which operates almost in real time, and a fantastic interface. Basically they did everything right that Blizzard did wrong in SC2.
Also you can't know what else Valve has lined up ready for announcement in this E3. They've hinted that big things are coming.
I'll agree that CS:GO is looking pretty average now, but lets face it, it's very very difficult to produce something better than 1.6.
|
Valve will go the way of every company before it...once it gets too prominent the fantasy aspects that everyone revels in now will no longer be novel. It's the age of the hipster where people are their biggest fan until the masses become their biggest fan. Then it's just another company who has its flaws exposed for everyone to see how terrible it is. The cycle never ends...Valve's TF2 model is one of those things which will be pulled out of the drawer to talk trash about them when something goes wrong.
I like Valve but if anyone thinks they're some wonder company I would probably advise you not to get too invested. You'll be disappointed when all they do is make rehashes of franchises in the future that don't live up to your previous expectations. Every single company out there has to compete with nostalgia and the funny thing is nostalgia is almost unbeatable.
|
On April 22 2012 05:11 Zaphid wrote:
Okay, I'm still waiting for any actual points that Valve fails at, Source is getting massive upgrades with every new game and I like it when games don't require a small power plant to run at decent settings. Blizzard games can also look dated and nobody cares. Steam making money is why they run a business, not a charity. Even gog.com is ran for profit. CS:GO is beta and can change rapidly. TF2, just find a decent server with stable community and it's still great. Portal 1+2 never cost 120$, because Portal 1 was part of Orange Box and both of those games were incidentally some of the best moments in my gaming over the last 5 years.
Yeah, you are shitting on them just because you want to.
I'm standing behind them because they have flawless track record and I use their products almost daily, only other company like that is Blizzard.
How are you so blind that you can't conceive of any problems with Valve, if you prefer games that look bad in 2012 then that's your thing but we're not all like that. I played CS:GO and it's not very good, plus it really does looks old. Source is NOT getting massive upgrades, it's getting small updates and is still incredibly limited, even in comparison to garbage like IW.
And yes Steam is making money like a business, which is not a reason to be a fan of that company.
I don't like TF2 anymore, that's just my opinion. But you seem to disagree that I'm allowed to have an opinion because you're so full of yourself.
And yeah sorry I didn't remember Portal came with the orange box, just figured it was $60 because I got it at release. My bad.
On April 22 2012 05:14 Resilient wrote:
@Djzapz
Not sure how you can say their games got worse. Portal 2 _was_ amazing regardless of it's length and clearly worth the money to me.
And even though you seem to hate Dota 2/the genre in general, it's an incredible game and a fantastic almost 100% port of Dota 1. You also have to pay homage to the coding and developing they put into Dota 2. They gave us a direct spectator client which operates almost in real time, and a fantastic interface. Basically they did everything right that Blizzard did wrong in SC2.
Also you can't know what else Valve has lined up ready for announcement in this E3. They've hinted that big things are coming.
I'll agree that CS:GO is looking pretty average now, but lets face it, it's very very difficult to produce something better than 1.6.
Portal 2 was cute, but not worth the full price for me. I blew through those easy puzzles like they were nothing and when it ended I was like what the hell, already? And yes CS 1.6 is hard to beat in the same way the BW is.
As for what's coming up, I'm not getting my hopes up. But who knows, Valve is more likely to surprise me than Activision or EA at this point.
|
On April 22 2012 05:20 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 05:11 Zaphid wrote:
Okay, I'm still waiting for any actual points that Valve fails at, Source is getting massive upgrades with every new game and I like it when games don't require a small power plant to run at decent settings. Blizzard games can also look dated and nobody cares. Steam making money is why they run a business, not a charity. Even gog.com is ran for profit. CS:GO is beta and can change rapidly. TF2, just find a decent server with stable community and it's still great. Portal 1+2 never cost 120$, because Portal 1 was part of Orange Box and both of those games were incidentally some of the best moments in my gaming over the last 5 years.
Yeah, you are shitting on them just because you want to.
I'm standing behind them because they have flawless track record and I use their products almost daily, only other company like that is Blizzard. How are you so blind that you can't conceive of any problems with Valve, if you prefer games that look bad in 2012 then that's your thing but we're not all like that. I played CS:GO and it's not very good, plus it really does looks old. Source is NOT getting massive upgrades, it's getting small updates and is still incredibly limited, even in comparison to garbage like IW. And yes Steam is making money like a business, which is not a reason to be a fan of that company. I don't like TF2 anymore, that's just my opinion. But you seem to disagree that I'm allowed to have an opinion because you're so full of yourself. And yeah sorry I didn't remember Portal came with the orange box, just figured it was $60 because I got it at release. My bad.
I prefer to play games that are fun, rather than just those that have modern graphics, but to each their own I guess.
|
Valve rocks, thanks for sharing this was really interesting.
|
no one comes close to valve games design-wise. it takes a real bitter person to nitpick about their graphics quality when, despite their engine being old, they produce some of the best looking games that aren't extremely cluttered and distracting like most modern games.
|
On April 22 2012 05:27 Zaphid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 05:20 Djzapz wrote:On April 22 2012 05:11 Zaphid wrote:
Okay, I'm still waiting for any actual points that Valve fails at, Source is getting massive upgrades with every new game and I like it when games don't require a small power plant to run at decent settings. Blizzard games can also look dated and nobody cares. Steam making money is why they run a business, not a charity. Even gog.com is ran for profit. CS:GO is beta and can change rapidly. TF2, just find a decent server with stable community and it's still great. Portal 1+2 never cost 120$, because Portal 1 was part of Orange Box and both of those games were incidentally some of the best moments in my gaming over the last 5 years.
Yeah, you are shitting on them just because you want to.
I'm standing behind them because they have flawless track record and I use their products almost daily, only other company like that is Blizzard. How are you so blind that you can't conceive of any problems with Valve, if you prefer games that look bad in 2012 then that's your thing but we're not all like that. I played CS:GO and it's not very good, plus it really does looks old. Source is NOT getting massive upgrades, it's getting small updates and is still incredibly limited, even in comparison to garbage like IW. And yes Steam is making money like a business, which is not a reason to be a fan of that company. I don't like TF2 anymore, that's just my opinion. But you seem to disagree that I'm allowed to have an opinion because you're so full of yourself. And yeah sorry I didn't remember Portal came with the orange box, just figured it was $60 because I got it at release. My bad. I prefer to play games that are fun, rather than just those that have modern graphics, but to each their own I guess.
You're getting me wrong though, I value gameplay over graphics every time, which is why I think CS 1.6 is the best shooter ever made and Starcraft BW is the best RTS ever made. However, if you're Valve, you can afford to do something more. You can get an engine that's more malleable than Source, which despite all the updates, is incredibly limited at this point.
Valve falls short in both departments lately. CSGO is not all that fun and it looks like 2008.
On April 22 2012 05:35 dontforgetosmile wrote:
no one comes close to valve games design-wise. it takes a real bitter person to nitpick about their graphics quality when, despite their engine being old, they produce some of the best looking games that aren't extremely cluttered and distracting like most modern games.
None of their games have looked good for their time since HL2. Name one good looking Valve game since HL2. It's not about being bitter.
Portal was released in 2007 and was fun but didn't look good. It was extremely short. Fair enough.
TF2 was not about graphics, kudos for the 2007 release. The patching was horrible, and the switch to F2P murdered it forever.
L4D was an interesting concept, it looks awful for a 2008 release. I didn't like it but cheers for the concept.
L4D2 came out right after L4D. Probably an incredibly cheap-to-make expansion pack sold as a full price standalone. Disgusting business practice. Game still looks awful for 2009.
Alien Swarm was cute
Portal 2 looked average and was incredibly short for its full price release.
Obviously they're not about great graphics, which is too bad - but how can you say that they have some of the best looking games? No way. And I personally find their titles to be quite boring at this point, except the Portal franchise which offers games with reasonable production value at best.
|
|
|
On April 22 2012 06:04 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 05:27 Zaphid wrote:On April 22 2012 05:20 Djzapz wrote:On April 22 2012 05:11 Zaphid wrote:
Okay, I'm still waiting for any actual points that Valve fails at, Source is getting massive upgrades with every new game and I like it when games don't require a small power plant to run at decent settings. Blizzard games can also look dated and nobody cares. Steam making money is why they run a business, not a charity. Even gog.com is ran for profit. CS:GO is beta and can change rapidly. TF2, just find a decent server with stable community and it's still great. Portal 1+2 never cost 120$, because Portal 1 was part of Orange Box and both of those games were incidentally some of the best moments in my gaming over the last 5 years.
Yeah, you are shitting on them just because you want to.
I'm standing behind them because they have flawless track record and I use their products almost daily, only other company like that is Blizzard. How are you so blind that you can't conceive of any problems with Valve, if you prefer games that look bad in 2012 then that's your thing but we're not all like that. I played CS:GO and it's not very good, plus it really does looks old. Source is NOT getting massive upgrades, it's getting small updates and is still incredibly limited, even in comparison to garbage like IW. And yes Steam is making money like a business, which is not a reason to be a fan of that company. I don't like TF2 anymore, that's just my opinion. But you seem to disagree that I'm allowed to have an opinion because you're so full of yourself. And yeah sorry I didn't remember Portal came with the orange box, just figured it was $60 because I got it at release. My bad. I prefer to play games that are fun, rather than just those that have modern graphics, but to each their own I guess. You're getting me wrong though, I value gameplay over graphics every time, which is why I think CS 1.6 is the best shooter ever made and Starcraft BW is the best RTS ever made. However, if you're Valve, you can afford to do something more. You can get an engine that's more malleable than Source, which despite all the updates, is incredibly limited at this point. Valve falls short in both departments lately. CSGO is not all that fun and it looks like 2008. Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 05:35 dontforgetosmile wrote:
no one comes close to valve games design-wise. it takes a real bitter person to nitpick about their graphics quality when, despite their engine being old, they produce some of the best looking games that aren't extremely cluttered and distracting like most modern games. None of their games have looked good for their time since HL2. Name one good looking Valve game since HL2. It's not about being bitter. Portal was released in 2007 and was fun but didn't look good. It was extremely short. Fair enough. TF2 was not about graphics, kudos for the 2007 release. The patching was horrible, and the switch to F2P murdered it forever. L4D was an interesting concept, it looks awful for a 2008 release. I didn't like it but cheers for the concept. L4D2 came out right after L4D. Probably an incredibly cheap-to-make expansion pack sold as a full price standalone. Disgusting business practice. Game still looks awful for 2009. Alien Swarm was cute Portal 2 looked average and was incredibly short for its full price release. Obviously they're not about great graphics, which is too bad - but how can you say that they have some of the best looking games? No way. And I personally find their titles to be quite boring at this point, except the Portal franchise which offers games with reasonable production value at best.
So...you don't like their newer games, therefore Valve is terrible?
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
lol if you're really going to base games off graphics then you should never play any games that are older than a year -_-
and btw, valve set up a private server for a community-organised competition's grand finals for dota 2 (The Defense) like 10 minutes after they were contacted for assistance.
name me just one other company that will do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
