 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / PC Games / Action Games / August 2005Praise where praise due.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half Life 2 or Doom 3. > http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html > > In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half > Life 2 or Doom 3. *rolls eyes* SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't belong on an all-time list -- neither do many of the other titles on their list (NFL Blitz??). Besides, Gamespot only picks aged games for that list. Wait a few years, and you can be pretty sure that HL2, if not Doom 3, will be on that list too. > > http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Besides, Gamespot only picks aged games for that list. Wait a few years, and > you can be pretty sure that HL2, if not Doom 3, will be on that list too. Why on earth would they be? An *ANCIENT* game mechanics with great graphics... For sure, every Joe Sixpack loves them, but that´s it. >>http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Besides, Gamespot only picks aged games for that list. Wait a few years, and > you can be pretty sure that HL2, if not Doom 3, will be on that list too. There is no hope in hell for Doom 3 to be on any list like that, the engine was great, but the game itself was far from it. Half life 2 I can agree with  SignatureByron Hinson My Photography http://www.byronhinson.com/dd/photography > > http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > SS2 is underplayed and overrated. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Besides, Gamespot only picks aged games for that list. Wait a few years, and >you can be pretty sure that HL2, if not Doom 3, will be on that list too. Well it is impressive that the fan community is still going after all this time. Tried to find any mods for Unreal lately? > *rolls eyes* > > SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't belong > on an all-time list Someones *always* gotta be different and stand out from the rest. I'm rolling *my* eyes so bad that it took me a few minutes to get them back straight so I could compose this post. SS2 is most definately one of the greatest games ever. But not as good as the original. The Body of the Many being the major downside of the game... Signaturethere is no .sig >> *rolls eyes* >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to get them back straight so I could compose this post. SS2 is > most definately one of the greatest games ever. > But not as good as the original. The Body of the Many being the major > downside of the game... So true. Most of SS2 was great but the end-game was a major disappointment. Thus spake "QV" <qv@qvnospam.com>, Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:46:05 GMT, Anno Domini: >> But not as good as the original. The Body of the Many being the major >> downside of the game... > >So true. >Most of SS2 was great but the end-game was a major disappointment. I thought the start of SS2 was major disappointment. And that's where I stopped... SignatureA killfile is a friend for life. Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email. > But not as good as the original. The Body of the Many being the major > downside of the game... Yeah, the BotM sucked. There were more fundamental flaws in the game, though. Deus Ex filled the same game category as SS2 and completely blew it away. Some of the problems of SS2: - Poor use of the persistent worlds concept. SS1 really made good use of the fact that all levels persisted throughout the game and you could go back and forth between them. It was a pretty standout feature at the time. SS2 mimicked the surface appearance of that but made poor use of it in the actual game. The plot moved you linearly from one level to another - the two plot-forced returns felt like obligatory nods to the original but unlike the original, the task added nothing of gameplay value (enduring 15 load transitions, praying each time that it doesn't crash, to go back through the same areas where nothing has changed so you can enter one new closet-sized room and push a single button is not "added gameplay.") - Overuse of "easter egg hunt"-type problems. In one case, it was literal (find the black eggs.) With SS1, the focus was less on exhaustively searching for your goals and more on how to get there in one piece. - Contrived problems. In SS1, there was a cohesive theme - Shodan was inventively using every resource at his (yes, HIS, dammit!) command to attack Earth - you were inventively using resources at your command to foil them. In SS2, by the time I got to the Ops level and got the "reprogram the sims" goal or whatever it was, I was losing suspension of disbelief. It just felt like the game designers were flailing around to give the player tasks to keep him amused. - Forced use of certain skills (you have to hack at a fairly high level to get past one plot-critical problem - you have to research a specific item to get past another.) In an RPG, no single skill should be mandatory. In addition, the game is unbalanced wrt RPG choices - in the early game, Navy-types have a large advantage - in the BotM, psi-types have a large advantage, etc. - Very sparse selection of weapons and combat strategies - especially bad for an RPG. With only 13 weapons, did we really need three of them to be minor variations of the basic club? The whole standard class is made up of a pistol, a basically useless shotgun and an assault rifle is in practice just a better pistol. Similarly, the exotic class is just a better wrench, an anti-annelid gun and a bigger anti-annelid gun. No good sniping weapon (or many opportunties to use sniping tactics.) No real options for stealth tactics or strategic alternatives (like laying booby traps in Deus Ex - those proximity mines were useless and had a boneheaded interface for placing them to boot.) The weapons were pretty much all variations of "shoot" or "beat" with the variations lying primarily in how strongly they affected various types of enemies. - Too much leading you around the by the nose. "Do this. Now do that. Now go do that." Ok, Deus Ex is even worse in this aspect - at least SS2's messages are interruptable. In SS1, you got a total of maybe 10 emails from HQ *for the entire game* - the rest you had to put together yourself by gathering log clues and there was no need for a detailed objective screen with long lists of subgoals and shopping lists - the hacker's System Analyzer gave you the progress information you needed without taking you out of the game fiction. Perhaps this was due primarily to the resource constraints of PC's in SS1's area. Perhaps resource constraints are sometimes a good thing. >- Forced use of certain skills (you have to hack at a fairly high level to >get past one plot-critical problem - you have to research a specific item to >get past another.) In an RPG, no single skill should be mandatory. I agree here. >In >addition, the game is unbalanced wrt RPG choices - in the early game, >Navy-types have a large advantage - in the BotM, psi-types have a large >advantage, etc. Actually, this is merely balancing stuff in a different fashion - the player must choose between an early-game benefit or a late-game benefit. Of course, there are game balance issues across skills - for example, there isn't much practical reason to improve Heavy and Exotic to maximum as there are only a few weapons with questionable overall firepower. There's also Repair being next to useless unless you didn't pick-up maintenance. >>http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on an all-time list -- neither do many of the other titles on their list > (NFL Blitz??). SS2 is an al time class IMO. Sales mean nothing. Maybe Doom 3, but not Half-Life 2 just so noone misunderstands me, I dont think Doom 3 will be on such a list, but Half-Life 2 will absolutely be on the list. > just so noone misunderstands me, I dont think Doom 3 will be on such a > list, but Half-Life 2 will absolutely be on the list. I personally don't think SS2 deserves to be on this list but at least it qualifies to be in consideration given that I can install it and play it now whether or not Irrational is still in business and running a validation server. Since HL2's lifetime is by design constrained to the business lifetime of Valve and their willingness to validate the game online, it's automatically disqualified for any "All time greatest game" list I'd consider authoritative (it's also automatically disqualified from any game purchase list I'll put together.) In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to be installable and playable for "all time"! If Valve should someday deign to put out a downloadable, archivable, offline-installable patch that frees HL2 from this umbilical, then we can talk. >>just so noone misunderstands me, I dont think Doom 3 will be on such a >>list, but Half-Life 2 will absolutely be on the list. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whether or not Irrational is still in business and running a validation > server. So the fact that an old game runs, for free, on your modern system is one of your parameters for "greatness". I see. > Since HL2's lifetime is by design constrained to the business lifetime of > Valve and their willingness to validate the game online, it's automatically > disqualified for any "All time greatest game" list I'd consider > authoritative (it's also automatically disqualified from any game purchase > list I'll put together.) In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to > be installable and playable for "all time"! Hmm Hmm. So solitaire and chess would be up there then? > If Valve should someday deign to put out a downloadable, archivable, > offline-installable patch that frees HL2 from this umbilical, then we can > talk. To yourselves probably. > In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to be installable and > playable for "all time"! even games that require third party applications, emulation, and in many cases, community designed patches to run? whine about steam, and forget all those hundreds of old games that simply wont run without special effort and software. i'm sure you'd have no trouble throwing them on a list. Signature"Please excuse my posts in this thread this morning, I had not yet taken my meds." -Jim Vieira >> In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to be installable and >> playable for "all time"! > > even games that require third party applications, emulation, and in many > cases, community designed patches to run? Which still means that once you get it to run, it won't stop working the next day because some computer out there that you have no control over is down or just decides it doesn't want to let you play anymore. > whine about steam, I'm not just whining about Steam, I'm hitting the companies that use it in the pocketbook. You use Steam, you're fired. End of story. > Which still means that once you get it to run, it won't stop working the > next day because some computer out there that you have no control over is > down or just decides it doesn't want to let you play anymore. that's the point, innit. when those other companies went under, and their ancient games no longer worked out of the box, the gamers had to find ways to get them going again. there's absolutely no reason whatsoever the same wouldn't happen in the unlikely event that valve went under leaving their steam catalogue of games unplayable. it's the exact same thing. if you're not going to penalize companies for disappearing and no longer supporting their games so that they work currently, i don't see how you can criticize steam based on some prediction that if valve ever went under you would no longer be able to play their games. you may have other issues with steam, and that's fine, but we're talking about something specific here and it's something a lot of people bring up and it's stupid. dopey john lewis will sit there and boast about his collection of old hardware he keeps around just to play games that no longer work under a modern OS and then gripe about the possibilities of half-life 2 no longer functioning in the future. use your brain. offline play is already guaranteed based on software that came out before hl2 was even on the shelves. there are legitimate flaws with the steam system. leave out the imaginary ones. Signature"Please excuse my posts in this thread this morning, I had not yet taken my meds." -Jim Vieira >> Which still means that once you get it to run, it won't stop working the >> next day because some computer out there that you have no control over is >> down or just decides it doesn't want to let you play anymore. > > that's the point, innit. when those other companies went under, and > their ancient games no longer worked out of the box, Um... Looking Glass went down years ago and guess what, SS1, Thief, etc. didn't suddenly stop working. Yes, it takes an effort to get SS1 *if you change the underlying OS* - so what, when LG went down, my Win98 CD's didn't just vanish in a poof of orange smoke - I can always dual boot or VPC or just keep my older hardware around as an offline DOS/Win9x game console, which is in fact exactly what I do - I'm not dependent on third party hacks of questionable legality and origin. I have no choice to do that with HL2 because it's *designed* to become nonfunctional whenever Valve decides to - the game's lifetime is under their control, not mine. Since that's an intentional design decision by Valve (as opposed to the other games who did nothing intentional to become hard to run a decade later under an OS with an entirely different kernel and device driver architecture), I *will* penalize Valve and not those other companies. > Um... Looking Glass went down years ago and guess what, SS1, Thief, etc. > didn't suddenly stop working. actually, they did. hell, i remember trying to get ss1 going several years ago and having problems with it. i'm sure there's a solid way now but no game is guaranteed to continue working out of the box once the developer and support vanishes. there are hundreds more old games that no longer work because there's no one around to "officially" support them. don't hear you cryin' about those. hey, games have to last forever, right? > Yes, it takes an effort to get SS1 *if you change the underlying OS* - so > what, when LG went down, my Win98 CD's didn't just vanish in a poof of > orange smoke - I can always dual boot or VPC or just keep my older hardware > around as an offline DOS/Win9x game console, which is in fact exactly what I > do - I'm not dependent on third party hacks of questionable legality and > origin. so, having to keep old operating systems, old hardware, and use emulation software is no big deal.. but using a 100k crack to make sure half-life 2 keeps working is completely unreasonable. i'll take the ~100k file over keeping dusty old hardware around, kthx. it seems the rabid anti-steam folk aren't much for convenience. taking up space, using extra electricity, just to play some old games. installing extra applications, dual-booting. how silly. > I have no choice to do that with HL2 because it's *designed* to become > nonfunctional whenever Valve decides to - the game's lifetime is under their > control, not mine. software running on your pc is always under your control unless you stubbornly let it control you just so you can sit on your soapbox and have a big whinefest. my copy of half-life 2 is going to work "forever," as long as any other game would, regardless of valve. Signature"Please excuse my posts in this thread this morning, I had not yet taken my meds." -Jim Vieira >> Um... Looking Glass went down years ago and guess what, SS1, Thief, etc. >> didn't suddenly stop working. > > actually, they did. Um, no they didn't. The day LGS died, my installations of SS1 and Thief booted up for me just fine. They still do. No hyperspace transmission went out from LGS's HQ to kill all their previously installed games. > hell, i remember trying to get ss1 going several > years ago and having problems with it. Because you upgraded the underlying OS. As riku has already pointed out, you are comparing apples and oranges. > i'm sure there's a solid way now > but no game is guaranteed to continue working out of the box once the > developer and support vanishes. No game is guaranteed to work on future OS's that didn't even exist when the game was developed. But most games don't have an intentional built-in remote-destruct mechanism designed into the way Steam games do. Thus, once again, I will punish Valve for that and not punish LGS and other long-dead DOS game makers. Those guys did the best they could reasonably do given the state of DOS and the lack of a decent abstraction layer for hardware at the time. Valve, on the other hand, purposefully put a hurdle in for the game's long term accesssibility. > i'll take the ~100k file over keeping dusty old hardware around, kthx. > it seems the rabid anti-steam folk aren't much for convenience. And I'll take control and security over convenience. > Thus, once again, I will punish Valve for that and not punish LGS and other > long-dead DOS game makers. Those guys did the best they could reasonably do > given the state of DOS and the lack of a decent abstraction layer for > hardware at the time. Valve, on the other hand, purposefully put a hurdle in > for the game's long term accesssibility. That hasn't happened yet so stop talking about it like it has. You have no idea if HL2 has long term accessibility or not. It's accessible RIGHT NOW and that's all you can actually say. If and when Valve goes out of business, only THEN can you say whether or not HL2 will have long-term accessibility. For all we know Valve will release a patch to HL2 before they close their doors making it playable without requiring Steam at all. Or not. We DO NOT KNOW YET. If you want to bitch about having to go online to do validation then bitch about that, but don't bitch about not being able to play a game in 2010 or whenever, since that hasn't occured yet. BTW, Valve isn't the only one doing online validation for offline content. Bioware is also doing it with their premium modules for NWN. I'm sure in the future this will become more and more common, so get used to it. Personally I prefer this type of "intrusion" to other forms of copy protection like Star Force. Knight37 >> Thus, once again, I will punish Valve for that and not punish LGS and >> other [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > HL2 before they close their doors making it playable without requiring > Steam at all. Or not. We DO NOT KNOW YET. And as I've already said on this very thread, *if* they release such a patch or even annouce officially when the Steam leash will come off the SP version, I'll reconsider the way I look at them but I'm not going to agree that I have "no idea" whether HL2 has long term accessibility or not. There's no business reason for a company that's about to shut its doors to spend time releasing such a patch. I think the chances are excellent that it will not - enough for me to talk about it that way without adding a probabilistic disclaimer to every sentence, and for sure, enough to affect how I vote TODAY with my dollars. And as for other companies following suit, they won't get my dollars either. There are plenty of entertainment options other than playing PC games. "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> once tried to test me with: >>> Thus, once again, I will punish Valve for that and not punish LGS >>> and other [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > going to agree that I have "no idea" whether HL2 has long term > accessibility or not. Why, do you have a crystal ball? No you don't. So yes, YOU HAVE NO IDEA. Valve doesn't have to make any announcements. Why the f.ck should they? They may make some agreement with whoever buys them in the end that precludes them from releasing a patch, so then they'd have to break their decision anyway. Best to not say nothing, since IT ISN'T RELEVANT NOW. There's ZERO business reason to make such an announcement NOW, when it's only relative if and when they get in financial trouble and Steam becomes impossible to maintain. > There's no business reason for a company that's > about to shut its doors to spend time releasing such a patch. That may be true. But companies have released patches in the past for older titles that remove the copy protection, after the highest volume of sales have already been made. Look at the 1.66 patch to NWN for an example of that. It removes the CD-check. I seem to recall one or more of the Unreal Tournament games did this as well. > I think > the chances are excellent that it will not - enough for me to talk > about it that way without adding a probabilistic disclaimer to every > sentence, and for sure, enough to affect how I vote TODAY with my > dollars. Vote how you want, and think what you want, it doesn't change the fact that you don't know the future. > And as for other companies following suit, they won't get my dollars > either. There are plenty of entertainment options other than playing > PC games. That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely happening. So as I said. Get used to it. SignatureKnight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer. > "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> once tried to test me with: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Why, do you have a crystal ball? No you don't. So yes, YOU HAVE NO IDEA. Oh please. The continuum of predictions isn't divided into two neat boxes of "We have 100% proof" and "We have NO IDEA." "NO IDEA" means you have *little or no* basis on which to make a confident prediction, not that you lack 100% proof. If it did, you had no right by your own logic to state just now without qualification that "I HAVE NO IDEA" since for all you know, I could have a high-level inside contact inside Valve that confirms without a doubt that Valve will never release a patch to free HL2 from Steam. I'm not saying I have such a contact but if I did, I would still deny it publically so my refusal to confirm it is no proof. So if you're not gonna live by your own rule that everything that isn't in the past or right in front of your nose can never be asserted without qualification in a usenet group about GAMES, then don't get on someone else's case for it. Go around telling people you have "NO IDEA" whether the sun will rise in the east tomorrow (you don't have a crystal ball, do you?) and count all the funny looks you get. That's the funny look I'm giving you right now. There's a difference between being open-minded and ignoring the reality of how a for-profit corporation will act. I'm open-minded enough to know I *might* be wrong about that and I've already stated that possibility in this thread. I'm realistic enough to know I'm confident that I won't be wrong. >That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever >I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen >this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely >happening. So as I said. Get used to it. I would say easily within 5 years. SignatureAndrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. > >That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever > >I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen > >this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely > >happening. So as I said. Get used to it. > > I would say easily within 5 years. Broadband penetration is going to have to improve dramatically in the next 2 or 3 years for game distribution to go to online delivery for the majority. Also major players like EA, VU, and Ubi are going to have to switch to online content delivery mechanisms (or at least offer it). I can see 5 years from now nearly any game you would care to buy will be available online (that's almost the case now, actually) but I don't see retail dying off for PC gaming in 5 years. Maybe 10. And console gaming will take even longer to die in retail. Way longer. Not that I have a crystal ball or anything. :) Knight37 >Broadband penetration is going to have to improve dramatically in the >next 2 or 3 years for game distribution to go to online delivery for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >see retail dying off for PC gaming in 5 years. Maybe 10. And console >gaming will take even longer to die in retail. Way longer. Yup, Consoles will keep the retail channel chugging along for the foreseeable future. That is a nice little conundrum for you know who to get his microscopic mind around. SignatureAndrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. > Broadband penetration is going to have to improve dramatically in the > next 2 or 3 years for game distribution to go to online delivery for > the majority. Right. People who live in big cities and have all sorts of broadband options don't realize that 80% of the internet users in the US still have dial-up connections, and for many of them, there will most likely never be a faster alternative. I work at a business that is just 3 miles outside of a city, and the fastest dial-up connection we can get there is 28K. It took me hours just to download a little spyware program there. DSL only works within about 3 miles of the base station. If you live 15 miles out in the country, that won't work, and cable companies don't want to string 15 miles of cable to service one or two homes. It's just not cost effective for them. >Right. People who live in big cities and have all sorts of broadband >options don't realize that 80% of the internet users in the US still >have dial-up connections, and for many of them, there will most likely Pull numbers out of your a.s much? SignatureMichael Cecil http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/ http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/ > > Broadband penetration is going to have to improve dramatically in the > > next 2 or 3 years for game distribution to go to online delivery for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have dial-up connections, and for many of them, there will most likely > never be a faster alternative. Actually the percentage of broadband users is at about 29% as of 2004, according to this article on news.com: http://tinyurl.com/aqyjz Also according to that article, broadband penetration is predicted to be up to 62% by 2010. (Study provided by Forrester Research) As for rural areas never having an option for broadband, I expect that will not be the case forever. New broadband technologies are coming out all the time, and one of them is bound to become cheap enough to be able to implement even in remote locations. Knight37 >DSL only works within about 3 miles of the base station. If you live 15 >miles out in the country, that won't work, and cable companies don't >want to string 15 miles of cable to service one or two homes. It's just >not cost effective for them. ADSL2 works over much longer range, plus there are satellite options for people in really remote places. SignatureAndrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. > That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever > I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen > this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely > happening. So as I said. Get used to it. Within 3 years the majority will be online content delivery. It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued online and available anywhere in the world is a great plus. "Walter Mitty" predicted: > Within 3 years the majority will be online content delivery. > > It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued online > and available anywhere in the world is a great plus. But, but, I'll miss the *box*! Maybe the box could be purchased as an option. Like we could buy it from the "Gamers Gift Shop" - along with the logo t-shirts, the logo thongs, the logo noserings, and the logo golf shoes (all available separately or together - as the ultimate gaming fashion ensemble). Mark > But, but, I'll miss the *box*! Maybe the box could be > purchased as an option. you are not the only one wanting a "box" i also want a "box" and the majority too what must happen is the pc game industry maintaining choice like you say maintaining all options open so the market can choose what is best this is essential the delivery method in pc games must be choose by us us pc gamers! not by publishers or developers! they create and sell and we choose! that's not negotiable we choose were to buy play and install our own pc games either via online delivery system or traditional retail that's why steam is so wrong cause it cuts choice with steam there is no choice you don't see a proper retail box steam free half-life 2 but rather valve forcing and making you use an online delivery system this kind of arrogant attitude by valve is UNTOLERABLE ok many like online delivery for pc games, fair enough but those that like it CAN'T FORCE THE OTHERS TO USE IT YOU and ME and MILLIONS of others prefer the current dominating format which has been used for over a decade the format of a physical package with the software in a self contained cd/dvd meaning you buy it in a retail store and bring it home and you install it and you play it right out of the box right out of the box without being dependant on anything else! this is essential! essential! this is very important cause valve is trying to impregnate a internet technology into the retail market and this is very wrong, that is infecting and damaging the retail market there has to be a CLEAR SEPARATION of what is retail and what is internet online delivery technology steam has no place in retail! no place period systems like steam only belong to the internet! ONLY! so for a packaged box game to be properly sold in retail it must meet what i call the 3 unnegotiable requirement what i call the three unnegotiable requirements are: . physical package with a cd/dvd sold in retail stores . patches freely available as individual files . software in cd/dvd is totally self contained and plays immediatly out of the box with no humiliating ask for permission to use this is the way i want to buy play install and patches pc games but others like it different ok, so lets keep all options available and let pc gamers choose if this format becomes the chosen one only by a very small minority and stops being FINANCIALLY profitable then off course i don't have the right to ask publishers to make games available in it i don't want for publishers to create games in a format that only me will use it but the facts and reality are clear its not only me that wants pc games this way but the majority of pc games DO PREFER this format let me repeat its been proven the majority still prefers buying a pc game in a box with a cd/dvd! so don't anyone try to deny this! as long as pc gamers PREFER this format the box/package cd dvd sold in retail then publishers and developers must keep releasing their game using it publishers and developers must RESPECT US we will not tolerate being forced to use a system only to favour them let the pc gamer choose have both options available for pc games to choose traditional self contained retail box in a cd/dvd and online delivery and we already have this now for example, popular games like farcry and painkiller can be bought via online delivery but they are also available in retail stores in a PROPER box in a cd/dvd this is what must happen! choice! with choice them will see what format will win let it be a fair competition! fair competition! something valve doesn't want valve is playing DIRTY cause its INFECTING the retail market with a internet online delivery system valve is FORCING a system upon us all valve is using retail to SPREAD they own system that's totally unacceptable! i can buy farcry and painkiller in a PROPER box retail package but i CANNOT do the same with half-life 2 and all these games have an online delivery alternative but hl2 forces the technology behind the online delivery system to be used by those buying the game in retail and this is totally unacceptable! UNACCEPTABLE! why they are doing this? cause the online delivery system favours them! the online delivery system gives them immense power and with power comes the ability to ask for more money the reason why they are doing this is not to better serve the customer but to FAVOUR THEMSELVES! and no matter what businesses can't be ruled by this attitude total careless about customers and neglect of basic consumer rights as for what system will win... lets wait and see but if the market is split 50/50 why not maintaining both if its financially viable if half pc gamers prefer one system and another half the other pc game industry MUST MAINTAIN both system available there has to be MUTUAL RESPECT we live in democracy NOT IN A DICTATORSHIP its in DICTATORSHIP that everyone must be the same remember george orwell 1984? that's what steam is life is diversity! so lets respect diversity! the main thing here is being financially viable if its financially viable the pc game industry has no excuse to kill the retail physical package format i don't have any problem with any online delivery except for the fact i want to have choice and options of every single pc game release being available also in a retail box do you see me going against any other online delivery system with the exception of steam? no! i only fight against steam i don't have any problem with any other online delivery system cause with those i have the option to buy a game in a retail store like i've been doing for the past years its with steam that i don't have that option valve took that option and that choice away from me and that i will never accept never! give us choice is what i'm asking let us choose is what i'm asking respect our will is what i'm asking them will see what will be the system pc games choose but don't impose and force systems upon us! that never! which is exactly what is happening with valve and steam ps: i do think one of the reasons for the recent push in online delivery systems like steam is to cut on piracy fighting piracy is protecting the traditional box package its essential to fight piracy essential and we must all try our best cause every single pc gamer has the power to change things and to make a difference that's what i meant with the other day saying its also our own responsibility as pc gamers to actively fight against piracy if we want to maintain the traditional box package we must also protect it and protecting it means actively fighting against piracy cause if not then arrogant publishers like valve will have an "excuse" to IMPOSE and FORCE upon us thing we don't like i do apologize if i tried to insinuate anything else which wasn't true about your person cause it wasn't what i was trying to say but i admit the way i wrote was wrong -- post made in a steam-free computer i said "NO" to valve and steam >> That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever >> I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued >online and available anywhere in the world is a great plus. Unless, of course, people demand more and more mobility as well, like they are doing right now (more and more laptops sold etc.). And in 3-5 years, we still will not have wireless Internet all over the place. Not even close. After that requiring an active internet connection in order to watch your DVD movies, listening to your purchased music, playing your games on your laptop etc. is far for convenient. But I am sure knight, andrew and walter mitty were first in the line buying CircuitCity DIVX pay-per-view boxes. Too bad it failed, but that didn't destroy their hopes of everything requiring online validation in the future. >>>That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever >>>I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > years, we still will not have wireless Internet all over the place. > Not even close. Well, just about every laptop comes with wireless as base feature now. As do PPCs. I think you'll be surprised. And I dont see how your argument matters anyway : if they have a laptop they can take their games with them and just play offline. >> Unless, of course, people demand more and more mobility as well, like >> they are doing right now (more and more laptops sold etc.). And in 3-5 >> years, we still will not have wireless Internet all over the place. >> Not even close. >Well, just about every laptop comes with wireless as base feature now. >As do PPCs. > >I think you'll be surprised. Sorry, but WLAN coverage, especially for FREE WLAN, is very restricted around the world. And GSM/GPRS are not broadband either. >And I dont see how your argument matters anyway : if they have a laptop >they can take their games with them and just play offline. Steam offline is prone not to work, but you wouldn't know that since you never really use it. Other "electronic content delivery systems" like the one used for NWN modules don't even offer offline play, because they want to control your gaming even stricter. Plus, you can't install&play Steam games offline either. >>>Unless, of course, people demand more and more mobility as well, like >>>they are doing right now (more and more laptops sold etc.). And in 3-5 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Steam offline is prone not to work, but you wouldn't know that since > you never really use it. Other "electronic content delivery systems" Wrong. > like the one used for NWN modules don't even offer offline play, > because they want to control your gaming even stricter. > > Plus, you can't install&play Steam games offline either. Well, DUH! >> That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well >> whatever I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued online > and available anywhere in the world is a great plus. Irrelevant to the discusson. How you obtain the content initially has nothing to do with whether you need an internet connection on the deployment platform and the publisher's continued willingness to authenticate you to use the content *after* you've obtained it. My firewall, PDF reader, and patches for a whole slew of non-Steam games were all delivered online and I had no objection to any of that because all of those were delivered as standalone installers that could be burned to CD, reinstalled offline as many times as I want and the content doesn't call home to authenticate. I only have to download *once* and I can use the machine best suited for that task whether or it's not the machine I ultimately intend to use the content on. >Why, do you have a crystal ball? No you don't. So yes, YOU HAVE NO IDEA. It is called common sense, something you apparently lack. PC game companies which are about to fold don't usually seem to be too keen to continue supporting their old games which bring them no money whatsoever anymore. >There's ZERO business reason to make such an announcement NOW, when it's >only relative if and when they get in financial trouble and Steam becomes >impossible to maintain. There's no business reason if they really think all people are as stupid as those who are unable to see potential risks in the future. But I am sure you were saying all this same to the people who were against CircuitCity DIVX (pay-per-view DVD with online authentication). For some reason, the people who were against it and voted with their wallet won. >That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever >I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen >this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely >happening. So as I said. Get used to it. And so said the only real CC DIVX customer promoter in the whole known universe. Every other customer seemed to be against it, luckily. >That hasn't happened yet so stop talking about it like it has. You have >no idea if HL2 has long term accessibility or not. It's accessible >RIGHT NOW and that's all you can actually say. If and when Valve goes >out of business, only THEN can you say whether or not HL2 will have >long-term accessibility. Human has this ability of thinking about consequences and thinking of "what if"-scenarios with potential risks . It is pretty stupid to put one's head into sand thinking "Well it is not a problem at the moment, so I'd better not think about the future either.". >For all we know Valve will release a patch to >HL2 before they close their doors making it playable without requiring >Steam at all. Or not. We DO NOT KNOW YET. So why should we assume everything will surely end up according to the good scenario? Why do people wear seatbelts, or buy insurances? That's right, they are able to think about the bad scenarios as well, if everything does not go as planned. >If you want to bitch about having to go online to do validation then >bitch about that, but don't bitch about not being able to play a game >in 2010 or whenever, since that hasn't occured yet. Sorry, but that line of thinking is simply quite stupid. Putting one's head into sand. >BTW, Valve isn't >the only one doing online validation for offline content. Bioware is >also doing it with their premium modules for NWN. I'm sure in the >future this will become more and more common, so get used to it. That's exactly putting head into sand. I'm sure you don't have any problems having to be online to watch HD-DVD movies either, right? Funnily enough, many times I also want to watch movies in places where there is no internet connection available. > But most games don't have an intentional built-in remote-destruct mechanism > designed into the way Steam games do. I wonder how Valve would react to such baseless, potentially harmful slander? You need to change your name to something like "shitstirrer". >> But most games don't have an intentional built-in remote-destruct mechanism >> designed into the way Steam games do. > >I wonder how Valve would react to such baseless, potentially harmful >slander? It is not slander, you blind Valve fanboi. Remember the Steam offline mode timer? >You need to change your name to something like "shitstirrer". And you need to change yours to "Rabid blind Valve fanboi who couldn't get over the demise of CircuitCity DIVX". >>>But most games don't have an intentional built-in remote-destruct mechanism >>>designed into the way Steam games do. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is not slander, you blind Valve fanboi. Remember the Steam offline > mode timer? That was an error : they removed it. It is slander because this dick is suggesting that their IS a remote-destruct system built in. Prove it. >>You need to change your name to something like "shitstirrer". > > And you need to change yours to "Rabid blind Valve fanboi who couldn't > get over the demise of CircuitCity DIVX". I'm not a rabid Valve fan boy : I enjoyed HL2 and have moved on. It seems you're the one frothing and defending a slanderer here on the 'net. SignatureWalter Mitty - Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu " Format wars could 'confuse users'" http://www.tinyurl.com >> It is not slander, you blind Valve fanboi. Remember the Steam offline >> mode timer? > >That was an error : they removed it. That's your ASSumption, Valve fanboi. How on earth can you insert an "error" to code which disables offline mode depending on date??? If the offline mode was supposed to remain forever, why was there ANY dependence at all in the code to the system clock date? Try to think logically this time. >>>You need to change your name to something like "shitstirrer". >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'm not a rabid Valve fan boy : I enjoyed HL2 and have moved on. It >seems you're the one frothing and defending a slanderer here on the 'net. If you "moved on" from Steam, why are you still discussing and blindly defending it in every thread? > As riku has already pointed out, you are comparing apples and oranges. riku? the guy who changed his posting name to get out of all the killfiles he ended up in? anyway, nope. apples and apples. you're complaining that half-life 2's longevity isn't guaranteed in the event valve goes out of business. and i'm saying that's true of every single game out there, including ones i'm sure you have no such complaint about. so steam is an added hurdle, big deal. it's already been defeated for offline play. like knight says, if you want to bitch about steam for using online activation, go ahead. but put your crystal ball away. people have legitimate issues with steam but you want to sit there and imagine fantasy scenarios that apply to every other piece of software. it's silly Signature"Please excuse my posts in this thread this morning, I had not yet taken my meds." -Jim Vieira >anyway, nope. apples and apples. you're complaining that half-life >2's longevity isn't guaranteed in the event valve goes out of business. >and i'm saying that's true of every single game out there, including >ones i'm sure you have no such complaint about. They still work on the system and OS they were targeted for, and future systems which are able to emulate those systems. Steam games won't. This is something you seem to have problems comprehending. So what is your take in CircuitCity DIVX? "So what if your movie collection becomes useless if the company supporting the system goes bust (as it has done)? Big deal." i own a yacht <me@privacy.net> once tried to test me with: > riku? the guy who changed his posting name to get out of all the > killfiles he ended up in? Isn't Riku that chick from Final Fantasy 10 that could make all the gadgets and stuff? SignatureKnight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer. >Isn't Riku that chick from Final Fantasy 10 that could make all the gadgets >and stuff? Isn't knight37 the middle-aged nerd living in his mother's basement collecting medieval knight figurines, yelling at the mirror "Have at thee!", and dreaming about gaming chicks in console RPGs? riku <riku@none.invalid.com> once tried to test me with: >>Isn't Riku that chick from Final Fantasy 10 that could make all the >>gadgets and stuff? > > Isn't knight37 the middle-aged nerd living in his mother's basement > collecting medieval knight figurines, yelling at the mirror "Have at > thee!", and dreaming about gaming chicks in console RPGs? I dream about Star Wars, dork. SignatureKnight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer. >> Yes, it takes an effort to get SS1 *if you change the underlying OS* - so >> what, when LG went down, my Win98 CD's didn't just vanish in a poof of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >up space, using extra electricity, just to play some old games. >installing extra applications, dual-booting. how silly. Are you really that stupid or only acting so? Having the 100k crack is an extra hurdle, not an alternative to the old hardware/OS. Nowhere does it say Half-life 2 will run out of the box, or even with that crack, in 11 years in contemporary gaming machines and OSes (PC with WindowsXP128bit or whatever). >> Which still means that once you get it to run, it won't stop working the >> next day because some computer out there that you have no control over is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >went under leaving their steam catalogue of games unplayable. it's the >exact same thing. No it isn't. Emulation etc. are only needed when you try to run games on foreign systems (foreign to the game). For example running Amiga games on PC, or DOS games on WinXP. Steam is an _additional_ hurdle to get the games to work. In the situation there would be no support for the games anymore, Steam games would not work even in the original system. >if you're not going to penalize companies for disappearing and no longer >supporting their games so that they work currently, i don't see how you >can criticize steam based on some prediction that if valve ever went >under you would no longer be able to play their games. Read above. You can't demand a game to work on all future machines irrespective to their hardware and OS, but you can demand a game to continue working on the system the game was intended for. >you may have >other issues with steam, and that's fine, but we're talking about >something specific here and it's something a lot of people bring up and >it's stupid. No, you have a simple comprehension problem here, that's all. You are comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same situation. >dopey john lewis will sit there and boast about his >collection of old hardware he keeps around just to play games that no >longer work under a modern OS and then gripe about the possibilities of >half-life 2 no longer functioning in the future. ...even in the original machine. That's the difference. >use your brain. offline >play is already guaranteed based on software that came out before hl2 >was even on the shelves. 1. Cracks are illegal. 2. I guess that would be fine, if HL2 would be the only Steam game around. >> In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to be installable and >> playable for "all time"! > >even games that require third party applications, emulation, and in many >cases, community designed patches to run? Only so if they are tried to be run on systems or operating systems for which they were not designed. You don't expect to run Super Nintendo games on Playstation, do you? >whine about steam, and forget all those hundreds of old games that >simply wont run without special effort and software. Why wouldn't they run on their target machine? Steam games might not, though. > Maybe Doom 3, but not Half-Life 2 LOL!!!! "Mother Farquhar" <fake@ddress.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say: >> Maybe Doom 3, but not Half-Life 2 > >LOL!!!! He may be right - it is a _gamespot_ list after all. Xocyll SignatureI don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr >In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half >Life 2 or Doom 3. HL2 and Doom 3 are good games - at least the enemies didn't always drone towards you (or if they did, it wouldn't appear out of character.) Quake, on the other hand, still made the list: http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/greatestgames/p-22.html SS2 is, without question, the best PC action game ever made. I can say this objectively and without bias. The only single game I can think of that's better is Nethack. It's funny you would mention HL2 and Doom 3; of course neither is top material but the original versions of these games are certainly top 10. Doom 3 is utter retread, but it's pretty. HL2 is worth the price of admission. It's head and shoulders above Doom 3. As a plug for Valve, the original Half Life is certainly number 2, behind System Shock II. In terms of play *value* Half-Life is the all-time #1. I played TFC more hours than any other game except Nethack. But that's only because of TFC. It is and remains the best online multiplayer action game I've ever played. Sometimes a work of man-made media transcends product and becomes art. I can remember sitting in the theatre after Schindler's List and feeling dull numb, simply shocked from the effect of the picture. Or hearing Mozart's 40th, or Metallica's "One" at volume 11. Can a simple game be compared to these works of pure grace? I say Yes. The "immersion" of a game is tossed around like it's a measurable factor, like the screen resolution or frames-per-second. Oh yeah, Doom 3 made me jump a few times and the Shalebridge Cradle level of Thief 3 was really creepy. But if you've played through SS2 and not jumped out of your seat and audibly SHREAKED then you're legally dead. Not just once but the WHOLE TIME. This game just nailed it. OK the graphics are dated (sometimes comical) and the endgame is silly. But man, these guys combined sound, visual, voice acting and storyline into a truly FLAWLESS interface and emerged with something that is greater than the sum of its parts. System Shock II is not just a game. It's sitting on my shelf alongside my favorite DVD's & CD's waiting to be experienced again. Maybe it's #1, maybe not, that's a subjective question. In my mind it certainly is. If you've never played it then you have no business owning a computer. <snip> both will be in history books but for very different reasons doom 3 will be in the history books for good reasons, being the first "cinematic/movie like" graphic quality pc game hl2 will be in the history books for BAD reasons, being the first game featuring abusive against consumer rights steam technologies -- post made in a steam-free computer i said "NO" to valve and steam |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.