yo_john117 said: ssj12 said: yo_john117 said: ssj12 said: PullusPardus said: Euphoria14 said: Would people hate me if I said that I think Half-Life is very over rated? Left4Dead looks alright though, but not a big online gamer myself. I must admit though that I did really enjoy playing Team Fortress 2. why but it IS overrated. its known for having a silent protagonist and i HATE that in games,  its also have a "Good" story in shooters which is rare, but all in all its overrated by the media IMO , much like alotta games. You mean super overrated totally generic Halo? Half-Life is not overrated. A game is nearly flawless as it is by far is not overrated. If its overrated then ET was a AAA title. You mean overrated to you.  And not really generic at all... OT: I thought this was really old news. battlefield 1942 style vehicles. unreal like multiplayer. half-life-like single player. super generic super soldier story. ya.. so not generic let alone completely original >.> Oh don't give me that crap.  Virtually every single game ever made takes parts from other games.  Halo takes all the best from the best and makes a very good game on virtually every angle, not too many games have as many features as Halo and that do it as well as Halo.  Thats totally not generic.  Multiplayer is definatly not really like Unreal (especially since Unreal MP sucks compared to halo)  And the story is nothing life Half-Life (besides that suit part at best)  And if you were to read the Halo books you would find that the Halo story is deeper than really any other game out there...

so we are looking at a game where they need books to backup the weak stories within the game itself basically? it's generic as all hell, but that doesn't make it a bad game, so what if it's generic? will people cut themselves and half the population on earth will suddenly die? it's not even a big deal that you guys are making it out to be. Personally, I'll be damned if I ever read any book based on video games, fuck that, I'm nerdy enough as it is, that's like over the top nerdier than the nerdiest basement nerds.

Regarding your respect for Blizzard... they tend to publicly scoff at the idea of ever porting their software to consoles, with clear distain that comes across as consoles being toys incapable of properly handling what a PC can handle.  Personally, I disagree with them, but I'm not going to call them poor quality developers because of it... they've made their platform choices, and I can respect that.

You should send an email to them and ask when their going to port Starcraft, Warcraft, World of Warcraft, Diablo, etc. to consoles.  You will probably get a polite reply stating that they have no current plans to address those platforms, but if you get a chance to talk to someone at Blizzard (I happen to know someone who works there) and they really open up, you will probably hear a lot of laughter at the suggestion.  I don't take it personally... it's just a difference of opinion.

I don't disagree with you about Halo taking the best from the best, but as a clarification, many of the ideas Bungie had for Halo were extensions from what they were doing with their Marathon series, beforehand.  In other words, they borrowed from a lot of their own ideas.

They make games that require a lot of actions and keys, a game pad isn't enough, aka they make more complex games suited for PC, console games are usually a lot more dumped down, and lately PC games are suffering in depth and tech advantages because of the multi-plat too. I'm glad they are sticking to PC only so they don't get held back on those aspects, hmmmm, sounds awful a lot like the HD consoles vs Wii situation all of a sudden, only the Wii has the controls to win more people over apparently .

I would have agreed with you on the bolded statement a year ago.  After playing Halo Wars, however, I began to understand that a controller was enough IF the right company was able to re-think how a controller could be used with an RTS game.  I've spent thousands of hours on PC/Mac based RTS games, and Halo Wars felt more intuitive and natural with a controller than those games did with mouse and keyboard.  I guess RTS creators just couldn't think outside the box enough until recently.

Personally, I believe World of Warcraft *could* be done well on a 360 or PS3, but that Blizzard simply doesn't need to worry about the incremental money they would gain from porting/supporting on consoles, not to mention the increased costs of doing so.

and somebody in Korea does 600 actions per minute with every move making sense in the SC2 beta atm, you can't do that with Halo Wars, you are gimped by the controls hence making it more console casual friendly( and WoW is as causal as it can get as a PC game lawl,) just like the FPS, the TPS, the WRPG on consoles, basically all western games. In a competing environment which a lot of the PC games are centered around, game pads are ass. World of Warcraft is all about key binding, macros, reaction times and the tons of spells you have to use to counter many things in pvp with every millisecond counting, or sometimes pve, it'd be a gimper game on consoles. They don't care about the money since they are rich to start with, they are free to do what they want instead of having to bring a lesser experience which is against their ideals as game makers, that's why they are one of the top devs in the gaming industry.

It's funny because heres another source on valve.. this posted like what 2 days ago or something:

Lombardi: Valve is still 'up on the idea' of PS3 development
http://www.psu.com/Lombardi--Valve-is-still-up-on-the-idea-of-PS3-development-News--a007691-p0.php

Valve Corporation’s Doug Lombardi has stated that the company is still very much "up on the idea" of developing for Sony’s PlayStation 3 console, though noted the firm must first rack up a dedicated team of coders to work on the system.

Speaking to Joystiq in London this week, Lombardi commented, "If you look at The Orange Box -- PC: 96 on Metacritic, 360: 96 on Metacritic, PS3 like... 84 or something. That's not even close to where we are right now with the 360 and PC and the reason is people."

He added that "we have to get people under our roof who are dedicated, talented PS3 guys and then all bets are off. We can take the same sort of strides and get the quality out of the box and offer the same support post-launch on that platform, as well."

Quizzed on whether Valve was in the process of scouting out new talent, Lombardi concluded: "Valve is always looking to hire people. So yeah, definitely."

Let us know your thoughts on Valve in the comments section below.

I concidered making a thread called something along the lines of "valve wants to make sweet love with the ps3" but realised I couldn't be arsed to put that much effort into spreading the word. :p

when I wake up i think about what Valve said...oh no wait. fuck valve and its primitive looking games

graphics isn't everything, that's why KZ2 isn't the end of all FPS on consoles, we've already covered that ground too.

They haven't got any of my money since Half-Life. I would've bought Left 4 Dead for my PS3 if it existed, since I'm not much into PC gaming anymore these days, except for Civ4 and some WoW every 4 months or so.