rocketpig said:
MikeB said:
BenKenobi88 said:
I don't understand the Valve complaints, I'd say they're much better than they were in the Half Life days.
Yes the Source engine is getting old, but it still looks about as good as the other engines on the market, and it's even better because it scales to older computers so nicely. That's a REALLY big deal for gamers who can't or don't want to upgrade their PCs.
|
Half-Life was IMO amazing for its time in 1998, Half-Life 2 took a while but was pretty great in 2004. Now it's 2008 and I see nothing special like I would have expected from a Half-Life 3. IMO they are no more at the forefront of development, mainly floating on past reputation. For example as for PC developing companies Crytek seems far more ambitious and far more adaptive towards new technology. Steam is mainly a content deliverly implementation, this implementation may be good and popular but the technology is IMO nothing revolutionary. |
It was six years between HL1 & 2. Expecting Valve to release HL3 in four years when they're still working on episodic content is unfair and Left4Dead looks pretty amazing and has a good chance of changing the way online shooters are played. |
They did Half-Life 1 in less than 2 years. By hiring some extra talent it should't be impossible.
Left 4 Dead doesn't look like a gerne defining or revolutionary game to me at all, nothing like Half-Life was. What I have seen and know about from Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 looks far more ambitious. I am looking foward to what the Crytek team can come with on consoles as well.
I think people coming to Valve's defense IMO makes the case of being over-rated stronger.
