Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

70. Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 13:06 GT
 
First, theyarecomingforyou, I see that you contradicted yourself and replied to me even though you stated in your previous post that you wouldn't.

L4D buyers knew what they were getting
No, they obviously didn't as the ones who are now complaining believed Valve's lies and hype when they paid for the game. They bought the promise of a full game and don't see Valve delivering on that promise without having to buy the game again.

It had more content but better value for money? No. To me it was quantity over quality...In terms of playtime:price ratio TF2 obliterates UT3 for me.
Yes, and the drones who have been playing de-dust ad nauseum in Counterstrike for years would say that single map in Counterstrike obliterates the value of both UT3 and TF2 since they have played it for thousands of hours. But, that simply means that they are boring, repetitive, and easily amused. Most people aren't content to buy and play a game with only a map or two especially for that long. That's why you have to look at the games objectively in making a value comparison of different games and throw out whether you like a game or not. More content simply gives more value to a game than less. So, I'm not saying that UT3 is a better game for everyone than TF2 and L4D. But, if you like the game, UT3 delivers far more value for the money than either TF2 or L4D due to its greater amount of content and variety.

it was the terrible server and appalling netcode that stopped most people. It wasn't until the recent update that Epic finally sorted out the netcode in UT3.
That's not true. I played the game online many months before the 2.0 update, and the game was fine in that department. I never had a problem with network performance when playing on Epic's servers. UT3 is a very demanding game from hardware standpoint which stresses the networking performance too even when running in server mode. Some servers simply don't have the hardware and bandwidth to run the game properly for the number of players they allow. In addition the version 1.3 update in August 2008 also made some significant improvements to the game's netcode. See http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=620465

it took them weeks to realise PC gamers don't like double-clicking all the buttons.
I didn't mind that change in the 2.0 update because it prevents the accidental clicks/selections that can occur with just a click of a button. But, yes, Epic reversed that change in the next update a short time later.

LMAO, you've just blown any credibility you may have had out the window.
There you go again contradicting yourself. You complained in the thread at http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=98795 that UT3 was less "accessible" than TF2 and was confusing since it was like several radically different games in one so you didn't know what to expect. So, why would you now disagree that TF2 and L4D are simplistic in comparison to UT3? UT3 is a more complicated and sophisticated game than those two because it has so much more variety in game modes and customization. Even the rules of the various game modes can even be radically altered through the use of UT3's included mutators. TF2 and L4D simply don't have anywhere near that flexibility and variety which makes them simple in comparison.

Discussion over.
You were wrong on that before too.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2009, 13:43.
 
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

Blue's News logo