Valve's main marketer Doug Lombardi was on hand recently to show off the latest version of the awesome looking PC, 360 zombie shooter, Left 4 Dead. But PS3 is being left out of the loop.
Lombardi told us, "We're not PS3 developers - we're doing PC and 360 like with Orange Box. EA came to us and said 'Wow, Orange box was an incredible project, can we do a PS3 version?'"
So does that mean if it's a hit someone else (EA again, maybe?) could port it over to PS3? "Left 4 Dead doesn't have that guaranteed appeal yet - it's a new IP," Lombardi explained.
"If you mention a new Half-Life, people want to make as many versions of it as possible. If Left 4 Dead is big, then we may see a PS3 version later, or if and when we do a sequel, people may be more interested in that.
"We're only 150 people, so there's only so many things we can do. But it's one of those things with partners, wanting to take on that investment and risk. I think until L4D is proven, you'll probably just see what we make in that franchise."
We already think Left 4 Dead is looking great. Hit this link and check out the latest shots to see why.
ive been looking forward to this since they first announced it. im going to preorder it the second i can. valve have NEVER let me down. their games are the best in the world.
For such fanboy bating news, I'm glad people haven't bitten.....yet.
Agree with the thoughts on Valve, they're one of those developers that really know what they're doing.
For me their only misstep is the Episodes on Half Life 2, but I'll forgive them as they were doing them to promote Steam has done a lot to keep PC gaming relevant.
Left 4 Dead is the type of game that I have been waiting for years. I do hope that it comes out for PS3 as nothing unites the two factions more than a truly great multiformat title. Case in point: GTA 4; everyone I've spoken to just agrees it's amazing regardless of format.
The game does looking good. However Valve will put the game on any format they think they can make a profit on! Especially if EA tell them to. There's a story on here somewhere about them wanting to develop for the Wii. I wish all these software companies would just stick to making good games and stop trying to grab free press coverage with stupid comments. bottomholes!
For such fanboy bating news, I'm glad people haven't bitten.....yet.
Agree with the thoughts on Valve, they're one of those developers that really know what they're doing.
For me their only misstep is the Episodes on Half Life 2, but I'll forgive them as they were doing them to promote Steam has done a lot to keep PC gaming relevant.
Left 4 Dead is the type of game that I have been waiting for years. I do hope that it comes out for PS3 as nothing unites the two factions more than a truly great multiformat title. Case in point: GTA 4; everyone I've spoken to just agrees it's amazing regardless of format.
Yes agreed but they never said it wouldn't come on PS3 just that they wont be the ones to port/develop it.
The game does looking good. However Valve will put the game on any format they think they can make a profit on! Especially if EA tell them to. There's a story on here somewhere about them wanting to develop for the Wii. I wish all these software companies would just stick to making good games and stop trying to grab free press coverage with stupid comments. bottomholes!
Why are they being bottomholes by saying they dont do PS3 development? As for the Wee title isnt that going to be a new title developed for it? A family game I think they said.
It's not really up to them what format they want to release it on. EA will tell Valve what they have to do. Just as they did with Orange box. Valve are just trying to do a R* and say something risky so they get free air time. bottomholes!
It's not really up to them what format they want to release it on. EA will tell Valve what they have to do. Just as they did with Orange box. Valve are just trying to do a R* and say something risky so they get free air time. bottomholes!
The game does looking good. However Valve will put the game on any format they think they can make a profit on! Especially if EA tell them to. There's a story on here somewhere about them wanting to develop for the Wii. I wish all these software companies would just stick to making good games and stop trying to grab free press coverage with stupid comments. bottomholes!
To be honest, I dont think they are. Call it whatever you want but Gabe has said previously that he didnt enjoy programming for the PS3, so in future I would assume Valve will outsource any ports for the PS3 to another developer.
There not the type of company to whore themselves across the forums just for cheap publicity.
It's not really up to them what format they want to release it on. EA will tell Valve what they have to do. Just as they did with Orange box. Valve are just trying to do a R* and say something risky so they get free air time. bottomholes!
That's the most uninformed comment so far. EA are aware of the fact that Valve are a PC dev. They also don't publish Valve's PC titles so they have no say over that. Valve didn't make the port for the PS3 version of The Orange Box, EA did that which is why it fell slightly short of the others. EA know how well respected Valve are and if they bugger up their image Valve can drop them at any moment. That's why EA have to be careful and not go for a multi-format grabathon.
It's not really up to them what format they want to release it on. EA will tell Valve what they have to do. Just as they did with Orange box. Valve are just trying to do a R* and say something risky so they get free air time. bottomholes!
You are confused. EA does not own Valve.
That said, I want to kiss Valve's collective face. Love those peeps.
It's not really up to them what format they want to release it on. EA will tell Valve what they have to do. Just as they did with Orange box. Valve are just trying to do a R* and say something risky so they get free air time. bottomholes!
You are confused. EA does not own Valve.
That said, I want to kiss Valve's collective face. Love those peeps.
I was born confused and still am, although not as confused as I leave people after I have spoken to them.
Since valve have been primarily pc based devs its not surprising that the prefer using the 360 due to its similar architecture. That said its a shame that they dont develop on the ps3 as im sure they could do some immense stuff on there.
It's quite stupid in a business sense that Valve are saying they don't do games for the PS3. They're restricting the amount of income they could get as I'm sure there are many PS3 owners would buy a game from them if programmed well (not like the orange box, apparently s**te on th PS3).
they're bunch of pussies, where's their ambition? they won't do it because they struggle with ps3, orange box was a good game compilation, but nothing special, cowards- nothing more.
It's quite stupid in a business sense that Valve are saying they don't do games for the PS3. They're restricting the amount of income they could get as I'm sure there are many PS3 owners would buy a game from them if programmed well (not like the orange box, apparently s**te on th PS3).
except spending time and resources developing / porting a game to a console that they dont enjoy working on will cost them a lot of money, when they can just sell the rights on, get a shed load of cash and do no work for it. leaves them more time to work on their next title
they're bunch of pussies, where's their ambition? they won't do it because they struggle with ps3, orange box was a good game compilation, but nothing special, cowards- nothing more.
Well said that man!
I blame Peter Molyneux. Developers all want to be celebs now. They all think they have something important to say but really they don't! I don't care what some invisible guy at Valve thinks! Their views mean nothing in the grand scale of things. It's obvious Sony have p**sed Valve off somewhere down the line. If Sony offered Valve a few 100 million dollars to develop only for the PS3 they would jump at the chance. Developers are just corporate whores who sell their soul to the highest bidder. I don't care what Valve think, I just want good games from them. Nothing more!
they're bunch of pussies, where's their ambition? they won't do it because they struggle with ps3, orange box was a good game compilation, but nothing special, cowards- nothing more.
Well said that man!
I blame Peter Molyneux. Developers all want to be celebs now. They all think they have something important to say but really they don't! I don't care what some invisible guy at Valve thinks! Their views mean nothing in the grand scale of things. It's obvious Sony have p**sed Valve off somewhere down the line. If Sony offered Valve a few 100 million dollars to develop only for the PS3 they would jump at the chance. Developers are just corporate whores who sell their soul to the highest bidder. I don't care what Valve think, I just want good games from them. Nothing more!
Very poorly said... To start with, to say developers want to be celebs is just stupid. You only say that as in the past no one cared about the people who made the game they enjoy, but thankfully these days they get the appreciation and spot light time they deserve for all their hard work. Next thing, Valve are a rather small development team compared to other developers. Like he stated, they have 150 to split between the PC and 360 version. MS cleverly built 360 around developers and the development is extremely close to that of PC, meaning a PC and 360 version can be developed in harmony and then optimized for each format. With PS3 however, all Sony think about is sticking their latest technology in the box, ie Cell and Blu-Ray and thus make it harder for developers. Valve being the small team that they are simply can't afford to waste time on a PS3 version, and like stated, would rather let another company handle any PS3 versions of their games. Obviously this is hard for PS3 owners to swallow but this isn't like last gen where developers had no choice but to adapt to PS2 development due to the monopoly it had over the market. This time they can afford to snub PS3, which is exactly what Valve are doing.
It is up to valve of course.There is clearly more effort involved than they would like to bother with and i'm sure they are quite happy with sales from pc and 360.Just about all teams can overcome programming difficulties in time and i doubt this is anything to do with it.
I love all these comments from mad PS3 owners about Valve being lazy when in truth it's because they're probably just sick of how much effort is required to do the same stuff that they do on an easier platform.Fair enough if you ask me.
Next gen will probably get here in maybe 3 years and there will then be as much power as any developer should need - maybe then PS3 will be showing it's true potential but at what cost.
It's getting harder to make these games and more familiar tools are going to be what devs want, not slighty more powerfull nightmare to program machines like PS3.Not all devs but certainly a good few will be of this thinking
You would think that a Video Game development company would want to stay ahead of the curve. Not Valve & Gabe Newell. They are paiving a new road for themselves. The only problem is, their road leads to nowhere, then into a brick wall.
It's horrible to see a developer taking the lazy, easy way out, especially when we can see the results when a development company makes the effort to follow technology as it advances and evolves.
Basically what Valve is telling us is, they refuse to advance themselves along with the technology of today. This can only result in a half-ass product for the consumer. I won't stand for it. I will not be purchasing any products made by or developed by Valve. Their philosophies are way out of date.
Very poorly said... To start with, to say developers want to be celebs is just stupid. You only say that as in the past no one cared about the people who made the game they enjoy, but thankfully these days they get the appreciation and spot light time they deserve for all their hard work. Next thing, Valve are a rather small development team compared to other developers. Like he stated, they have 150 to split between the PC and 360 version. MS cleverly built 360 around developers and the development is extremely close to that of PC, meaning a PC and 360 version can be developed in harmony and then optimized for each format. With PS3 however, all Sony think about is sticking their latest technology in the box, ie Cell and Blu-Ray and thus make it harder for developers. Valve being the small team that they are simply can't afford to waste time on a PS3 version, and like stated, would rather let another company handle any PS3 versions of their games. Obviously this is hard for PS3 owners to swallow but this isn't like last gen where developers had no choice but to adapt to PS2 development due to the monopoly it had over the market. This time they can afford to snub PS3, which is exactly what Valve are doing.
There was me thinking the money I paid for their over priced games was appreciation enough. Now I have to sit and read their ramblings as well to show my appreciation! MS built the Xbox around a 5 year old PC because it was cheap and available and they made a right pigs ear of that. I work for a company that makes components for the 120GB hard drive upgrade. Guess how much it takes to manufacture? A whole $40 or £20. Thanks to the RROD I'm on my 5th Xbox360 now so don't sing Microsofts praises to me please. If you had a clue what you're talking about you wouldn't care about Microsoft or Sony.
At least Sony tried something new.
I'm lucky enough to have both consoles. I can see the strengths and weaknesses of both. As for developers I just want good games from them I don't care about their hard times stories. Most of them don't live in the real world anyway.
You would think that a Video Game development company would want to stay ahead of the curve. Not Valve & Gabe Newell. They are paiving a new road for themselves. The only problem is, their road leads to nowhere, then into a brick wall.
It's horrible to see a developer taking the lazy, easy way out, especially when we can see the results when a development company makes the effort to follow technology as it advances and evolves.
Basically what Valve is telling us is, they refuse to advance themselves along with the technology of today. This can only result in a half-ass product for the consumer. I won't stand for it. I will not be purchasing any products made by or developed by Valve. Their philosophies are way out of date.
You would think that a Video Game development company would want to stay ahead of the curve. Not Valve & Gabe Newell. They are paiving a new road for themselves. The only problem is, their road leads to nowhere, then into a brick wall.
It's horrible to see a developer taking the lazy, easy way out, especially when we can see the results when a development company makes the effort to follow technology as it advances and evolves.
Basically what Valve is telling us is, they refuse to advance themselves along with the technology of today. This can only result in a half-ass product for the consumer. I won't stand for it. I will not be purchasing any products made by or developed by Valve. Their philosophies are way out of date.
Lets see if I can as a 'PS3 fan boy' be balanced and rational about Valve.
Yes Valve do make brilliant games, I played HL1 on the PC and I played the first 10 levels or so of HL2 on my PS3(didn't notice any slowdown. Before I part exchanged it because of all the reviews saying the slowdown occurred much later in the game. They clearly are very talented developers. However just look at what Infinity ward achieved with a bit of effort, COD4, a stunning looking game on both the 360 and PS3. 'Valve are a small team' you say. Well they can't exactly be short of a penny or two due to there success up to now. It really seems like that either they have a problem with Sony or they don't want to tackle a challenging but rewarding architecture. Valves willingness to develop on the Wii(gamecube, being around while, nice simple graphics) seems to back this point up. Are Sony going to be continually vilified for making something different from standard PC type tech? Pushing the boundaries, taking risks and progress, I think I can see Valves collective forehead sweating...
From what I remember from last time Gabe commented on the PS3, none of the PS3 gamers out there want Left 4 Dead on their system anyway.
In fact, none of the PS3 owners on here even wanted The Orange Box originally, and they went as far as calling various Valve employees things like 'w****r', 't**t', 'Tit', 'bottomhole', 'Idiot' etc. etc., because:
"The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think it's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted," said Newell. "I'd say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a 'do over.' Just say, 'This was a horrible disaster and we're sorry and we're going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it.'"
In fact, there was a glut of very big and important developers saying very similar stuff back then, and every time CvG posted their words on here, the fanboi legions went absolutely mental with the insults.
Which probably explains why even in Japan, where the PS3 is trouncing the Xbox360, most professionals in the gaming industry still perceive the Xbox360 has having a much higher quality selection of games. (Yes, I'm talking about the Famitsu top 25 again, which contained twice as many X360 games as PS3 games. In Japan!)
***WARNING - THIS HAS BEEN POSTED PURELY TO BAIT FANBOYS - REPLY ONLY AT RISK TO ONE'S OWN DIGNITY***
I write music using synthesizers and tools that are standard in the industry and speaking personally i would not like to work that much harder with stuff i was not familiar with.I'm sure it's the same with game devs not wanting to suffer a hellish process just to deliver on their vision achieved much easier on another machine.
Graphics are fast becoming less important in the sense that just about anything will be possible on technology next gen.Things that PS3 will show us in a couple of years will soon be nothing compared to what we see next from better hardware - seriously devs are probably asking if they should bother at all working this hard for PS3 when they really don't need to
..from all they`ve said about PS3, i'm glad they arent ! i think its very silly economically to limit your self to one side of a market - a side that is rapidly diminishing, not growing i.e. pc gaming needs a massive leap in technology or interface etc to return to lead platform for devs & gamers, also, 360 is in its declining years, M$ are readying its successor - PS3 is growing in every market on the planet, its a global brand and playstation is the reason why the average age of a gamer is closer to 30 than 13, a dev like Valve should jump at the chance to get its hands on some that disposable income !
You would think that a Video Game development company would want to stay ahead of the curve. Not Valve & Gabe Newell. They are paiving a new road for themselves. The only problem is, their road leads to nowhere, then into a brick wall.
It's horrible to see a developer taking the lazy, easy way out, especially when we can see the results when a development company makes the effort to follow technology as it advances and evolves.
Basically what Valve is telling us is, they refuse to advance themselves along with the technology of today. This can only result in a half-ass product for the consumer. I won't stand for it. I will not be purchasing any products made by or developed by Valve. Their philosophies are way out of date.
I really hope this is a joke post
Not at all. The only Joke is Valve for limiting themselves. This will not turn out good for them.
I can't believe there is actually a Corporating that is telling the consumer that they will not release the best product possible. What a joke!!!
Not at all. The only Joke is Valve for limiting themselves. This will not turn out good for them.
I can't believe there is actually a Corporating that is telling the consumer that they will not release the best product possible. What a joke!!!
Not quite sure what a corporating is but in my opinion your view is a bit backward.
Why do you think they are saying they won't release the best product possible? Just because they themselves won't develop it on the PS3 it won't be the best possible game it could be?
If anything, it's the opposite to what you say! By limiting themselves to just PC and 360 versions they can devote a lot more time to it. Splitting their time between 3 versions rather than 2 could either make it a lesser game, or take them considerably more time to develop.
If the game becomes a success on PC and 360 then we could very well see a PS3 version, it just won't be Valve themselves that do it.
dont know why people are complaining, cod4 has about the same single player length as a hl2 episode with added multiplayer on all platforms. if valve supported all platforms the games would be even shorter and potentially not as good. cod4 costs $70 on steam which i think is a massive rip off.
valve are making a business decision and sticking to what they know and do best. if they spread themselves thinner the chances are the games will be shorter and worse.
I LOL at some of the comments on here, particularly thosse saying "Valve are lazy" - utter nonsense.
Valve haven't said they won't do a PS3 port, they'll just get a publisher on board to do it for them. This means they don't have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, recruiting and training an internal PS3 dev team, they can concentrate on what they are good at, and let EA choose a developer who specialises in PS3 ports. This is a win for Valve since they'll still get royalties for each sale, and it's a win for the gamer, since they'll get a PS3 port of the game faster.
After Gabe Newells outspoken remarks about the Orange Box on PS3, I couldn't honestly care less if it comes to PS3 or not. I'm not sure it would even be on my 'wanted' list if it was...
Were there comments like this flying around about Bungie or Rare?
What about from the 360 camp and Metal Gear Solid or Gran Turismo? Surely, the devs of those games are 'limiting themselves' by not releasing these on other platforms...
Whatever about fanboy rants by posters here, the most stomach churning fanboy rant in history has to be Gabe Newells childish rant on the "shortcomings" of the ps3.
While plenty of developers make games for either or both systems, none of them enter the fanboy sphere with quite the same verve as the Valve boss. His comments weren't warranted, and a lot of the "facts" put forward have been disproved by other developers who have actually bothered to work with the ps3 rather than find it a bit difficult and just give up on it.
I'm sure there's a Rubbicks cube lying broken somehwere in this mans house, after all if at first you don't succeed, just give up, and if you're peeved by the experience go and moan to the press about how the design of the Rubbicks cube is fundamentally flawed, that the manufacturers should have made all the tiles the same colour or perhaps forgone the puzzle feature and just taken a solid cube and painted the Rubbicks cube design onto it to help save time and effort.
seriuosly though, regardless of your favorite games machine, this mans comments should have made you think ;"What an idiot", instead of it being some sort of validation of your choice of games console.
No they didn't - they did exactly the same with PS2. New, untried processing systems and a cutting edge storage medium. With PS2 it worked a treat; arguably with PS3 it's backfired on them to an extent.
Fortunately for Sony, the PS brand is big enough to drive sales and so developers have no option but to get their heads round a brand new architecture. Again.
Valve clearly aren't interested in that kind of investment of time and money - and who are we to blame them. They run a business not a charity.
Whatever about fanboy rants by posters here, the most stomach churning fanboy rant in history has to be Gabe Newells childish rant on the "shortcomings" of the ps3.
While plenty of developers make games for either or both systems, none of them enter the fanboy sphere with quite the same verve as the Valve boss. His comments weren't warranted, and a lot of the "facts" put forward have been disproved by other developers who have actually bothered to work with the ps3 rather than find it a bit difficult and just give up on it.
I'm sure there's a Rubbicks cube lying broken somehwere in this mans house, after all if at first you don't succeed, just give up, and if you're peeved by the experience go and moan to the press about how the design of the Rubbicks cube is fundamentally flawed, that the manufacturers should have made all the tiles the same colour or perhaps forgone the puzzle feature and just taken a solid cube and painted the Rubbicks cube design onto it to help save time and effort.
seriuosly though, regardless of your favorite games machine, this mans comments should have made you think ;"What an idiot", instead of it being some sort of validation of your choice of games console.
I think Newell is ex-M$. Maybe that explains alot.
...and so start the personal attacks on Gabe Newell by the PS3 fanboys again.
It's pathetic, truly pathetic.
Personally, I think you should be saving up all that bitterness and bile for Sony for not making the most of the PS3 when they could have, and instead shafting their loyal supporters in a desperate and greedy bid to take a chunk of the home-video market, instead of listening to award-winning and multi-million selling developers, like Gabe Newell.
Because if they had listened to people like him, the PS3 would be the lead platform right now with almost every major developer, and would have had the definitive versions of all of the best games of this generation, and they wouldn't see every other game slipping into 2009.
Instead, all they have in the next-generation version of laserdisc, and a lot of buggy and under-powered games, due to developers having problems porting their games from the X360.
...and so start the personal attacks on Gabe Newell by the PS3 fanboys again.
It's pathetic, truly pathetic.
Personally, I think you should be saving up all that bitterness and bile for Sony for not making the most of the PS3 when they could have, and instead shafting their loyal supporters in a desperate and greedy bid to take a chunk of the home-video market, instead of listening to award-winning and multi-million selling developers, like Gabe Newell.
Because if they had listened to people like him, the PS3 would be the lead platform right now with almost every major developer, and would have had the definitive versions of all of the best games of this generation, and they wouldn't see every other game slipping into 2009.
Instead, all they have in the next-generation version of laserdisc, and a lot of buggy and under-powered games, due to developers having problems porting their games from the X360.
Irony, people saying Valve won't use the best architecture, i.e.the PS3, yet obviously the BEST architecture will always be on the PC, fact. THe PS3 or 360 couldn't present a game like Crysis, which is the bench mark for high end gaming, then soon to be Far Cry 2.
Whatever about fanboy rants by posters here, the most stomach churning fanboy rant in history has to be Gabe Newells childish rant on the "shortcomings" of the ps3.
While plenty of developers make games for either or both systems, none of them enter the fanboy sphere with quite the same verve as the Valve boss. His comments weren't warranted, and a lot of the "facts" put forward have been disproved by other developers who have actually bothered to work with the ps3 rather than find it a bit difficult and just give up on it.
I'm sure there's a Rubbicks cube lying broken somehwere in this mans house, after all if at first you don't succeed, just give up, and if you're peeved by the experience go and moan to the press about how the design of the Rubbicks cube is fundamentally flawed, that the manufacturers should have made all the tiles the same colour or perhaps forgone the puzzle feature and just taken a solid cube and painted the Rubbicks cube design onto it to help save time and effort.
seriuosly though, regardless of your favorite games machine, this mans comments should have made you think ;"What an idiot", instead of it being some sort of validation of your choice of games console.
Whatever about fanboy rants by posters here, the most stomach churning fanboy rant in history has to be Gabe Newells childish rant on the "shortcomings" of the ps3.
While plenty of developers make games for either or both systems, none of them enter the fanboy sphere with quite the same verve as the Valve boss. His comments weren't warranted, and a lot of the "facts" put forward have been disproved by other developers who have actually bothered to work with the ps3 rather than find it a bit difficult and just give up on it.
I'm sure there's a Rubbicks cube lying broken somehwere in this mans house, after all if at first you don't succeed, just give up, and if you're peeved by the experience go and moan to the press about how the design of the Rubbicks cube is fundamentally flawed, that the manufacturers should have made all the tiles the same colour or perhaps forgone the puzzle feature and just taken a solid cube and painted the Rubbicks cube design onto it to help save time and effort.
seriuosly though, regardless of your favorite games machine, this mans comments should have made you think ;"What an idiot", instead of it being some sort of validation of your choice of games console.
do you bleed sony logo's?
Do you bleed ignorance and stupidity? Did you even read what I had written? No you just glanced and made an assumption on what you thought I was saying, well done!
...and so start the personal attacks on Gabe Newell by the PS3 fanboys again.
It's pathetic, truly pathetic.
Personally, I think you should be saving up all that bitterness and bile for Sony for not making the most of the PS3 when they could have, and instead shafting their loyal supporters in a desperate and greedy bid to take a chunk of the home-video market, instead of listening to award-winning and multi-million selling developers, like Gabe Newell.
Because if they had listened to people like him, the PS3 would be the lead platform right now with almost every major developer, and would have had the definitive versions of all of the best games of this generation, and they wouldn't see every other game slipping into 2009.
Instead, all they have in the next-generation version of laserdisc, and a lot of buggy and under-powered games, due to developers having problems porting their games from the X360.
Personal attacks? A personal attack would be to say things about him and his family. He made quite broad sweeping statements on the ps3 so he left himself open to counter arguments, and in doing that made himself look daft. As for these "attacks" being made by "ps3 fanboys", well as far as I'm concerned anyone with a shred of common sense should be able to see what was wrong with what he said, regardless of your favorite system.
If Hideo Kojima came out and made a similar statement about the 360, then he would be open to the same criticism, simple!
Lets see if I can as a 'PS3 fan boy' be balanced and rational about Valve.
Yes Valve do make brilliant games, I played HL1 on the PC and I played the first 10 levels or so of HL2 on my PS3(didn't notice any slowdown. Before I part exchanged it because of all the reviews saying the slowdown occurred much later in the game. They clearly are very talented developers. However just look at what Infinity ward achieved with a bit of effort, COD4, a stunning looking game on both the 360 and PS3. 'Valve are a small team' you say. Well they can't exactly be short of a penny or two due to there success up to now. It really seems like that either they have a problem with Sony or they don't want to tackle a challenging but rewarding architecture. Valves willingness to develop on the Wii(gamecube, being around while, nice simple graphics) seems to back this point up. Are Sony going to be continually vilified for making something different from standard PC type tech? Pushing the boundaries, taking risks and progress, I think I can see Valves collective forehead sweating...
I think there's always risks, but I can understand some developers not willing to put in work on the PS3. unlike the 360, with the PS3 you need to put in more work "which means more money" to understand the Cell, but you don't get the rewards as shown with PS3 Vs 360 software sales?.
if you want a make a game sell, the PS3 wouldn't be the right way to go. and thats not valve's fault!. its like what Square Enix said. Sony's problems came from them not knowing how to market the PS3, as a movie player, or games console.
Do you bleed ignorance and stupidity? Did you even read what I had written? No you just glanced and made an assumption on what you thought I was saying, well done!
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
they are a business, there needs to be a business case for everything they do and at the moment they obviously don't have one for making ps3 games. its not as if they don't sell many games on 360 and PC.
Do you bleed ignorance and stupidity? Did you even read what I had written? No you just glanced and made an assumption on what you thought I was saying, well done!
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
they are a business, there needs to be a business case for everything they do and at the moment they obviously don't have one for making ps3 games. its not as if they don't sell many games on 360 and PC.
Stating the bleedin' obvious? Well done my condescending friend! Jumped up cretin? You may aswell tar everyone here with that brush if that's your attitude, we all have opinions, and I hardly believe that Valve are going to read what I have written and say;"Oh dear, we really should change our ways, thank you jumped up cretin!".
I wasn't criticizing their products, just their boss's choice to behave like an idiot and leave himself open to braindead jibes from other "jumped up cretins", as his comments were inflamitory and childish. He could have just said, "Ps3 isn't something we have the time to work on, we're going to stick what we know". Instead he made a tit of himself by being an ungracious moron by getting his s**t stirring stick out.
Perhaps you should reconsider posting here if you feel people don't have a right to say what they want, it's just a tad hypocritical. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
As someone who really doesn't give two s**ts about Valve's massively overrated games or development choices, Newell just comes across to me as a loud-mouth douchebag... Just like the majority of people on these boards... myself included. And the high and mighty Valve fanboys that seem to appear on these threads and spit venom at the PS3 are just as bad as the PS3 fanboys that leap so quickly to defend it.
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
And do your's as well, Simon Day was doing Tommy c**kles long before The Fast Show ever came about.
Back when Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer were doing "Big Night Out" they toured and Tommy c**kles was the interval act, the act that came on that signified it was time to go to the bar as the comedy had finished for 15 minutes...
If Hideo Kojima came out and made a similar statement about the 360, then he would be open to the same criticism, simple!
Hideo Kojima's not exactly in the same league as Valve, though, is he, either critically or saleswise.
After playing through the first two hours of MGS3, complete with it's mere 10-15 minutes of actual gameplay, it's horribly obvious that Kojima's even less interested in games than Sony is, this generation.
In that respect, the man could come out and say that the X360 is completely unsuitable for his needs, and I doubt anybody would disagree with him.
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
And do your's as well, Simon Day was doing Tommy c**kles long before The Fast Show ever came about.
Back when Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer were doing "Big Night Out" they toured and Tommy c**kles was the interval act, the act that came on that signified it was time to go to the bar as the comedy had finished for 15 minutes...
Well, I merely pointed out where the character was best known, for ease of reference. The piont I wished to make was that Tommy c**kles was a character and not a person working as a comedian, but be as pedantic as you like.
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
And do your's as well, Simon Day was doing Tommy c**kles long before The Fast Show ever came about.
Back when Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer were doing "Big Night Out" they toured and Tommy c**kles was the interval act, the act that came on that signified it was time to go to the bar as the comedy had finished for 15 minutes...
Well, I merely pointed out where the character was best known, for ease of reference. The piont I wished to make was that Tommy c**kles was a character and not a person working as a comedian, but be as pedantic as you like.
Very kind, its just that if you're going to point out errors in someone else's post maybe you ought to get your own information right in the process... although the comment that he's s**t is a massive understatement.
If Hideo Kojima came out and made a similar statement about the 360, then he would be open to the same criticism, simple!
Hideo Kojima's not exactly in the same league as Valve, though, is he, either critically or saleswise.
After playing through the first two hours of MGS3, complete with it's mere 10-15 minutes of actual gameplay, it's horribly obvious that Kojima's even less interested in games than Sony is, this generation.
In that respect, the man could come out and say that the X360 is completely unsuitable for his needs, and I doubt anybody would disagree with him.
Yeah, MGS is pure s**t isn't it? They really should have made it an FPS with "cool aliens and set it on a funky planet with a bitchin' soundtrack of nu metal greatness, U S A, U S A, f**k YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
MGS is a great series, if you don't like it that fine, I don't like the Halo series(I own the first two thanks to all the hype surrounding them), but I don't doubt its appeal and feel free to slate it. Some peole like strawberry ice cream, others prefer choclate, who cares? No one!
MGS might take a different approach to games than other series' but if everything was the same then we'd have no variety, and I wouldn't have bothered with either the 360 or the ps3 if GTA IV, or MGS4 had never gone into production, for the simple reason that most games are run of the mill s**t which assume the player is a f**kwit who'll be happy to run around shooting things... again.
Not that i mean to insult all FPS fans, but they really don't appeal to me anymore, a bit like nu metal, it's been done...to death, can we move on now?
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
And do your's as well, Simon Day was doing Tommy c**kles long before The Fast Show ever came about.
Back when Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer were doing "Big Night Out" they toured and Tommy c**kles was the interval act, the act that came on that signified it was time to go to the bar as the comedy had finished for 15 minutes...
Well, I merely pointed out where the character was best known, for ease of reference. The piont I wished to make was that Tommy c**kles was a character and not a person working as a comedian, but be as pedantic as you like.
Very kind, its just that if you're going to point out errors in someone else's post maybe you ought to get your own information right in the process... although the comment that he's s**t is a massive understatement.
When I said be as pedantic as you like, it was an invitation to you. Go nuts! I wasn't trying to insult you, although I can see where you got that idea from. My apologies, I should have chosen my words more carefully. I'm interested to hear your opinions on 1990's comedy....
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
And do your's as well, Simon Day was doing Tommy c**kles long before The Fast Show ever came about.
Back when Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer were doing "Big Night Out" they toured and Tommy c**kles was the interval act, the act that came on that signified it was time to go to the bar as the comedy had finished for 15 minutes...
Well, I merely pointed out where the character was best known, for ease of reference. The piont I wished to make was that Tommy c**kles was a character and not a person working as a comedian, but be as pedantic as you like.
Very kind, its just that if you're going to point out errors in someone else's post maybe you ought to get your own information right in the process... although the comment that he's s**t is a massive understatement.
Thanks for that. I knew c**kles from Vic Reeves too, which is where I formulated the opinion that he was s**t. Irrelevant if he was a character or a real person, he was s**t.
Much like you could say that 'Al Murray, the pub landlord' was s**t too. s**t is s**t. And Tommy c**kles fits that bill.
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
And do your's as well, Simon Day was doing Tommy c**kles long before The Fast Show ever came about.
Back when Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer were doing "Big Night Out" they toured and Tommy c**kles was the interval act, the act that came on that signified it was time to go to the bar as the comedy had finished for 15 minutes...
Well, I merely pointed out where the character was best known, for ease of reference. The piont I wished to make was that Tommy c**kles was a character and not a person working as a comedian, but be as pedantic as you like.
Very kind, its just that if you're going to point out errors in someone else's post maybe you ought to get your own information right in the process... although the comment that he's s**t is a massive understatement.
Thanks for that. I knew c**kles from Vic Reeves too, which is where I formulated the opinion that he was s**t. Irrelevant if he was a character or a real person, he was s**t.
Much like you could say that 'Al Murray, the pub landlord' was s**t too. s**t is s**t. And Tommy c**kles fits that bill.
I wonder if all the bitterness that TC displayed when talking about Arthur Atkinson was as a result of all those audiences walking out as soon as he started his act when touring... can't be good for the ego seeing 90% of the crowd get up and walk out when you start speaking.
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
And do your's as well, Simon Day was doing Tommy c**kles long before The Fast Show ever came about.
Back when Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer were doing "Big Night Out" they toured and Tommy c**kles was the interval act, the act that came on that signified it was time to go to the bar as the comedy had finished for 15 minutes...
Well, I merely pointed out where the character was best known, for ease of reference. The piont I wished to make was that Tommy c**kles was a character and not a person working as a comedian, but be as pedantic as you like.
Very kind, its just that if you're going to point out errors in someone else's post maybe you ought to get your own information right in the process... although the comment that he's s**t is a massive understatement.
Thanks for that. I knew c**kles from Vic Reeves too, which is where I formulated the opinion that he was s**t. Irrelevant if he was a character or a real person, he was s**t.
Much like you could say that 'Al Murray, the pub landlord' was s**t too. s**t is s**t. And Tommy c**kles fits that bill.
Maybe you're right Marty, but the point I really should have made is that you're a bit of a c**k, as I don't really care what your opinion on the Tommy c**kles character is and the fact that you were really just having a go at me. I can't claim to have any great love for the character, but it popped into my head when I was thinking up a user name. I thought it might be a bit more distinctive than the usual bunch of underscores and s**t like that which make up a lot of user names.
It's probably just better to be straight forward. You had a go at me because you didn't like what I had to say instead of putting forward an argument of your own. That makes you a c**k, or something like that anyway, the word c**k just popped into my head. I'm sure there are plenty of other words I could use to describe you, but they aren't coming to me right now. I really shouldn't have digressed so much, that was all I wanted to say.
Maybe you're right Marty, but the point I really should have made is that you're a bit of a c**k,
Ooo, touchy
as I don't really care what your opinion on the Tommy c**kles character is and the fact that you were really just having a go at me.
Perhaps you could point out where I was having a go at you... I said, RIGHT FROM THE START, that Tommy c**kles was and is a s**t comedian. Unless you are into stand up yourself, I fail to see how you can interpret that a personal attack.
I can't claim to have any great love for the character, but it popped into my head when I was thinking up a user name. I thought it might be a bit more distinctive than the usual bunch of underscores and s**t like that which make up a lot of user names.
Who said anything about you having a s**t username?
It's probably just better to be straight forward. You had a go at me because you didn't like what I had to say instead of putting forward an argument of your own.
Once again, no I didn't.
That makes you a c**k, or something like that anyway, the word c**k just popped into my head. I'm sure there are plenty of other words I could use to describe you, but they aren't coming to me right now.
So, a c**k is someone who expresses their opinion about a s**t comedian? Good to know. You best make your way to the Gervais in GTA thread then, you'll have a field day there.
I really shouldn't have digressed so much, that was all I wanted to say.
I honestly have no idea why you have decided this was a personal afront. I express my opinion on the comedian/character you got your username from, you then barrage me with allegations of being a c**k... I can literally smell the irony here.
to be honest, valve have been in the industry for over 10 years now and have a lot more knowledge and experience than some jumped up cretin posting on a games website forum.
Tommy c**kles is also an absolutely s**t comedian too - if comedian is even the right word.
Tommy c**kles was a character in the Fast Show. He was a BBC presenter who was an expert on fictional 1930's comedian Arhur Atkinson(Whom was "never any good" according to TC).
Do your homework sunshine, you'll not make make yourself look like such a plonker if you do!
And do your's as well, Simon Day was doing Tommy c**kles long before The Fast Show ever came about.
Back when Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer were doing "Big Night Out" they toured and Tommy c**kles was the interval act, the act that came on that signified it was time to go to the bar as the comedy had finished for 15 minutes...
Well, I merely pointed out where the character was best known, for ease of reference. The piont I wished to make was that Tommy c**kles was a character and not a person working as a comedian, but be as pedantic as you like.
Very kind, its just that if you're going to point out errors in someone else's post maybe you ought to get your own information right in the process... although the comment that he's s**t is a massive understatement.
Thanks for that. I knew c**kles from Vic Reeves too, which is where I formulated the opinion that he was s**t. Irrelevant if he was a character or a real person, he was s**t.
Much like you could say that 'Al Murray, the pub landlord' was s**t too. s**t is s**t. And Tommy c**kles fits that bill.
Maybe you're right Marty, but the point I really should have made is that you're a bit of a c**k, as I don't really care what your opinion on the Tommy c**kles character is and the fact that you were really just having a go at me. I can't claim to have any great love for the character, but it popped into my head when I was thinking up a user name. I thought it might be a bit more distinctive than the usual bunch of underscores and s**t like that which make up a lot of user names.
It's probably just better to be straight forward. You had a go at me because you didn't like what I had to say instead of putting forward an argument of your own. That makes you a c**k, or something like that anyway, the word c**k just popped into my head. I'm sure there are plenty of other words I could use to describe you, but they aren't coming to me right now. I really shouldn't have digressed so much, that was all I wanted to say.
I remember the Character Tommy c**kles!!..... i don't remember him being such a t**t though?.
Maybe you're right Marty, but the point I really should have made is that you're a bit of a c**k,
Ooo, touchy
as I don't really care what your opinion on the Tommy c**kles character is and the fact that you were really just having a go at me.
Perhaps you could point out where I was having a go at you... I said, RIGHT FROM THE START, that Tommy c**kles was and is a s**t comedian. Unless you are into stand up yourself, I fail to see how you can interpret that a personal attack.
I can't claim to have any great love for the character, but it popped into my head when I was thinking up a user name. I thought it might be a bit more distinctive than the usual bunch of underscores and s**t like that which make up a lot of user names.
Who said anything about you having a s**t username?
It's probably just better to be straight forward. You had a go at me because you didn't like what I had to say instead of putting forward an argument of your own.
Once again, no I didn't.
That makes you a c**k, or something like that anyway, the word c**k just popped into my head. I'm sure there are plenty of other words I could use to describe you, but they aren't coming to me right now.
So, a c**k is someone who expresses their opinion about a s**t comedian? Good to know. You best make your way to the Gervais in GTA thread then, you'll have a field day there.
I really shouldn't have digressed so much, that was all I wanted to say.
I honestly have no idea why you have decided this was a personal afront. I express my opinion on the comedian/character you got your username from, you then barrage me with allegations of being a c**k... I can literally smell the irony here.
You quoted somebody who had a go at me after I mentioned something about Valve, and THEN you said TC was s**t. You can say whatever you like, but the context you said that in was to have a go at me. If you had said, "Hey Tommycocles, that character is s**t", I would have laughed, very funny.
You were being less than friendly towards me to put it mildly. As for you being a c**k, you are! And it doesn't mean someone who expresses an opinion on a comedian. It means a sad little snooker cue who rides in on the coat tails of someones elses insult to have a go at someone.
Also saying "Oh touchy", is f**king immature and daft.
As for my username, I was simply explaining my use of the handle, Tommyc**kles, I wasn't saying anyone said it was s**t.
To be honest, I really don't care what you think, as I'm sure you already know.
You are free to say whatever you like by all means, but you were just such a snooker cue about it that anyone would have the right to take offence to it.
I'm sure you'll have some self righteous answer for me in another post that you'll be sure can dispell the notion that you are in anyway wrong about what you have said. It must be great to be right all the time, good luck with that.
You quoted somebody who had a go at me after I mentioned something about Valve, and THEN you said TC was s**t.
Yes, that's right - but you seem to have read into that something of a personal attack. If anything, it was an attack on the t**t that is Tommy c**kles, who you unfortunately share a name with. I did not, ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD, make a personal attack towards you. I say again, if you could point out where I did, I'll unreservedly apologise, but you'll be hunting for a long time.
You can say whatever you like, but the context you said that in was to have a go at me. If you had said, "Hey Tommycocles, that character is s**t", I would have laughed, very funny.
Did I turn over two pages at once? That's almost verbatim EXACTLY what I did say...
You were being less than friendly towards me to put it mildly.
I refer you to the above - me stating a comedian/character is s**t is NOT, in any way, being unfriendly or friendly to anyone, except the aforementioned comedian/character.
As for you being a c**k, you are!
You are entitled to your opinion, though formulating this based on a few forum posts about a t**t called Tommy c**kles doesn't exactly paint you in the best light either.
And it doesn't mean someone who expresses an opinion on a comedian. It means a sad little snooker cue who rides in on the coat tails of someones elses insult to have a go at someone.
Also saying "Oh touchy", is f**king immature and daft.
It's not daft at all - completely apt I'd say. You have taken a throwaway comment about someone you share a username with as some kind of slant on your lineage. I'd suggest that you were being touchy. VERY.
As for my username, I was simply explaining my use of the handle, Tommyc**kles, I wasn't saying anyone said it was s**t.
To be honest, I really don't care what you think, as I'm sure you already know.
I disagree, otherwise you wouldn't vehemently defend yourself/assault what I said.
You are free to say whatever you like by all means, but you were just such a snooker cue about it that anyone would have the right to take offence to it.
At this point I'd like to point out that, so far, you have called me a c**k, a snooker cue (a sad little one at that), immature AND daft, and yet you have the audacity to claim that what I said was offensive to you... Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.
I will point out that I don't get offended by anything that's written on a forum - seriously, what's the point?
I'm sure you'll have some self righteous answer
*winks*
for me in another post that you'll be sure can dispell the notion that you are in anyway wrong about what you have said.
And I stand by that too.
It must be great to be right all the time, good luck with that.
I wouldn't know, but if you're looking for someone who is right all the time, I wouldn't start here. mfnick excluded, of course.
You quoted somebody who had a go at me after I mentioned something about Valve, and THEN you said TC was s**t.
Yes, that's right - but you seem to have read into that something of a personal attack. If anything, it was an attack on the t**t that is Tommy c**kles, who you unfortunately share a name with. I did not, ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD, make a personal attack towards you. I say again, if you could point out where I did, I'll unreservedly apologise, but you'll be hunting for a long time.
You can say whatever you like, but the context you said that in was to have a go at me. If you had said, "Hey Tommycocles, that character is s**t", I would have laughed, very funny.
Did I turn over two pages at once? That's almost verbatim EXACTLY what I did say...
You were being less than friendly towards me to put it mildly.
I refer you to the above - me stating a comedian/character is s**t is NOT, in any way, being unfriendly or friendly to anyone, except the aforementioned comedian/character.
As for you being a c**k, you are!
You are entitled to your opinion, though formulating this based on a few forum posts about a t**t called Tommy c**kles doesn't exactly paint you in the best light either.
And it doesn't mean someone who expresses an opinion on a comedian. It means a sad little snooker cue who rides in on the coat tails of someones elses insult to have a go at someone.
Also saying "Oh touchy", is f**king immature and daft.
It's not daft at all - completely apt I'd say. You have taken a throwaway comment about someone you share a username with as some kind of slant on your lineage. I'd suggest that you were being touchy. VERY.
As for my username, I was simply explaining my use of the handle, Tommyc**kles, I wasn't saying anyone said it was s**t.
To be honest, I really don't care what you think, as I'm sure you already know.
I disagree, otherwise you wouldn't vehemently defend yourself/assault what I said.
You are free to say whatever you like by all means, but you were just such a snooker cue about it that anyone would have the right to take offence to it.
At this point I'd like to point out that, so far, you have called me a c**k, a snooker cue (a sad little one at that), immature AND daft, and yet you have the audacity to claim that what I said was offensive to you... Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.
I will point out that I don't get offended by anything that's written on a forum - seriously, what's the point?
I'm sure you'll have some self righteous answer
*winks*
for me in another post that you'll be sure can dispell the notion that you are in anyway wrong about what you have said.
And I stand by that too.
It must be great to be right all the time, good luck with that.
I wouldn't know, but if you're looking for someone who is right all the time, I wouldn't start here. mfnick excluded, of course.
In fairness to me, you did exactly what I said you would on your last comment.
I'm sure you could keep this up forever, but I couldn't be bothered. You had a pop at me, I had a pop back, went too far with it and then you took it to another level entirely. So yeah I called you a few names, but at least I was forthrite in what I said instead of quoting everything you said ad infinitum, squeezing every last drop of an argument out of what you said.
I'm sure you'll reply again, and that's fine, but from what I've seen you're well able to dish it out without being able to take a bit back.
f*** sake i come here to talk about left 4 dead and then i see some s**t about tommy c**kles who the f*** is tommy c**kles no wait, i dont give a bollox stop talking about him!!!!!!!! or if you must then create a new topic but stop wasting space and time and start talking about games
I'm sure you could keep this up forever, but I couldn't be bothered. You had a pop at me, I had a pop back, went too far with it and then you took it to another level entirely. So yeah I called you a few names, but at least I was forthrite in what I said instead of quoting everything you said ad infinitum, squeezing every last drop of an argument out of what you said.
I'm sure you'll reply again, and that's fine, but from what I've seen you're well able to dish it out without being able to take a bit back.
I honestly have no idea what the hell you are on about... What the hell did I take to another level exactly? I have not insulted you ONCE, merely stated my opinion on someone, and defended that point. Apparently, you like to read between the lines, draw COMPLETELY the wrong conclusions, and get overly defensive about something you have no need to.
I would take a moment to read back over these posts, and just take them at face value. Then you'll realise how utterly ridiculous this conversation has been. At NO POINT have I tried to insult you, no matter what you believe, so your point about dishing it out is totally lost to me. Had I tried to insult you, you would be left in no doubt that I had done so. I have not, so please, get a f**king grip.
If Hideo Kojima came out and made a similar statement about the 360, then he would be open to the same criticism, simple!
Hideo Kojima's not exactly in the same league as Valve, though, is he, either critically or saleswise.
After playing through the first two hours of MGS3, complete with it's mere 10-15 minutes of actual gameplay, it's horribly obvious that Kojima's even less interested in games than Sony is, this generation.
In that respect, the man could come out and say that the X360 is completely unsuitable for his needs, and I doubt anybody would disagree with him.
Yeah, MGS is pure s**t isn't it? They really should have made it an FPS with "cool aliens and set it on a funky planet with a bitchin' soundtrack of nu metal greatness, U S A, U S A, f**k YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
MGS is a great series, if you don't like it that fine, I don't like the Halo series(I own the first two thanks to all the hype surrounding them), but I don't doubt its appeal and feel free to slate it. Some peole like strawberry ice cream, others prefer choclate, who cares? No one!
MGS might take a different approach to games than other series' but if everything was the same then we'd have no variety, and I wouldn't have bothered with either the 360 or the ps3 if GTA IV, or MGS4 had never gone into production, for the simple reason that most games are run of the mill s**t which assume the player is a f**kwit who'll be happy to run around shooting things... again.
Not that i mean to insult all FPS fans, but they really don't appeal to me anymore, a bit like nu metal, it's been done...to death, can we move on now?
Good quality rant there, but I don't quite see how it relates to the quote you've taken from me?
Unless you're upset that I, a veteran and fan of the first four games in the Metal Gear series, thought the 5th instalment had too much watching and not enough playing?
The man prefers developing for the 360, get over it.
He doesn't even say that! The only reason he gives for not developing for the PS3 is because his team is too small. He never makes a comment on how good or bad any console is. The number of PS3's out there is too big to ignore. Valve games will be released on the PS3. Either totally written by Valve or given to a 3rd party to convert.
The man prefers developing for the 360, get over it.
He doesn't even say that! The only reason he gives for not developing for the PS3 is because his team is too small. He never makes a comment on how good or bad any console is. The number of PS3's out there is too big to ignore. Valve games will be released on the PS3. Either totally written by Valve or given to a 3rd party to convert.
if a third party does develop it then they would have to work really closely with valve which i doubt as they will be busy with half life 2 episode 3 so it will propably be different.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
