Two New Third Party Games On Steam

[omgomgz]

It looks like these goggles were drawn with a crayon.

[Electronic Punk]

Woo Steamnation

[Deletable_Man]

stevomanevo wrote..

wow this is getting pretty ridiculous.. who on earth would pay 40 bucks for a third party game.. seriously.. half-life is no longer put in with counter-strike.. i bought cs-source and as you may know in order to play alot of third party games you have to buy the ancient half-life VIA STEAM for 10 dollars.. steam is just an advertisement knockoff and i wish it was never invented.. games that would be free are now 20-40 dollars just because there's a program that advertises it so there's a better chance someone would actualy blow there money.. like buying counter-strike source for 40 bucks and not getting half-life or half-life 2 which was always bundled in earlier packages but now you must buy seperatly for alot more money. b.t.w half-life 2 was a waste of 50 bucks.. i don't even know anyone who plays it after they beat it in one day



EDIT: ROFL to buy all the games that you could buy by purchasing half-life 1 at walmart for 15 dollars you could pay 10 dollars for ricochet 10 dollars for oposing force 10 dollars for half-life 1 10 dollars for day of defeat 1 15 for cs 1.6 .. that would be 55 dollars for buying the games and getting 1 cdkey just kind of made me mad when i bought source and couldnt play natural-selection without buying half-life 1

First off, plenty of people would pay 40 bucks for a third party game. I think you need to look up the definition of third party game, son.



I find it funny that you expected to be able to play a mod of an old game without buying said old game. That's like buying Doom 3 and being mad because you can't play any Doom 2 mods.

[peagle]

omgomgz wrote..

It looks like these goggles were drawn with a crayon.

Without looking into it further, it appears they did all the screenshots without any anti-aliasing or filtering.

[hahnchen]

Edited by [user="383506"] @ [time="1138218273"]

Wow, the original Half-Life games are getting expensive. Shame that Valve did away with the HL2:Silver offer which gave you them all on a plate for a stupidly low price. But it's rock hard to get a Sierra version of Half-Life now.



Both the games being released got great reviews. Metacritic gives SCS over 80% and SE4 just under 80% which are great averages. Yet, SE4 was released originally in 2000, making it a 5 year old game. And people should be aware that SE5 is due for relase this April. Still, it's meant to be a good game, and is still updated, with the last patch released last November, it's also had graphical overhauls since the original release.



Someone pointed this out on the Steam forums, and I was surprised. It's actually cheaper to purchase SCS - Dangerous Waters from Amazon, which is pretty poor pricing on Valve's behalf. Sure, it probably doesn't link up to steam and you don't get the convenience that it brings, but you also get a fancy box. I personally won't be buying any of the games, I didn't buy Darwinia or RDKF either, but these two just aren't for me. It's your call guys, but take into account some of the stuff I've mentioned here.

[Tuxedo_Penguin]

hahnchen wrote..

Wow, the original Half-Life games are getting expensive. Shame that Valve did away with the HL2:Silver offer which gave you them all on a plate for a stupidly low price. But it's rock hard to get a Sierra version of Half-Life now.

Yeah, it is. Not only that, but they don't want you to know that you can still buy the original HL in stores and use it's CD-Key to unlock all the HL-powered games. I got banned for not reason after I suggested someone just avoid spending money on Steam and grab a CD from an actual store. No joke, I got banned.



Eh, I was never much for the Steam forums anyhow.

[acc_int]

omgomgz wrote..

It looks like these goggles were drawn with a crayon.

Oh wow, you care about visuals on a realism game. Good job.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

stevomanevo wrote..

(a lot of stuff)

While some of what you said was ridiculous (like not being willing to pay $40 for a game made by someone other than VALVe), the part about the new pricing being retarded is something I'd agree with.

hahnchen wrote..

Wow, the original Half-Life games are getting expensive. Shame that Valve did away with the HL2:Silver offer which gave you them all on a plate for a stupidly low price. But it's rock hard to get a Sierra version of Half-Life now.

You can still get the Half-Life 2: Silver package, but they now call it the VALVe Complete Pack and they're charging $20 more for it than it was originally ($79.95 instead of $59.95) which doesn't make sense.



Maybe they realized that they could ream people for a bit more money, so they said "why not?" Or maybe they just realized that, if they were going to take the retarded move of making their 5+ year old games still cost $10 each (instead of like $20 for the works) that they needed to make those games seem like they were more valuable in the package as well.

Someone pointed this out on the Steam forums, and I was surprised. It's actually cheaper to purchase SCS - Dangerous Waters from Amazon, which is pretty poor pricing on Valve's behalf.

Double-checked it, and he's mostly right.

$34.95 at Amazon.com and $39.95 at Steampowered.com

To be fair, pre-ordering would drop you to $35.95 on Steam, and you might have to pay a few bucks of shipping at Amazon, but the point remains that right now, for a lower base price, you can get the game and packaging without waiting for it to be released via Steam.

Tuxedo_Penguin wrote..

Yeah, it is. Not only that, but they don't want you to know that you can still buy the original HL in stores and use it's CD-Key to unlock all the HL-powered games. I got banned for not reason after I suggested someone just avoid spending money on Steam and grab a CD from an actual store. No joke, I got banned.

The Steampowered forums are, in my opinion, a cesspool of stupidity mixed with some of the most random "moderation" I've ever come across. I know Zips does a fair job over there, but I'm really not surprised that you got banned for merely expressing a totally legitimate and completely legal way to bypass the new and quite frankly stupid pricing scheme they came up with.



Remember, when it comes to PR, VALVe has got to be one of the worst companies out there. The one thing they continue to do right is to provide support and content for their games far past said games' life cycle; as far as we can tell, this alone has allowed them to remain successful despite hiring Doug Lombardi.

acc_int wrote..

Oh wow, you care about visuals on a realism game. Good job.

Given that you just said "realism" how could you not be interested in the visuals? Last time I checked, having your surroundings look incredibly real would tend to enhance the realism factor, or are you meaning to imply that vector-graphics were the base of realism games, and everything after that just take you further and further away from "realism" in a game?



I don't think he implied he wanted to see neat laser effects and nicely-rendered aliens while the space warp drive engages on his naval combat vessle, so stating that good visuals are important isn't even remotely illogical.

[Zips]

Tuxedo_Penguin wrote..

Yeah, it is. Not only that, but they don't want you to know that you can still buy the original HL in stores and use it's CD-Key to unlock all the HL-powered games. I got banned for not reason after I suggested someone just avoid spending money on Steam and grab a CD from an actual store. No joke, I got banned.



Eh, I was never much for the Steam forums anyhow.

What was your username there, I'll be able to look up the logged and precise reason for your ban. Somehow, I think there was something more to it than what you described.

[DeAceShooter]

acc_int wrote..

Oh wow, you care about visuals on a realism game. Good job.

Oh wow, visuals do not contribute to realism. Good job too!

[acc_int]

DeAceShooter wrote..

Oh wow, visuals do not contribute to realism. Good job too!

So, you are saying that developers should concentrate on making the game look good (example would be TOCA Race Driver 2) but make crappy physics?

Good job.



Nighthawk - Realism may come from eye candy, but in games like this, it's all about physics, information database, accuracy about the weapons. This is not Counter-Strike : Source. This one is hardcore realism. Visuals don't count on sims like this.



Take FS9 for example. Realism? Look-up table based physics. Eye candy? Tons.

And, according to your point, GTR is the more realistic then RBR because it has better eye candy. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

[Coolguy423]

SEMPI4 is great. If I didn't already have a copy (actually I think we have two somewhere around here) I'd want to buy it. Although I'm not sure that that price is very good, seeing as how it was released quite a while ago. I'm sure you can find it in a bargin bin somewhere cheaper. I guess it's cool to download it through Steam though.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

acc_int, my argument was not that "realism" based sim games merely needed good graphics. Rather, it was that, in addition to realistic gameplay, physics, and a general attention to real-world detail... they also need to feature as life-like of visuals as possible, to compliment the rest of the package.



It's not an either-or situation as you appear to be trying to make it out to be -- every aspect of realism needs to be given attention in a good simulation, not just the particular subset of details that you choose to pick out.



My point is not that F.E.A.R. is more "realistic" than Rainbow 6 but rather that Rainbow 6 would be a better sim if it had FEAR's graphical capabilities, without sacrificing the realistic combat and planning in favor of bullet-time and energy rifles.



Same thing applies to flight sims, or any other type of sim. Microsoft's original Flight Simulator was a decent sim for the time, but despite having many of the same "realism" flight factors... there is no question that newer generations provide a much closer to "real" experience than the old-school sims did.



Games with outdated graphics can still be fun, but we're not debating whether it's "fun" or not -- this is about the level of realism it's able to achieve, and there is no denying that better graphics would help further that cause.

[Zips]

-:Nighthawk:- wrote..

My point is not that F.E.A.R. is more "realistic" than Rainbow 6 but rather that Rainbow 6 would be a better sim if it had FEAR's graphical capabilities, without sacrificing the realistic combat and planning in favor of bullet-time and energy rifles.

You may be interested in checking out the Rainbow Six: Lockdown demo that came out just last week. It's certainly approaching FEAR-like visuals.

[Jobbeh]

Zips I've tried the R6: Lockdown demo, I have to say it's good on the visuals front, but it does seem to have a way to go before it's even in the same graphical league as FEAR.



It's getting there though :) Still dissapointing on your squads A.I. a few times they have become stuck in certain areas, i'm hoping this may just be a demo issue.... but usually this turns out to be false hope. Still gonna buy it though cos I'm a fan of the series and for the range of real world weapons on offer.