Geek Versus Nerd - Round One: Valve
GamingExcellence’s Liana K and Andrew Sztein debate Left 4 Dead 2, Valve’s business practices, and the merits of kittens.
By Staff, GamingExcellence
Posted December 9, 2009
|
  |
|
GamingExcellence contributors Liana K and Andrew Sztein don't always see eye to eye on a lot of matters in the gaming industry. Obvious height difference jokes aside, both Liana and Andrew have very different views on the new release of Left 4 Dead 2. While physical violence was avoided, a heated and humorous argument ensued between the two. What follows is a transcript of the conversation...
Liana: With Left 4 Dead 2 being released very recently, just a year after the original Left 4 Dead, I'm left in a quandary: do I let a sleeping pitbull of the gaming industry lie, or do I speak up and suffer the flaming bags of troll shit that get left on my internet doorstep every time I say some gaming emperor has no clothes?
Andrew: Wait, wait, wait. You're going to question Valve? Like, Half-life, Counter-Strike, Portal Valve? What kind of gamer are you? What other beloved institutions will you hate on next? Super Mario 3? The Beatles? Kittens? What do you have against the kittens?! Think of the Kittens!
Liana: Kittens are overrated, and Valve is one of those naked emperors who happens to be well-hung and have a cute butt. They make good, if flawed, games, each based around a single, highly marketable, mod-friendly gameplay dynamic. They also have a unique relationship with their fan base that makes them unquestioningly loyal and batshit crazy. But with the emergence of Valve's Steam service, a conflict of interest emergences, and I'm becoming concerned about Valve's unique ability to manipulate the price points of their products, as well as the consistently diminishing value they're providing consumers who pay full price. Do I care particularly about Valve's balance sheet? No. My concern is that falling quality standards involving a previously reliable company will impact the general willingness of gamers to try new things - a willingness that's already sadly lacking.
Andrew: I tend to agree on your assessment of their balance sheet a degree. At the same time, a company's balance sheet is the concern of every gamer that enjoys a publisher's products.
Liana: True.
Andrew: That's why we haven't had sequels to beloved last gen games like Eternal Darkness and Beyond Good and Evil. As far as Steam goes, whatever inherent problems there may be with the service, it's undeniable that the service gives games a second lease on life, ones that may have been overlooked years ago, only to find a new audience today.
Liana: I'm not knocking Steam. It's a great service. I'm only pointing out that now Valve products have "first party" designation on the Steam service. But go on.
Andrew: I don't know if falling quality standards is really a concern with Valve. You can't use Steam as an example because the Steam team and their development houses are separate entitles. You don't have the Half-Life 2: Episode 3 team working on the net code for Steam on their spare time. Valve has historically been a company that doesn't release a product until it's good and ready. Even if all their products don't specifically appeal to you or I, there are more than enough gamers ready to willingly gobble up the next Valve product.
What has Valve done that says they haven't taken risks? They seem very willing to get new gamers to try new things. They got gamers to use their grey matter in unique ways with Portal. Hell, they even got the heartless denizens of Xbox Live to play nicely together in Left 4 Dead, an accomplishment that lies somewhere between uniting Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees fans, and solving the crisis in the middle east.
Liana: A few things there. First, saying the Steam team and the game dev teams are completely separate entities is like saying Microsoft has no influence over what Microsoft Game Studios puts in their games. They're under the same umbrella. That relationship matters. Sometimes that's actually a good thing, but it has to be watched, and when a company starts being a service provider as well, then suddenly deviates from the way they've previously done things, my alarm bells go off. Secondly, a company that doesn't release a product until it is good and ready doesn't release iffy console ports, and they don't need a sequel a year later to clean up the stuff they couldn't do in the first game. These "don't release it until it is ready" mantras are up there in the fiction section with the myth of the cut scenes taken out of the first L4D. They're a game company, which means they have deadlines and limitations like everyone else. They're not a public service; they're in it to make money. This is why I think it's so important to check their pulse. The problem is, Valve fans are so rabid, and questioning their gods is blasphemy.
|
Latest Comments (Forum View)
 |
 |
Let's be fair here. L4D2 added some interesting things to gameplay that I think might possibly justify the price for a full new game. New levels, new weapons, 3 new Special Infected, a revamp on one and at least one new skin on another...it's forgivable. Kinda.
The real problem with the game comes with the problems in gameplay itself. Take for example, the Bots. In L4D Bill could be depended on to shoot a Smoker halfway across the screen before he could get anywhere near to dragging you off a ledge. In this game, the Bots are sometimes too stupid to pick up health kits for themselves.
And level design is nuts! While I enjoy the fact that the Director can change your path, I sincerely dislike the fact that there are aspects of the levels that change gameplay from challenging to downright rage inducing. Car yard...Sugar Mill...just to name the two most prominent. Some of the levels are just not fun.
So between the smarter Director and the stupidier Bots, levels that make me wanna pull out my hair from sheer frustration...it was maybe worth the new price for the new things they put in, but I'm not sure it was worth the full price for what they missed the ball on.
|
|
 |
|
Azisien - December 13, 2009 12:12 PM ET |
Left 4 Dead 2 added plenty of new gameplay quirks.
And the price argument is honestly an argument against consoles, it's not even an argument against the game.
Think Left 4 Dead 2 is more of an expansion pack than a real, new game? I would agree. But I only paid $40 for my brand new copy, on the PC. $40 is average for an expansion pack, too.
So, yeah, take that, people's arguments!
|
 |
|
dacaba - January 7, 2010 4:20 PM ET |
Damn you and your PC-centric gaming! It's actually a huge source of frustration that PC games are a good $20 less than console titles. I felt that L4D2 was a new game entirely worth the price point but geeze I'd rather have paid $20 for it... and not have paid for Crash Course at all. Xbox is my fave console but MS is really grating on my nerves with DLC pricing to say nothing of the cost of new games. Blah. This is why I do most of my business used.
|
 |
This is why I write for a gaming website and get games for free :P
|
|
|
|
|
About Auracore MediaWorks | Advertise On This Site | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use 
