I'd rather let Valve lead the way, personally. They're one of the few companies I feel that I can rely on to churn out a decent game every time.
I'd rather let Valve lead the way, personally. They're one of the few companies I feel that I can rely on to churn out a decent game every time.
Meh. Nothing but overrated first person shooters.
Meh. Nothing but overrated first person shooters.
Quake 3 Arena was always the king of competitive shooters. Not to mention Quake Live is quite active online, and has profesionally organized tournaments held as well.
- CS / CS: S are considered to be some of the best competitive / tournament FPS's available, with UT99 / UT2004 being the only real competition that I can think of (and both are dead in comparison population wise).
I disagree:
- HL / HL2 were great games for their time.
- EP1 was mediocre, but EP2 was great.
- TF2 is loved by many gamers (I personally don't care for it).
- CS / CS: S are considered to be some of the best competitive / tournament FPS's available, with UT99 / UT2004 being the only real competition that I can think of (and both are dead in comparison population wise).
- L4D / L4D2 aren't perfect, but they're some of the best co-op FPS games to come out lately and really have a polished feel and great game balanced compared to what's out there, especially connectivity wise.
- Portal was pure gold as well.
Valve haven't release a decent game in years (Orange Box being the last worthwhile product the released).I'd rather let Valve lead the way, personally. They're one of the few companies I feel that I can rely on to churn out a decent game every time.
Sounds to me like they are aware of their weaknesses, which may even mean they'll work to correct them. I don't see how this is a bad thing."Other companies should look to Microsoft for leadership, but I'm not sure they do," said Microsoft Game Studios general manager Dave Luehmann. "It is our job to lead the way on PC. And in some ways we are doing that and in other ways we are not. So we need to step up."
I don't see how this is a bad thing.
By the way the OP is horribly misleading. MS didn't "pledge" shit and they certainly didn't claim to be leaders currently. The actual quote:
Sounds to me like they are aware of their weaknesses, which may even mean they'll work to correct them. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
Sounds to me like they are aware of their weaknesses, which may even mean they'll work to correct them. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
+1. Converting all their PC gaming studios to Xbox gaming studios, or shutting them down is not leading the way in PC gaming. Neither is buying the rights to publish games, and then forcing the developers into making it into a Xbox exclusive, or timed exclusive.Microsoft doesn't give a shit about PC Gaming. Talking out of both sides of their mouth aside, actions speak louder than words. Microsoft has been content to cannibalize PC studios to boost Xbox sales when they took any action besides sitting on their hands.
[/LIST]
Note that they're all First Person Shooters. I don't know about anyone else, but I want more from my games than shooting anything that moves.
judging by comments recently from the Microsoft camp, they would only be "leading the way" over a cliff, and hoping the industry follows like lemmings... If they had their way, the PC gaming industry carcass would end up right next to the Blu-Ray carcass at the bottom of the cliff.
What a load of crap. I think they're all drunk at MS... Seems they can't make up their mind on this. One of the commenters summed it up nicely though: