Valve is working on a new game. No, it's not "Half Life 3". Or "Portal
3". Or "Left4Dead 3". Or "DOTA3". It's not even "Poker Night 3". It is
not anything with a 3 in its name. It's an entirely new franchise.

More specifically, it's called "Deadlock"*, and it's a 6v6 competitive
hero-shooter FPS. Comparisons to "Overwatch" are being made.

Which, I guess, is fine. "Team Fortress" is getting a bit long in the
tooth (and the less said about "Counterstrike" the better). I guess
you could say "Deadlock" will be filling a weak spot in Valve's
line-up... at least considering its competition.

But it seems a game designed more to fill the needs of the company
than the desires of its customers. I mean, presumably the game will
release with the usual Valve polish** so it will probably be fun to
play... but it feels very much 'follow-the-leader'. It feels lazy. The
only thing that would feel lazier would be if Valve released an
open-world survival game, imitating "Ark" or "Raft" or "The Forest" or
games of that ilk.

(Then again... an open-world survival game set in the "Half Life"
universe during the reign of the Combine? That sounds fun. Dodge
zombies and head-crabs and ant-lions as you craft your way up to a
gravity gun. But that just proves my point; a spur-of-the-moment idea
I just came up with sounds more exciting than what Valve is actually
releasing).

But it's often said that necessity breeds invention and for Valve
-buoyed by the billions of dollars it rakes in annually from Steam-
making games isn't a necessity. It's a luxury; a hobby. Anything they
release doesn't have to be good, or novel, or interesting, or even
wanted. They can afford to half-ass it.

I dunno. Maybe "Deadlock" will be great.

But I'm not holding my breath.

* side note: there actually already was a game called "Deadlock". It
was a strategy game released in the late 90s developed by Accolade. In
fact, the original "Deadlock" got a sequel. So in a way, this /will/
be a third "Deadlock" game. Does this mean Valve has gotten over its
fear of the number three? Is it, "Half Life 3 confirmed"? ;-)

** then again, after "Artifact" and "Aperture Desk Job" and even "Hunt
Down the Freeman" (the latter wasn't /developed/ by Valve, but it was
released under their authorization), I'm not so sure 'Valve polish'
means that much anymore

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 19:46 this Saturday (GMT):
[snip]
> * side note: there actually already was a game called "Deadlock". It
> was a strategy game released in the late 90s developed by Accolade. In
> fact, the original "Deadlock" got a sequel. So in a way, this /will/
> be a third "Deadlock" game. Does this mean Valve has gotten over its
> fear of the number three? Is it, "Half Life 3 confirmed"? ;-)
>
> ** then again, after "Artifact" and "Aperture Desk Job" and even "Hunt
> Down the Freeman" (the latter wasn't /developed/ by Valve, but it was
> released under their authorization), I'm not so sure 'Valve polish'
> means that much anymore

Don't speak the name HDtF it's curseeeddddd!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Doesn't seem to be much info out there on it yet, but it could be
interesting.

There is a great deal that goes into competitive MP games that is just
"different" from typical SP and even PvE onine games that Valve always
seemed to "get".

Whether or not they are still using that same formula after all these
years I guess remains the question.

Here in this newsgroup, I'm not sure it's even worth discussing
because I don't think that's what most folks here are into. For
example, if you want to know what's the best strip club in town you
typically won't want to wander into a retirement home to ask around,
as you'll get a biased opinion on the viabilty of said entertainment
options :)... and whether or not you choose to spend time lending
those opinions credibility of course is on you.

Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?

On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:50:01 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 19:46 this Saturday (GMT):

>> ** then again, after "Artifact" and "Aperture Desk Job" and even "Hunt
>> Down the Freeman" (the latter wasn't /developed/ by Valve, but it was
>> released under their authorization), I'm not so sure 'Valve polish'
>> means that much anymore

>Don't speak the name HDtF it's curseeeddddd!

I think the worst thing about the Forbidden-Game-Whose-Name-Cannot-Be-
Spoken is that it's a retail product. Had it been a mod, I think
people would have been a lot more forgiving, but the fact that a) the
developers were charging for it, and b) Valve had given the game their
blessing doomed the game. It suggested a certain amount of quality
that the devs just weren't capable of providing.

Because (and I may go to video gaming hell for the following
statement) The-Game-Of-Which-I-Speak-But-Will-Not-Name isn't actually
as bad as all that. It's definitely not GOOD, but I've seen a lot
worse. It's incredibly ambitious and even has moments where it is
passable. If it had been a free mod, I'd have said, 'Good first
effort'.

But it being semi-officially a canon part of the Half-Life franchise
/and/ the dev's having the gall to charge for their mediocre efforts?
Yeah, that makes me - and the game's audience as a whole - a lot less
forgiving.

On Sat, 18 May 2024 21:47:39 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:

>Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
>multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?

I prefer fishing, cooking and picking flowers in MMOs Rin. That puts
you and me, in my mind, on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum. I
think everyone else in this newsgroup falls somewhere in between.

On 5/20/24 15:04, Mike S. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2024 21:47:39 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
> <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>
>> Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
>> multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?
>
> I prefer fishing, cooking and picking flowers in MMOs Rin. That puts
> you and me, in my mind, on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum. I
> think everyone else in this newsgroup falls somewhere in between.

I'm far more about playing games for the experience. I steer clear of
anything even vaguely multiplayer. Co-op on the other hand I'm all over
as means the wife and I can play through together, we just ignore
anything with the "PvP" tag on it.

--
Steve
IM - @countstex:matrix.org
Mastodon - https://dice.camp/@countstex
Bookwyrm - https://books.theunseen.city/user/Steven

On 5/18/2024 6:47 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
> Doesn't seem to be much info out there on it yet, but it could be
> interesting.
>
> There is a great deal that goes into competitive MP games that is just
> "different" from typical SP and even PvE onine games that Valve always
> seemed to "get".
>
> Whether or not they are still using that same formula after all these
> years I guess remains the question.
>
> Here in this newsgroup, I'm not sure it's even worth discussing
> because I don't think that's what most folks here are into. For
> example, if you want to know what's the best strip club in town you
> typically won't want to wander into a retirement home to ask around,
> as you'll get a biased opinion on the viabilty of said entertainment
> options :)... and whether or not you choose to spend time lending
> those opinions credibility of course is on you.
>
> Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
> multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?

Not I. I only ever really played Counter Strike when it was a mod for
HL and only because a friend played. Oh I did try Planetside because of
another friend, but that was very short lived.

I think I had tried Team Fortress for a few minutes out of curiosity
when it was on a free weekend or something, but it didn't interest me.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 5/20/2024 6:35 AM, Steven Thomsen-Jones wrote:
> On 5/20/24 15:04, Mike S. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2024 21:47:39 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>> <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
>>> multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?
>>
>> I prefer fishing, cooking and picking flowers in MMOs Rin. That puts
>> you and me, in my mind, on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum. I
>> think everyone else in this newsgroup falls somewhere in between.
>
> I'm far more about playing games for the experience. I steer clear of
> anything even vaguely multiplayer. Co-op on the other hand I'm all over
> as means the wife and I can play through together, we just ignore
> anything with the "PvP" tag on it.
>
I don't do multiplayer at all. I tried some many years ago but PvP
especially just seems to bring out the worse in people. Even when the
game designs are "Here is the goal and you may have to fight other
players to reach it" far too many people play just to kill off other
players. Hell, I remember one early MMO that had no PvP at all and
getting threatened by another player for being "uppity" or something
because I had arrived at a location before them.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Mon, 20 May 2024 09:04:48 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 2024 21:47:39 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>
>>Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
>>multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?
>
>I prefer fishing, cooking and picking flowers in MMOs Rin. That puts
>you and me, in my mind, on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum. I
>think everyone else in this newsgroup falls somewhere in between.

Fair enough, as those activities in MMOs aren't typically my thing.

Because of that, predictably enough, I typically don't attempt to
evaluate (internally or externally) a game based on those features,
because I know whether or not I find the game's implementation of them
to be fun or not is probably not going to be relevant information to
most folks, so I fiigure why waste my time and theirs by writing and
pontificating about subject that are outside my primary gaming
interest?

On Mon, 20 May 2024 07:41:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/20/2024 6:35 AM, Steven Thomsen-Jones wrote:
>> On 5/20/24 15:04, Mike S. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024 21:47:39 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>> <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
>>>> multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?
>>>
>>> I prefer fishing, cooking and picking flowers in MMOs Rin. That puts
>>> you and me, in my mind, on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum. I
>>> think everyone else in this newsgroup falls somewhere in between.
>>
>> I'm far more about playing games for the experience. I steer clear of
>> anything even vaguely multiplayer. Co-op on the other hand I'm all over
>> as means the wife and I can play through together, we just ignore
>> anything with the "PvP" tag on it.
>>
>I don't do multiplayer at all. I tried some many years ago but PvP
>especially just seems to bring out the worse in people. Even when the
>game designs are "Here is the goal and you may have to fight other
>players to reach it" far too many people play just to kill off other
>players. Hell, I remember one early MMO that had no PvP at all and
>getting threatened by another player for being "uppity" or something
>because I had arrived at a location before them.

Maybe you're talking here about games where a PvE goal is combined
with a PvP goal (and the players could be focusing on killing the boss
or whatever, but instead choose to screw with other players)?

That is kind of annoying, but there are plenty of non PvP annoyances
that occur in MMO type games. An example of this -- my character in
Fallout76 is not high level (around 60). Recently I started an event
where you're escorting a robot around town, the goal is to minimize
the bot's damage as he moves slowly to his checkpoints. A guy joins
my round who is around level 200.. so immediately this means the
number of enemies and overall difficulty will be elevated. This is
fine, more dropped loot for me. So of course he starts blasting
everything in site (which is fine too because I make a point to pepper
as many as I can with shotgun blasts, because all it takes is for one
of your pellets to hit the enemies and you get a loot drop off them).

Then, toward the end of the round, when the bot is maybe 20 meters
from the goal, the guy drops out of the round. All of the enemies
previously spawned are still there, and of course there are just too
many of them for me to keep off the robot, even killing them one by
one as fast as I can (it would have been best if he hadn't entered the
round at all). So the robot ends up fucked and in flames, and I lose
the event.

I don't think the guy even did it to be a dick, he probably
legitimately had to take off for whatever reason. But that kind of
thing happens in multiplayer.

In terms of PvP bringing out the worst in people... it's supposed to
bring out the worst in your enemies who are trying to kill you! lol.
Have you ever played team-based multiplayer games? It helps when
you're playing with folks you know and you have each others back. I
don't do this much any more, but had some great times back in the day
playing games with the same group of guys.

On 5/20/2024 2:43 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2024 07:41:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2024 6:35 AM, Steven Thomsen-Jones wrote:
>>> On 5/20/24 15:04, Mike S. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024 21:47:39 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>>> <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
>>>>> multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?
>>>>
>>>> I prefer fishing, cooking and picking flowers in MMOs Rin. That puts
>>>> you and me, in my mind, on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum. I
>>>> think everyone else in this newsgroup falls somewhere in between.
>>>
>>> I'm far more about playing games for the experience. I steer clear of
>>> anything even vaguely multiplayer. Co-op on the other hand I'm all over
>>> as means the wife and I can play through together, we just ignore
>>> anything with the "PvP" tag on it.
>>>
>> I don't do multiplayer at all. I tried some many years ago but PvP
>> especially just seems to bring out the worse in people. Even when the
>> game designs are "Here is the goal and you may have to fight other
>> players to reach it" far too many people play just to kill off other
>> players. Hell, I remember one early MMO that had no PvP at all and
>> getting threatened by another player for being "uppity" or something
>> because I had arrived at a location before them.
>
> Maybe you're talking here about games where a PvE goal is combined
> with a PvP goal (and the players could be focusing on killing the boss
> or whatever, but instead choose to screw with other players)?
>
Nope. This was a very early, text only MMO with no ability for players
to attack each other. He started talking about how the mods couldn't do
anything to stop him if he decided to take me out because he had ways
that couldn't be traced to him.

I reported him to a mod and a little later was told that player wouldn't
be a problem anymore.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Mon, 20 May 2024 21:27:05 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/20/2024 2:43 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2024 07:41:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/20/2024 6:35 AM, Steven Thomsen-Jones wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/24 15:04, Mike S. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024 21:47:39 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>>>> <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just curious, quick poll time....how many folks here consider
>>>>>> multiplayer shooters their preferred gaming genre?
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer fishing, cooking and picking flowers in MMOs Rin. That puts
>>>>> you and me, in my mind, on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum. I
>>>>> think everyone else in this newsgroup falls somewhere in between.
>>>>
>>>> I'm far more about playing games for the experience. I steer clear of
>>>> anything even vaguely multiplayer. Co-op on the other hand I'm all over
>>>> as means the wife and I can play through together, we just ignore
>>>> anything with the "PvP" tag on it.
>>>>
>>> I don't do multiplayer at all. I tried some many years ago but PvP
>>> especially just seems to bring out the worse in people. Even when the
>>> game designs are "Here is the goal and you may have to fight other
>>> players to reach it" far too many people play just to kill off other
>>> players. Hell, I remember one early MMO that had no PvP at all and
>>> getting threatened by another player for being "uppity" or something
>>> because I had arrived at a location before them.
>>
>> Maybe you're talking here about games where a PvE goal is combined
>> with a PvP goal (and the players could be focusing on killing the boss
>> or whatever, but instead choose to screw with other players)?
>>
>Nope. This was a very early, text only MMO with no ability for players
>to attack each other. He started talking about how the mods couldn't do
>anything to stop him if he decided to take me out because he had ways
>that couldn't be traced to him.
>
>I reported him to a mod and a little later was told that player wouldn't
>be a problem anymore.

That sounds like a VERY extreme edge case. Assuming I'm understanding
correctly, you played a game that was not even designed for PvP and
some troll hacked your session. That is a not even remotely what
happens in most PvP games that are designed to played as such.

It's very unfortunate if that singular experience had any influence on
your opinion of PvP gamings impact on the best or worst of people.

Now, some could say that "competition brings out the worst in people".
When you see people killing each other in real life over sports
betting and shit like that, and even to a lesser extreme just the way
people get crazy over their favorite soccer team or whatever.. I
would say yes there definitely seems to be something in spectator
sports (for which eSports could be included) that can invoke mental
illness in a certain percentage of the population. But there are
enough examples of how competition can bring out the best in people,
so perception is where you look for it.

I'll buy it. Maybe even preorder it. What is it?

Oh - I guess I had better read on

On Sat, 18 May 2024 15:46:50 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Valve is working on a new game. No, it's not "Half Life 3". Or "Portal
>3". Or "Left4Dead 3". Or "DOTA3". It's not even "Poker Night 3". It is
>not anything with a 3 in its name. It's an entirely new franchise.
>
>More specifically, it's called "Deadlock"*, and it's a 6v6 competitive
>hero-shooter FPS. Comparisons to "Overwatch" are being made.
>
>Which, I guess, is fine. "Team Fortress" is getting a bit long in the
>tooth (and the less said about "Counterstrike" the better). I guess
>you could say "Deadlock" will be filling a weak spot in Valve's
>line-up... at least considering its competition.
>
>But it seems a game designed more to fill the needs of the company
>than the desires of its customers. I mean, presumably the game will
>release with the usual Valve polish** so it will probably be fun to
>play... but it feels very much 'follow-the-leader'. It feels lazy. The
>only thing that would feel lazier would be if Valve released an
>open-world survival game, imitating "Ark" or "Raft" or "The Forest" or
>games of that ilk.
>
>(Then again... an open-world survival game set in the "Half Life"
>universe during the reign of the Combine? That sounds fun. Dodge
>zombies and head-crabs and ant-lions as you craft your way up to a
>gravity gun. But that just proves my point; a spur-of-the-moment idea
>I just came up with sounds more exciting than what Valve is actually
>releasing).
>
>But it's often said that necessity breeds invention and for Valve
>-buoyed by the billions of dollars it rakes in annually from Steam-
>making games isn't a necessity. It's a luxury; a hobby. Anything they
>release doesn't have to be good, or novel, or interesting, or even
>wanted. They can afford to half-ass it.
>
>I dunno. Maybe "Deadlock" will be great.
>
>But I'm not holding my breath.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>* side note: there actually already was a game called "Deadlock". It
>was a strategy game released in the late 90s developed by Accolade. In
>fact, the original "Deadlock" got a sequel. So in a way, this /will/
>be a third "Deadlock" game. Does this mean Valve has gotten over its
>fear of the number three? Is it, "Half Life 3 confirmed"? ;-)
>
>** then again, after "Artifact" and "Aperture Desk Job" and even "Hunt
>Down the Freeman" (the latter wasn't /developed/ by Valve, but it was
>released under their authorization), I'm not so sure 'Valve polish'
>means that much anymore
>

On 20/05/2024 15:41, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> I don't do multiplayer at all.  I tried some many years ago but PvP
> especially just seems to bring out the worse in people.  Even when the
> game designs are "Here is the goal and you may have to fight other
> players to reach it" far too many people play just to kill off other
> players.  Hell, I remember one early MMO that had no PvP at all and
> getting threatened by another player for being "uppity" or something
> because I had arrived at a location before them.

I played Medal of Honour, Call of Duty and Team Fortress 2 many years
ago and toxicity didn't seem to be a problem. World of Tanks on the
other hand, it started off ok but as time went on just got more and more
noticeable to the stage I was put off playing at higher tier as it would
only be two maybe three battles before you had someone going of in chat
and blaming some random player for why they'd had a bad game.

Then you had clans where you had players that spent their time griefing
their teammates in battle. WG did finally do something about that aspect
as they introduced raise a ticket with customer support, with a replay
attached, and they would ban a player for three days.

Overall though they didn't really seem to care and did the smallest
amount of work possible. Now obviously it's not just WG's fault and as
you say competitive MP games seem to bring out the worse in some people.

>Doesn't seem to be much info out there on it yet, but it could be
>interesting.

https://i.imgur.com/xKTWSY8.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/86cz84A.png
https://i.imgur.com/kqQFlas.png
https://i.imgur.com/WTlUegD.png

rms

Third person unfortunately.

Not saying that can't be fun sometimes too, but definitely a nod in
the millenial / gen Z direction and away from my gen X sensibilities.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:39 this Sunday (GMT):
> On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:50:01 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 19:46 this Saturday (GMT):
>
>
>>> ** then again, after "Artifact" and "Aperture Desk Job" and even "Hunt
>>> Down the Freeman" (the latter wasn't /developed/ by Valve, but it was
>>> released under their authorization), I'm not so sure 'Valve polish'
>>> means that much anymore
>
>>Don't speak the name HDtF it's curseeeddddd!
>
> I think the worst thing about the Forbidden-Game-Whose-Name-Cannot-Be-
> Spoken is that it's a retail product. Had it been a mod, I think
> people would have been a lot more forgiving, but the fact that a) the
> developers were charging for it, and b) Valve had given the game their
> blessing doomed the game. It suggested a certain amount of quality
> that the devs just weren't capable of providing.
>
> Because (and I may go to video gaming hell for the following
> statement) The-Game-Of-Which-I-Speak-But-Will-Not-Name isn't actually
> as bad as all that. It's definitely not GOOD, but I've seen a lot
> worse. It's incredibly ambitious and even has moments where it is
> passable. If it had been a free mod, I'd have said, 'Good first
> effort'.
>
> But it being semi-officially a canon part of the Half-Life franchise
> /and/ the dev's having the gall to charge for their mediocre efforts?
> Yeah, that makes me - and the game's audience as a whole - a lot less
> forgiving.

Wasn't it also $60?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Fri, 24 May 2024 00:20:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:39 this Sunday (GMT):
>> On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:50:01 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 19:46 this Saturday (GMT):
>>
>>
>>>> ** then again, after "Artifact" and "Aperture Desk Job" and even "Hunt
>>>> Down the Freeman" (the latter wasn't /developed/ by Valve, but it was
>>>> released under their authorization), I'm not so sure 'Valve polish'
>>>> means that much anymore
>>
>>>Don't speak the name HDtF it's curseeeddddd!
>>
>> I think the worst thing about the Forbidden-Game-Whose-Name-Cannot-Be-
>> Spoken is that it's a retail product. Had it been a mod, I think
>> people would have been a lot more forgiving, but the fact that a) the
>> developers were charging for it, and b) Valve had given the game their
>> blessing doomed the game. It suggested a certain amount of quality
>> that the devs just weren't capable of providing.
>>
>> Because (and I may go to video gaming hell for the following
>> statement) The-Game-Of-Which-I-Speak-But-Will-Not-Name isn't actually
>> as bad as all that. It's definitely not GOOD, but I've seen a lot
>> worse. It's incredibly ambitious and even has moments where it is
>> passable. If it had been a free mod, I'd have said, 'Good first
>> effort'.
>>
>> But it being semi-officially a canon part of the Half-Life franchise
>> /and/ the dev's having the gall to charge for their mediocre efforts?
>> Yeah, that makes me - and the game's audience as a whole - a lot less
>> forgiving.
>
>
>Wasn't it also $60?

SteamDB shows it released at $24.99 USD. It's currently hovering at
$10 USD. It's not (IMHO) worth either of those prices, but I certainly
would have been pissed had I purchased the game at its highest price.
It's occassionally dropped down to $1.49 USD, and at that price point
I'd have been a lot more forgiving. I'd still not have considered it a
good game, but there's a significant amount of content, so sure, why
not toss the dev's a couple of bucks?

But above that price and I start expecting some sort of quality... and
You-Know-Of-Which-Game-I-Speak-But-Cannot-Name does not provide that.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:35 this Friday (GMT):
> On Fri, 24 May 2024 00:20:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:39 this Sunday (GMT):
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:50:01 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 19:46 this Saturday (GMT):
>>>
>>>
>>>>> ** then again, after "Artifact" and "Aperture Desk Job" and even "Hunt
>>>>> Down the Freeman" (the latter wasn't /developed/ by Valve, but it was
>>>>> released under their authorization), I'm not so sure 'Valve polish'
>>>>> means that much anymore
>>>
>>>>Don't speak the name HDtF it's curseeeddddd!
>>>
>>> I think the worst thing about the Forbidden-Game-Whose-Name-Cannot-Be-
>>> Spoken is that it's a retail product. Had it been a mod, I think
>>> people would have been a lot more forgiving, but the fact that a) the
>>> developers were charging for it, and b) Valve had given the game their
>>> blessing doomed the game. It suggested a certain amount of quality
>>> that the devs just weren't capable of providing.
>>>
>>> Because (and I may go to video gaming hell for the following
>>> statement) The-Game-Of-Which-I-Speak-But-Will-Not-Name isn't actually
>>> as bad as all that. It's definitely not GOOD, but I've seen a lot
>>> worse. It's incredibly ambitious and even has moments where it is
>>> passable. If it had been a free mod, I'd have said, 'Good first
>>> effort'.
>>>
>>> But it being semi-officially a canon part of the Half-Life franchise
>>> /and/ the dev's having the gall to charge for their mediocre efforts?
>>> Yeah, that makes me - and the game's audience as a whole - a lot less
>>> forgiving.
>>
>>
>>Wasn't it also $60?
>
> SteamDB shows it released at $24.99 USD. It's currently hovering at
> $10 USD. It's not (IMHO) worth either of those prices, but I certainly
> would have been pissed had I purchased the game at its highest price.
> It's occassionally dropped down to $1.49 USD, and at that price point
> I'd have been a lot more forgiving. I'd still not have considered it a
> good game, but there's a significant amount of content, so sure, why
> not toss the dev's a couple of bucks?
>
> But above that price and I start expecting some sort of quality... and
> You-Know-Of-Which-Game-I-Speak-But-Cannot-Name does not provide that.

Yeah, that price was a bit high..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom