What is the Best and Worst Video Game Company?

[octafish]

The best: Troika

The worst: Troika

An infuriating mix of brilliance and bugs in all their games, only New Vegas has come close to that heady combination since Troika went out of business.

 

[theevilsanta]

=
L4D? A rip off of a user-created HL mod (Zombie Panic) and not even that good. It isn't even as fun as the mod, imo.

L4D2? An obvious money grab. Nice.

I'm not even really a fan of Valve, but I am a fan of both games.

No. Left 4 Dead is not a ripoff of Zombie Panic. In Left 4 Dead, the zombies are fast. In Left 4 Dead, players don't control the normal infected. In Left 4 Dead, there's no infecting the players.

The only real similarity is that both games pit zombies vs. humans.

Left 4 Dead is a cooperative-type game, Zombie Panic is a mayhem and deathmatch type game.

You're the first one to make that connection, probably because it wasn't very good.

Also, Left 4 Dead - not exactly a Valve game. More of "another developer with an idea who Valve picked up".

And, as for Left 4 Dead 2 being a money grab, nobody forced anyone to buy it. Left 4 Dead 1 is still being played as we speak. Yet it was well-made, fun and added more to the formula than my beloved CoD franchise has done since 2005.

Money-grabbing... Oh, yes, such money-grabbers that they release FREE CAMPAIGNS.

Come on.

Sorry. I didn't realize that L4D was yet another game Not developed by Valve. However, it bears mention that Zombie Panic came out first and, as far as I know, was the first game of its type.

As far as ZP being a "mayhem and deathmatch" type game, I really don't know what you're talking about. L4D has a ton more frantic zombie killing than ZP, and ammo conservations is a much smaller issue. But L4D is extremely similar to ZP. Have you ever played ZP? There are a few types of maps. But one is running from objective to objective with a small group of "survivors" while being chased by hordes of zombies. Sound like anything you know? And it's true L4D has more "special" zombies, but ZP has them too.

I'm not saying they're greedy when I say it was a money grab. They just obviously needed the money quite badly to damage their relationship even more with their costumers. Anyone who seriously defends L4D2 is equivalent to "seriously defending the name 'Wii' before its release", as Yahtzee put it.

 

[RA92]

As for Portal, it was a major step in videogame story telling. Without a single cut scene, or even so much as a reference to some kind of back-story, it manages to transport us into the virtual space of its plot, allowing us to deduce our own way through its elaborate puzzles and come to our own conclusions about the conspiracy that is amiss. In Portal, we actually act out the story as part of the gameplay. Also, it seamlessly delves the player into the reality of its own world.

The marketing jargon and general back of the box corporate crap in this one is making me queasy. If you're not being paid advertising by Valve you're getting screwed. Seriously it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself more than us.

It's not marketing jargon. I've extensively studied narrative devices back in GCE Literature, and I apply it where I feel like it. Care to point out any discrepancy in my interpretation?

If not... Shoo! Shoo! Troll! Get back back under your bridge!

I'm being honest when I say that you sound like a freaking advertisement for Valve and a lot of that paragraph didn't sound like it would come naturally from anyone.

But fine I'll play the game what the hell is "the artifice of the gameplay"

And this sentence bothers me
"And you were obviously trying to incite a flame war by attacking a popular developer."

Screw that, if you think a popular ...anything deserves criticism then you should be free to criticize it without fanboys taking it personally. If Valve were in charge of Duke Nukem Forever they'd have all ready announced another delay for it. Also I'll say it again, Valve seems to be the only developer who fails to understand the concept of DLC/episodic content on such a level.

Also the part where you imply that he's just not smart enough to get Valve. Real classy there.

To counter your opinion on me being a Valve fanboy, I'm going to quote you.

Seriously. I think Valve is over rated but it's not a bad developer by any means. Worst developer of all? I find it hard to believe anyone really thinks that.

Look, there's a lot of people here who think Valve is bad, and mainly for their scheduling. But this guy here calls Valve the worst because of... character development and forgetful environment? His criticism barely holds up! If so, why not go after companies that is tainted to a greater degree due to this sin? Especially the war-based games that, as I said before, recycles the same stereotype year after year? Even if he's not trying to incite a flame war, it seems suspiciously so.

And I'm going to stand behind my statement of Valve titles going over his head.

Listen, when I played Fallout 3, there were moments when I stopped to look at the signboards, and appreciate what the developers were trying to evoke. The advertisements were clearly reminiscent of the American Dream, and juxtaposing them with the barren nuclear wasteland that it presided over created the perfect concordia discourse to present an imagery of the Cold War paranoia. If someone doesn't get that, of course I'm going to say it flew over his/her head, and leave it to that. But if someone accuses Bethesda of not presenting allusions in their games, I see it as my duty to jump at their throats.

So far, you've yet to criticize me on any specific content of my argument; instead you're making personal attacks (you clearly have no idea what nature of essays you've to write to unis to get admitted with considerable financial aid). And as far as I understand, you're countering an analysis of a game that you... never played?

So to recap:

Making generic statements based on predefined rhetorics without a specific contention on a subject you've no experience of and thus is beyond the parameters of your expertise?

Real classy.

 

[Foobula]

Best: Valve. They are geniuses who can make almost any genre for almost every demographic, from the hard-core multiplayer experiences of TF2 and L4D to the artsier story directed titles such as HL2 or Portal.

Worst: EA. Just because they make horrible games. The end.

 

[veloper]

As for Portal, it was a major step in videogame story telling. Without a single cut scene, or even so much as a reference to some kind of back-story, it manages to transport us into the virtual space of its plot, allowing us to deduce our own way through its elaborate puzzles and come to our own conclusions about the conspiracy that is amiss. In Portal, we actually act out the story as part of the gameplay. Also, it seamlessly delves the player into the reality of its own world.

The marketing jargon and general back of the box corporate crap in this one is making me queasy. If you're not being paid advertising by Valve you're getting screwed. Seriously it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself more than us.

It's not marketing jargon. I've extensively studied narrative devices back in GCE Literature, and I apply it where I feel like it. Care to point out any discrepancy in my interpretation?

If not... Shoo! Shoo! Troll! Get back back under your bridge!

I'm being honest when I say that you sound like a freaking advertisement for Valve and a lot of that paragraph didn't sound like it would come naturally from anyone.

But fine I'll play the game what the hell is "the artifice of the gameplay"

And this sentence bothers me
"And you were obviously trying to incite a flame war by attacking a popular developer."

Screw that, if you think a popular ...anything deserves criticism then you should be free to criticize it without fanboys taking it personally. If Valve were in charge of Duke Nukem Forever they'd have all ready announced another delay for it. Also I'll say it again, Valve seems to be the only developer who fails to understand the concept of DLC/episodic content on such a level.

Also the part where you imply that he's just not smart enough to get Valve. Real classy there.

To counter your opinion on me being a Valve fanboy, I'm going to quote you.

Seriously. I think Valve is over rated but it's not a bad developer by any means. Worst developer of all? I find it hard to believe anyone really thinks that.

Look, there's a lot of people here who think Valve is bad, and mainly for their scheduling. But this guy here calls Valve the worst because of... character development and forgetful environment? His criticism barely holds up! If so, why not go after companies that is tainted to a greater degree due to this sin? Especially the war-based games that, as I said before, recycles the same stereotype year after year? Even if he's not trying to incite a flame war, it seems suspiciously so.

And I'm going to stand behind my statement of Valve titles going over his head.

Listen, when I played Fallout 3, there were moments when I stopped to look at the signboards, and appreciate what the developers were trying to evoke. The advertisements were clearly reminiscent of the American Dream, and juxtaposing them with the barren nuclear wasteland that it presided over created the perfect concordia discourse to present an imagery of the Cold War paranoia. If someone doesn't get that, of course I'm going to say it flew over his/her head, and leave it to that. But if someone accuses Bethesda of not presenting allusions in their games, I see it as my duty to jump at their throats.

So far, you've yet to criticize me on any specific content of my argument; instead you're making personal attacks (you clearly have no idea what nature of essays you've to write to unis to get admitted with considerable financial aid). And as far as I understand, you're countering an analysis of a game that you... never played?

So to recap:

Making generic statements based on predefined rhetorics without a specific contention on a subject you've no experience of and thus is beyond the parameters of your expertise?

Real classy.

Take it easy. Valve doesn't need any defending. It's no surprise why Valve's #1 in this thread.
The nay sayers just got mad their favourite devs got some fair criticism. you're trying to hard. Just ignore them.

 

[VargRaev]

Hmmm...

Best would probably be: Blizzard, Relic, Shanghai Alice, Bethesda and Nintendo

the worst??
probably; Activision, VALVe(not bad, just overrated), Capcom and some others...

 

[RA92]

As for Portal, it was a major step in videogame story telling. Without a single cut scene, or even so much as a reference to some kind of back-story, it manages to transport us into the virtual space of its plot, allowing us to deduce our own way through its elaborate puzzles and come to our own conclusions about the conspiracy that is amiss. In Portal, we actually act out the story as part of the gameplay. Also, it seamlessly delves the player into the reality of its own world.

The marketing jargon and general back of the box corporate crap in this one is making me queasy. If you're not being paid advertising by Valve you're getting screwed. Seriously it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself more than us.

It's not marketing jargon. I've extensively studied narrative devices back in GCE Literature, and I apply it where I feel like it. Care to point out any discrepancy in my interpretation?

If not... Shoo! Shoo! Troll! Get back back under your bridge!

I'm being honest when I say that you sound like a freaking advertisement for Valve and a lot of that paragraph didn't sound like it would come naturally from anyone.

But fine I'll play the game what the hell is "the artifice of the gameplay"

And this sentence bothers me
"And you were obviously trying to incite a flame war by attacking a popular developer."

Screw that, if you think a popular ...anything deserves criticism then you should be free to criticize it without fanboys taking it personally. If Valve were in charge of Duke Nukem Forever they'd have all ready announced another delay for it. Also I'll say it again, Valve seems to be the only developer who fails to understand the concept of DLC/episodic content on such a level.

Also the part where you imply that he's just not smart enough to get Valve. Real classy there.

To counter your opinion on me being a Valve fanboy, I'm going to quote you.

Seriously. I think Valve is over rated but it's not a bad developer by any means. Worst developer of all? I find it hard to believe anyone really thinks that.

Look, there's a lot of people here who think Valve is bad, and mainly for their scheduling. But this guy here calls Valve the worst because of... character development and forgetful environment? His criticism barely holds up! If so, why not go after companies that is tainted to a greater degree due to this sin? Especially the war-based games that, as I said before, recycles the same stereotype year after year? Even if he's not trying to incite a flame war, it seems suspiciously so.

And I'm going to stand behind my statement of Valve titles going over his head.

Listen, when I played Fallout 3, there were moments when I stopped to look at the signboards, and appreciate what the developers were trying to evoke. The advertisements were clearly reminiscent of the American Dream, and juxtaposing them with the barren nuclear wasteland that it presided over created the perfect concordia discourse to present an imagery of the Cold War paranoia. If someone doesn't get that, of course I'm going to say it flew over his/her head, and leave it to that. But if someone accuses Bethesda of not presenting allusions in their games, I see it as my duty to jump at their throats.

So far, you've yet to criticize me on any specific content of my argument; instead you're making personal attacks (you clearly have no idea what nature of essays you've to write to unis to get admitted with considerable financial aid). And as far as I understand, you're countering an analysis of a game that you... never played?

So to recap:

Making generic statements based on predefined rhetorics without a specific contention on a subject you've no experience of and thus is beyond the parameters of your expertise?

Real classy.

Take it easy. Valve doesn't need any defending. It's no surprise why Valve's #1 in this thread.
The nay sayers just got mad their favourite devs got some fair criticism. you're trying to hard. Just ignore them.

Kinda funny. I think L4D2's release was convoluted, its characters were crap, I've no idea how Portal 2's coop is gonna work (I mean, once you're done with one map, are you gonna play it again already knowing the solution?), the game's recently released box art was absolutely uninspiring and pisses me off because it's marketing its multi-player feature, and Half Life 2's episodic releases brings nothing interesting to move the story forward.

There are serious flaws in Valve titles, but nearly none of its haters make any substantial criticism. The fact that they keep messing with the release schedules never bothered me: I always have some other titles to keep myself busy with. In fact, if that is your only problem with Valve, it only means that you can't wait for their games to be released because you're seriously in love with them.

In retrospect, I think Psygnosis gets to be my favorite. They consistently released titles that were, design-wise, inspiring.

Good day to you.

 

[Gormers1]

Best: Valve

They know how to code. They're one of the few remaining western devs who still polish their games. They keep supporting their games for a long time, with upgrades, patches and balance tweaks and that's rare. Some of their games are a bit meh, but nothing is ever bad.
This is true for Blizzard also, but their association with Activision isn't helping.

Valve also give us Steam sales, easily making up for the money we throw at our gaming PCs.


Worst: prolly never heared of them.

Worst of the big names: Capcom. Sloppy coding and poor polish shouldn't be possible for a Japanese developer. Weak support doesn't help. The final nail is a weak line-up of games.

Sloppy coding? I guess youre referring to ports of capcom games to the pc? The poor ported ones were often ported by a whole different company altogether. On the 360 theyve come up with new great new IPs, and from the get-go given us games that performed great. They also have given us a lot of great and original titles on the Wii and DS. Too bad regarding that Okami thing..


Regarding what I like personally, I really like a lot of Ubisofts games. A lot of them have just been so creative and fun to play through. But the small company valve seems to be the most flawless and respectable.

Worst... surprise: Activision.

I can't decide between Team ICO or Valve for the best. For the worst I say Ubisoft. Their games are not necessarily bad, there just isn't any games from them that would be classified as good. Their games are... Bland. Not good but not bad.
In fact, NONE of their titles really strike me as "good" or "bad." It's like their titles are all in a twilight zone. And because of that I cant really remember any Ubisoft titles. It's easy for people to remember good and bad games, but the "Twilight zone" games are hard to remember because nothing sticks out.

Personally I regard for instance Prince of Persia: the sands of time, rayman 2 and beyond good and evil as some of the most memorable games Ive ever played.

 

[RA92]

I have played Portal and I wasn't trying to counter any of your statements all I was doing was saying that your language use bothered me, that's all.

Sorry, I misunderstood you when you said 'But fine I'll play the game'. I thought you didn't play the title yet.

Anyway, taking a step back, I guess I can see your reason for discomfort. You just passed the chance to say 'Over-analyzing pop culture much?' heh heh.

Enough of this crap. Every man/woman to his/her respective opinions.

Good day.

 

[veloper]

Best: Valve

They know how to code. They're one of the few remaining western devs who still polish their games. They keep supporting their games for a long time, with upgrades, patches and balance tweaks and that's rare. Some of their games are a bit meh, but nothing is ever bad.
This is true for Blizzard also, but their association with Activision isn't helping.

Valve also give us Steam sales, easily making up for the money we throw at our gaming PCs.


Worst: prolly never heared of them.

Worst of the big names: Capcom. Sloppy coding and poor polish shouldn't be possible for a Japanese developer. Weak support doesn't help. The final nail is a weak line-up of games.

Sloppy coding? I guess youre referring to ports of capcom games to the pc? The poor ported ones were often ported by a whole different company altogether. On the 360 theyve come up with new great new IPs, and from the get-go given us games that performed great. They also have given us a lot of great and original titles on the Wii and DS. Too bad regarding that Okami thing..

I'd prolly have left Capcom alone if they hadn't been their own publishers aswell. That makes them responsible for the crap they put out, even when they don't write the ports.

And yeah, this is mostly a PC forum, with the greater majority favouring gaming on the PC.

 

[Gormers1]

Sloppy coding? I guess youre referring to ports of capcom games to the pc? The poor ported ones were often ported by a whole different company altogether. On the 360 theyve come up with new great new IPs, and from the get-go given us games that performed great. They also have given us a lot of great and original titles on the Wii and DS. Too bad regarding that Okami thing..

I'd prolly have left Capcom alone if they hadn't been their own publishers aswell. That makes them responsible for the crap they put out, even when they don't write the ports.

And yeah, this is mostly a PC forum, with the greater majority favouring gaming on the PC.

The one really bad port Ive heard about, was Resident Evil 4, which was published by Ubisoft (teehee). Ive heard about and tried some other ports, like Devil May Cry and Lost Planet, and found them to be great on the pc (devil may cry even having exclusive content). What ports are you thinking about?

Also, even if you believe that, why cant you mention the fact that youre talking about the PC ports, when theyre a very console-focused company anyways?