LAN deathmatch in the bad place was so damn visceral and fast

And you get recharging shields and can only carry two guns.

Also, go buy Hard Reset.

USE NEW MOTION CONTROL PERIPHERAL....A MOUSE!!!!!!1

They forgot a stupid cover system, ridiculously over-pronounced head-bob, video glitches and artifacts purposefully designed into the opening logos and cinematics, and an NPC character constantly talking at you even in the scary parts and the middle of fire-fights. Don't forget quick-time events and pointless mini-games that you have to revisit eight million times to progress through the game you actually intended to play.

Wow, dead on! Perfectly demonstrates the problem with a lot of today's games.. one thing it's missing is doors/objects that glow yellow so you know that's the way you're supposed to go.

Too brown!

OK, let's see a DOOM one. That one was MY days!

I cracked a smile at some parts (the multiple middleware logos), but I don't agree with the overall sentiment. Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one.

I don't resent their success, I just don't play them, and unlike sports (which I also have no interest in) it doesn't interfere with the things I actually want to consume by preempting programming or causing traffic.

Man, I miss the old Loki's Minions CTF with the grappling hook. Those were the days!

@Hawkinson
Agreed.

Amusing video, but I don't lament the fact games have evolved. There are many things a lot of games back then did wrong, but as kids we were more patient and willing to overlook them. However, I do wish sometimes games would more often take a few more cues from old games in their design. Bulletstorm and Resistance 3 were a breath of fresh air in a stale FPS genre.
Also, Hard Reset was not the game I was hoping it would be. It was clunky and very dull, a massive step back from the superb Painkiller.

Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.

And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.

>> ^Harzzach:

Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!


Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.

You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.

"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".

This is exactly how I feel about Quake vs. modern games - thanks for the vid!

One very glaring error: "Press Space to Start" would clearly have been "Press X to Start".

Sometimes knowing less, and not having your hand held all the way is more fun, scary and exciting!

Blah blah blah games were better when I were a lad blah blah blah kids today don't know how lucky they are blah blah blah

Also missing were the inane "achievement unlocked!" messages.

It isn't really fair of the video to use, as what is supposedly footage more representative of the older games, an insane speed-run. Quake Done Quick isn't how anyone but obsessive compulsives played it.

Still think Quake Threewave CTF is the best multiplayer game out there.

>> ^deathcow:

How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.

Correct! Battlefield 3 is the answer.

>> ^Gallowflak:

Also, go buy Hard Reset.


This. (And while Hard Reset is not quite at the same level of greatness as Painkiller, it's still VERY good. Definitely what Bulletstorm should have been.)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This was the big lesson from Minecraft. >> ^PalmliX:

Sometimes knowing less, and not having your hand held all the way is more fun, scary and exciting!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

looks pretty damn good.

Most games today are developed with consoles in mind with the PC as an afterthought. This is largely why they are dumbed down, with few options to tune the graphics, and more simplistic game design. They're appealing to the mass market console audience, which includes people who need their hands held and others with slow reaction times.

The money is with the mass market, so PC gaming while not dead I doubt will ever enjoy the hayday it once had. I don't really care since I don't really play many games anymore, but it is kind of sad to see how it has been watered down and co-opted by console gaming.

As for me, I used to play doom 2 on dwango, and RA2 online..and between those two I lost more of my life than I care to admit.

This is so sad and true. Still, I laughed my ass off when he went into the options menu - because it is so true.
Oh well, this is what its becoming. Dumb customers who purchase every bullshit and big companies that only make bullshit.
Have to thank each and every console gamer for this.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".


Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.

I like the sentiment but in reality I was always a console kid and could never get on with PC games. Too challenging for me, especially as I always felt PCs were work-orientated.

They missed a couple of things that annoy me about console-gaming; the whole fucking in-game collectables OCD challenges that I refuse to rise to. I'm not collecting 400 riddler trophies in Batman AC. Yet unlike others before it, AC has actually made it worse by tying those trophies into the whole business of unlocking other parts of the game as well as the Riddler side mission.

And because they are linked to achievements there's no longer the ability (though this went many moons ago) of typing in a cheat code to quickly access the gaming content you actually bought! I liked Batman AC but traded it in quickly once completed. If they can't trust their own game without padding it I'm not hanging onto it.

The other development that afflicts every shooter is XP based gaming. Do anything and you're piling up experience points of some sort or the other which then of course unlock stuff or compile into badges of honour or in-game commendations/achievements. I don't mind levelling as a legitimate form of game design but it's overused now and hints at the dearth of ideas in first person shooters currently.

i have a permanent lifetime elbow injury from quake-2 multiplayer

Though I could do without some of the hand holding in modern games, if back when I was playing Doom with three of my friends you showed me Battlefield 3 with many dozens of players, I would have snatched it without a question and never looked back.

To be fair, relatively I probably was having more fun playing Doom back then, but the multiplayer fps was totally new. That will never happen again. Then again, if you had asked me back then to describe the perfect multiplayer fps shooter, I would have described something very, very close to Battlefield 3.

Have you played Dark Souls or Demon Souls? >> ^PalmliX:

Sometimes knowing less, and not having your hand held all the way is more fun, scary and exciting!

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Blah blah blah games were better when I were a lad blah blah blah kids today don't know how lucky they are blah blah blah


Get off my lawn!


http://geeks.thedailywh.at/2011/11/02/modernized-quake-of-the-day/ found it here.

When I was your age, we rocket jumped all the way to school uphill, both ways....

IN BOILING LAVA!

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".

Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.


Listen, kid (I use the word kid because even though you're probably around 30, but you speak like an ignorant, simple minded, angry child) you wanna try to hide the fact you know nothing about the way the video games industry and the gaming market actually works. It's too obvious.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".

Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.

Listen, kid (I use the word kid because even though you're probably around 30, but you speak like an ignorant, simple minded, angry child) you wanna try to hide the fact you know nothing about the way the video games industry and the gaming market actually works. It's too obvious.


Alright then, kiddo. How does it work? But first let me tell you that I am talking to you like this BECAUSE you are talking like a kid with no clue at all and just wanting to spew out something. You want to talk seriously, prove first that youre not as extremely ignorant as your posts make you look like.

Indies show its still possible to make good games. Too bad those indies get bought by these big publishers if they do something good. Look at the devs that made Call of Juarez for example, what they turned into. The first part was a real good PC game, the second one was even on the PC version infested with autoaiming and the third part is just lol.

Go ahead and tell me how the gaming market works. Or any market for that matter. Are you one of those hardliner capitalists who dont even understand the system, but want it to stay the way it is, kiddo?
Go troll somewhere else, like on your console forums. Geez...

@coolhund

Ah, so you're a PC elitest. They're the worst at being opinionated douche bags, stuck in the past moaning about every game that comes out these days. I prefer my gaming on PC, especially shooters and despise poor ports, but I'm not a total dick about it. Next you'll be saying something like "STFU fag noob!".
I also think you do not understand my comments and instead of actually thinking about what i mean by evolution, like the definition being survival of the fittest, fittest being the games that actually sell, you just attack and start spewing your demented hate. Game design has evolved, many aspects for the better, many IMO for the worse, but denying that it is evolution is retarded.

The current industry works like this. Game development can cost 10s to sometimes 100s of millions of dollars, not including marketing, which again costs millions of dollars and is vital. These days it doesn't matter how good a game is, if it doesn't have branding or good marketing behind it, it wont sell. In some cases not even then because launch window is important too. Very rarely a game comes out of no where and surprises people and becomes a hit, but as I said, rarely. Investors/Publishers are rarely willing to release something totally different or release in a genre they know doesn't sell, and frankly who would be? Would you seriously be willing to risk losing that much money on such a risky investment? It's a business!

You'll be surprised to know I actually agree with you partly, the cause for this is the size of the industry now and the size of it's userbase. However what do you expect to happen to it? Do you expect the industry to stagnate, stay as it was 15 years ago and not grow yet still stay alive just to create your space flight sims? And yes, indie development is where all the ingenuity comes from, low risk and also low reward.

We only recall those nostalgic games we hold dear. Sometimes they live up to modern scrutiny, often they don't (a friend of mine who'd never played System Shock 2 or Deus Ex gave both ago. Loved SS2, couldn't get into Deus Ex). You never recall all the games that were shit. I can barely recall them, but i do remember there being a lot more shit games than good games.

These old classic games will always hold a place in my heart and many of them, especially the phenomenal Quake, I could always fire up (assuming I can get them running) and have a fun time, but that is nostalgia. Indie devs will be the ones to turn to, to experience old school game design. If that's enough for you, wtf are you so angry about? If you seriously expect AAA publishers to release games like that, you're in for a seriously long wait.

Now, I've had enough squabbling with a 30 year old child. Go back to your mother's basement, continue to replay your old games and by all means, don't stop complaining on the internet about how modern gaming has ruined your "life". I'll be here in the present, looking to the future and thinking fondly of the past

^ The only thing more irritating to me than a fag noob is a person who uses the spirit of one in irony.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

@coolhund
Ah, so you're a PC elitest. They're the worst at being opinionated douche bags, stuck in the past moaning about every game that comes out these days. I prefer my gaming on PC, especially shooters and despise poor ports, but I'm not a total dick about it. Next you'll be saying something like "STFU fag noob!".
I also think you do not understand my comments and instead of actually thinking about what i mean by evolution, like the definition being survival of the fittest, fittest being the games that actually sell, you just attack and start spewing your demented hate. Game design has evolved, many aspects for the better, many IMO for the worse, but denying that it is evolution is retarded.
The current industry works like this. Game development can cost 10s to sometimes 100s of millions of dollars, not including marketing, which again costs millions of dollars and is vital. These days it doesn't matter how good a game is, if it doesn't have branding or good marketing behind it, it wont sell. In some cases not even then because launch window is important too. Very rarely a game comes out of no where and surprises people and becomes a hit, but as I said, rarely. Investors/Publishers are rarely willing to release something totally different or release in a genre they know doesn't sell, and frankly who would be? Would you seriously be willing to risk losing that much money on such a risky investment? It's a business!
You'll be surprised to know I actually agree with you partly, the cause for this is the size of the industry now and the size of it's userbase. However what do you expect to happen to it? Do you expect the industry to stagnate, stay as it was 15 years ago and not grow yet still stay alive just to create your space flight sims? And yes, indie development is where all the ingenuity comes from, low risk and also low reward.
We only recall those nostalgic games we hold dear. Sometimes they live up to modern scrutiny, often they don't (a friend of mine who'd never played System Shock 2 or Deus Ex gave both ago. Loved SS2, couldn't get into Deus Ex). You never recall all the games that were shit. I can barely recall them, but i do remember there being a lot more shit games than good games.
These old classic games will always hold a place in my heart and many of them, especially the phenomenal Quake, I could always fire up (assuming I can get them running) and have a fun time, but that is nostalgia. Indie devs will be the ones to turn to, to experience old school game design. If that's enough for you, wtf are you so angry about? If you seriously expect AAA publishers to release games like that, you're in for a seriously long wait.
Now, I've had enough squabbling with a 30 year old child. Go back to your mother's basement, continue to replay your old games and by all means, don't stop complaining on the internet about how modern gaming has ruined your "life". I'll be here in the present, looking to the future and thinking fondly of the past


Why should I call you something like that? Dont put your standards on others. Well, you still havent grasped what I am trying to say. No wonder.
Yes, I know very well how the market looks right now. I know how it developed and I know whats to blame. That doesnt mean I deal with it. Dealing with it would mean I would have given in, and I never give in when things I like get destroyed. That may be futile in this case, with so many idiots like yourself who have given in and went back to mindless consume, but I dont care.

Games have not evolved. Since 2007 the graphics have not become much better, all in all they have actually gotten worse. The controls and gameplay have become much worse since 2006 or so and the genre variety and diversity has declined a lot.

You really think I grasp too much for classics? I dont care for classics, except for their memories and maybe one or two I still play from time to time. Why would I think a game (yes, a PC game) released in 2009 is the best game Ive ever played then? You know nothing about me and your assumptions are dead wrong. Each and every one. Funnily, my assumption of you being an ignorant prick just got confirmed again.

Yes I know how much marketing costs... or rather how much they make it cost. EA for example spends 2 times as much on marketing than on the game itself (prolly 3 or 4 times in case of BF3). Thats how games get so expensive. Get a clue.

Yeah, I have also wasted enough time on your ignorance and I wont be wasting more time trying to explain anything to you, not even a novel-sized text would help anyway.

>> ^Hawkinson:

I cracked a smile at some parts (the multiple middleware logos), but I don't agree with the overall sentiment. Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one.


And..? McDonald's is popular, but it's food is still crap.

Appealing to the lowest common denominator may make you a lot of money but it doesn't mean your product is actually good...

And..? McDonald's is popular, but it's food is still crap...



It's = It is.

>> ^ant:

And..? McDonald's is popular, but it's food is still crap...

It's = It is.


Thank you.

Goddam kids these days

>> ^deathcow:

How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.


The multiplayer FPS has certainly evolved since Quake. No dispute there. My contention is that they STOPPED evolving and have hit what I call an "innovation plateau" circa 1999. No major strides have been made since then, just the refinement/streamlining (which much of the time amounts to down-sizing) of already existing mechanics/capabilities (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in of itself, as games like TF2 prove).

Starsiege: Tribes was doing futuristic class-based gameplay with 128-256 player matches in huge, wide-open expanses with a full suite of vehicles and commander/command station/team bases/sensor arrays and defense structures (which all rely on an energy source that must be defended to function) and a variety of player role customization options in 1999! Where are the successors who would take the core of this legacy and expand upon it? I don't doubt it'll happen eventually but damn, I'd have never guessed it'd have taken this long if asked at the turn of the century.

Had Tribes set the world on fire sales-wise I'm guessing the landscape of the MP FPS would look very different today. Instead it serves as another example to publishers that innovation on that scale, as incredible a game it may produce, simply isn't worth the risk.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^deathcow:
How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.

The multiplayer FPS has certainly evolved since Quake. No dispute there. My contention is that they STOPPED evolving and have hit what I call an "innovation plateau" circa 1999. No major strides have been made since then, just the refinement/streamlining (which much of the time amounts to down-sizing) of already existing mechanics/capabilities (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in of itself, as games like TF2 prove).
Starsiege: Tribes was doing futuristic class-based gameplay with 128-256 player matches in huge, wide-open expanses with a full suite of vehicles and commander/command station/team bases and defense structures (which all rely on an energy source that must be defended to function) and a variety of player role customization options in 1999! Where are the successors who would take the core of this legacy and expand upon it? I don't doubt it'll happen eventually but damn, I'd have never guessed it'd have taken this long if asked at the turn of the century.
Had Tribes set the world on fire sales-wise I'm guessing the landscape of the MP FPS would look very different today. Instead it serves as another example to publishers that innovation on that scale, as incredible a game it may produce, simply isn't worth the risk.


would have a hard time arguing against that

maybe that upcoming star wars whatever the hell it is will innovate

Apparently no PC gamer here has played Demon Souls or Dark Souls...

I'm just really bored at the stagnate FPS genre atm. Hasn't been a good recent multiplayer FPS game recently apart from TF2, and that was a while back. Even then the focus is clearly on public play and the competitive community is small and dying out pretty quickly. Its sad that in this e-sports renaissance created by SC2 there is no FPS game to really step up and enter the limelight. The Arena style of Quake needs to make a comeback. Its so watchable as a spectator sport, and the skill the best players display is just astounding. Even watching these speedruns etc makes my jaw drop.

Instead we get boring Modern Yawnfair 12 - For Xbox360 and PS3! And yah, I'm a PC elitist. I watched some Halo3/Reach @ MLG and while it wasn't terrible, it was lightyears behind Quake. CS:GO is on the horizon, and I hope steam support that as much as they are pouring money into DotA2, but still, I prefer an FPS where you don't die in one pixelshot or from wallbanging spam.

/rant

Oh, and a new tribes is coming, but I was super turned off by their free2play model. If its anything like LoL I am not interested. I'd rather pay upfront and know I am on a equal footing than everybody else rather than sink limitless cash into making sure I can remain competitive.

Over one grammatical error? It's good to see (did I use it right that time? = P) that the sandy vagina brigade never rests.

Perhaps either of you would care to discuss the topic rather than being fucktards?

>> ^Fransky:

>> ^ant:
And..? McDonald's is popular, but it's food is still crap...

It's = It is.

Thank you.
Goddam kids these days

Yeah....

its = possessive form

Damn that was funny.

Those consoles turn kids into morons. Growing up playing console games prepares kids to the world of Idiocracy and cash registers with pictures of hamburgers instead of numbers.

The worst thing is that the industry is starting to to dumb down MMO's to the console crowds level.

It's really sad. The worst part is these kids have no idea what they are missing.

I really hate the ingame hints. It totally breaks the immersion. It used to be an option you could toggle, but now it is just there even when you don't want/need it.

Don't even get me started on the whole console controller thing. The idea of steering a 200mph car or 600mph plane with two buttons is so utterly stupid, it makes my skin crawl. Oh but little Tommy is too wasted to or lacks the attention span to aquire and set up a decent six axis jobstick, wah, wah, wah, QQ.

>> ^Jinx:

I'm just really bored at the stagnate FPS genre atm. Hasn't been a good recent multiplayer FPS game recently apart from TF2, and that was a while back. Even then the focus is clearly on public play and the competitive community is small and dying out pretty quickly. Its sad that in this e-sports renaissance created by SC2 there is no FPS game to really step up and enter the limelight. The Arena style of Quake needs to make a comeback. Its so watchable as a spectator sport, and the skill the best players display is just astounding. Even watching these speedruns etc makes my jaw drop.
Instead we get boring Modern Yawnfair 12 - For Xbox360 and PS3! And yah, I'm a PC elitist. I watched some Halo3/Reach @ MLG and while it wasn't terrible, it was lightyears behind Quake. CS:GO is on the horizon, and I hope steam support that as much as they are pouring money into DotA2, but still, I prefer an FPS where you don't die in one pixelshot or from wallbanging spam.
/rant
Oh, and a new tribes is coming, but I was super turned off by their free2play model. If its anything like LoL I am not interested. I'd rather pay upfront and know I am on a equal footing than everybody else rather than sink limitless cash into making sure I can remain competitive.


I realize I'm necroing a 2 week old video thread, but, there are some things that nobody bothered to say.

Jinx: Many of these F2P games are not Pay2Win. You simply pay for variety/speed of unlocks. Nothing you can pay for with cash can make you do more damage, move faster, etc. The only things in LoL that absolutely require actual cash are character skins and extra rune pages. Everything else can be unlocked with the same points even the richest person has to earn by playing matches. Can you spend $1-200 and unlock every character? Yes. Do you have to...is it worth it? No. Just play with the free rotated characters each week. Personally, I'm sick of paying up front for shitty games or games I don't play that often.


@EvilDeathBee The difference is, many of the companies that used to produce the best stuff now produce mass market crap and many of the great companies were bought out and/or ruined by EA/Activision. Westwood Studios...gone. Lucasarts is plagued by the same mass market bullshit problems as the newer movie trilogy. id hasn't made a good shooter since before Doom 3, and Rage is the latest crap they've spewed out. You can find videos of Carmack saying they're being held back by console graphics/memory considerations. Luckily we have Blizzard and Valve still, though Blizzard is now Activision Blizzard, and is making console Diablo 3 and has added friggin Facebook to Battle net. GG. Valve seems to want to make hats, ignore HL2:Ep3 while splitting the already-split MOBA community by releasing DOTA2, which nobody really asked for given that HoN and LoL are rather popular. But, at least Valve and Blizz put out quality PC games. BF3 now has the useless Origin, which is nothing but a business move and provides zero benefit to gamers.

Games used to be art. Now they're all about money.

@Hawkinson "A few thousand"? Doom 2 sold like 2 million back before PC gaming was at all popular. Quake 2 sold 1-1.5 million also. I couldn't find Q1 numbers but I'd guess they're similar. You're also forgetting that Doom 2 was distributed as shareware, and I've seen estimates that 15 million played it. Give google a try next time you want to pull statistics out of your ass