Native Jovian

So I just finished reading these. They were actually as awesome as promised. Kudos to JadeAuto for pointing them out. (Now I just have find a copy of that Phoenix Legacy one he mentioned...)

Ditto tenchars

Because I have nothing better to do at work. And because I love you, BGC. <3

Volume? Yes. Quality? Doubtful.

http://www.ocremix.org/remix/OCR00084/ ?

As near as I can tell from the descriptions we've been given, Starter = netbooks, Basic = "emerging markets" (ie not North America, Europe, or Australia), Premium = XP Home, Professional = XP Pro, Enterprise = large businesses, Ultimate = Enterprise, but sold on individual instead of bulk licenses. Most people at home will be happy with Premium, the more tech savvy will want Professional, and the super-nerds will want Ultimate. Starter, Basic, and Enterprise don't enter into the equation at all for most people.

Dial M for Marriage?

Needs moar cel shading.

I think that's a recent thing, isn't it? Like, OoT-and-later. All the sprite games just use mirror images, which means which hand he's using depends on which way you're facing. Has nothing to do with the fact that he's a southpaw and everything to do with Hyrulian velcro.

I have to say that I'd be surprised if they didn't include every random FF job ever, or at least most of them. With the exception of a handful (FFVII, FFVIII, and FFXII are the only ones I can think of off hand), every Final Fantasy has had a job system of some stripe or another. It's a pretty iconic Final Fantasy thing. I can't imagine them doing a FF MMO without using an extensive job system.

How does that make any sense? I am grateful for the extra TF2 content -- grateful enough that I bought it twice. Hey, guess what, that's extra money in Valve's pocket because of all the free stuff they released! They're not releasing this stuff because they love us; they release it because it increases the value of the game, which makes people more likely to buy it if they haven't yet or keep playing it if they have. The more people enjoy playing the game, the more people are likely to look on Valve favorably in the future. The problem is that they set a precedent. If they release a bunch of free stuff for TF2 post-release, and people go "awesome, look at all this stuff Valve did, thanks!" then people expect that kind of thing again in the future. The idea is that Valve says "hey people love this game because of all the extras we gave them, we should release extras for our other games too and they'll like those as well". So when that doesn't actually happen, people get annoyed. Why did TF2 get free stuff but L4D didn't? It makes them look bad because they didn't give the same level of support to L4D that they did to TF2. I'm unhappy that they didn't give L4D that level of support. How is expressing this opinion "ungrateful"? It cuts both ways -- Valve does something I like (free TF2 stuff) I buy it again and thank them for the reason to give them more money. But when Valve does something I don't like (no L4D stuff) I don't buy it anymore (I've been considering getting the PC version of L4D just to be able to play it with another group of people -- not happening now) and I voice my opinion on the matter. Touche, EdgeCrusher. I admit that you're better at life than me. Your opinions are more valid. Everything you do is more awesome. You're just superior in every way, and I'm grateful that you could show me that. I'm an idiot for buying the only incarnation of the game that I could run at the only price it was available at. Clearly I should have spent $800 on a new computer in order to save $30 on a video game, despite the fact that I prefer a gamepad to mouse/keyboard anyway. Oh, wait, I forgot. Liking a gamepad more is wrong. Mouse/keyboard is objectively superior, not a matter of preference at all. I'll have to remember that in the future.

Okay. And? What's wrong with that? Valve acts in a certain way that we like, even though no one else does. We're happy. Then Valve does something we don't like, just like everyone else. We complain because we're used to Valve being more awesome than that. I don't see the problem. Except that I already did, under the (now proving false) belief that Valve would support L4D as well as it did its other online-only teamwork-focused multiplayer game, TF2. If I go to an ice cream shop and the guy in front of me orders a scoop of chocolate ice cream and gets a second scoop for free, then I order a scoop of vanilla and that's all I get, what's wrong with wondering "how come he got more than I did for free"? I'm not saying "my only-one-scoop sucks now!" or "omg I'm never buying ice cream here again!" or "RAGHASPDGHAGASG I'M GONNA BURN THIS PLACE DOWN CAUSE I DIDN'T GET FREE ICE CREAM!!!!!!111!", I'm just saying that I'm disappointed because I was looking forward to free stuff that it seemed likely I'd get, but ended up not. Except I'm not. I'm just expressing the opinion that I'm disappointed in Valve for not supporting L4D nearly as well as they do TF2, and pointing out alternatives that I think are more reasonable. I'm not "throwing a tantrum" and I'm not going to go on and on about the subject "until everyone agrees with me". It's a conversation, man; we're going back and forth about the topic. If you want to label me and my opinion idiotic and leave, feel free. Just don't insult me because I don't agree with you. Congratulations, you're special. Some of us bought it at launch. Congratulations, you're special. Some of us didn't have a decent enough computer to play it when it first come out. And even more shocking, some of us prefer gamepad controls to mouse/keyboard. I love you too. You're such a conversationalist. The main difference we're having is that I think it's reasonable to expect Valve to do the same thing that they do for one of their games (lots of extra stuff for TF2) for one of their other games (L4D) -- even if it's not exactly the same (I'd be willing to pay for L4D stuff even though TF2 stuff was free). You disagree. That's fine, whatever. The reason that the conversation has gotten as heated as it has is because I don't particularly enjoy being accused of feeling entitled or being selfish just for asking "hey, why does TF2 get all this stuff and L4D doesn't?". Isn't it a reasonable question? What's the difference between TF2 and L4D that one gets loads and loads of free content while the other does not? I realize that Valve isn't required to provide us with any free content, but they do anyway, which is awesome. It's one of the best things about the company. So when they don't offer free content anymore, my reaction is disappointment. That's not selfishness or a sense of entitlement; that's just natural. I'm not sitting here jumping up and down on my keyboard going "OMG VALVE R FAGGETS WTF IS THIS BULL&!$@". I'm just saying "hey, they didn't support L4D like they did TF2, that sucks". This is basically what I'm trying to get at. Left 4 Dead was a good game. I'm sure Left 4 Dead 2 will be a good game too. But two good games for full price each is "okay", while one good game for full price plus a boatload of extra content for a moderate fee is "awesome". We're used to Valve games being awesome rather than okay. We expect high quality and lots of content from Valve games. When we're presented with less than that, we express disappointment because Valve isn't living up to their past products. How is that being spoiled? Good for you; I didn't buy the Unreal or Quake upgrades. I didn't think it's worth the money. I may or may not buy L4D2 -- it depends on what extra content is ultimately added and how much it actually ends up costing. But the original L4D I bought with the expectation -- based on what Valve did with TF2, which seems like a reasonable basis to me -- that more content would be added eventually. They did some, in the form of completing Versus mode and adding Survivor mode, which made me happy. But none of that was actually new -- not in the way that the TF2 updates add new things. Now that L4D2 has been announced, it seems unlikely that anything new ever will be added to L4D, which upsets me because part of the reason I got it in the first place was because I was expecting TF2-style updates. Maybe not on the same scale -- TF2's updates have been massive after all -- but I expected something at least. New weapons (how hard would that be, really?), new gametypes (maybe something where you have to clear an area of infected instead of just moving from point A to point B? Maybe something where you have to hunt down and kill a specific zombie -- say, a witch -- while the other infected on the map try to protect it?), new abilities (adding some uniqueness to the characters, perhaps? Zoey's a little faster, Bill's a little more accurate, Francis is a little stronger, etc?), something that actually changes the way the game is played, unlike the DLC we did get which, fundamentally, doesn't.

What difference does it make? Buy the one you want and don't worry about the others.

I didn't pay $60 for any of those, and no one's asking me to pay another $60 for the new version. L4D was overpriced for the amount of content in it, even taking into account the DLC. Another free DLC would have made it worth the cost -- even paying $20 for an expansion pack would have been alright. Let me put it this way -- I've bought TF2 twice, first for 360, then again for PC just to get the DLC. The DLC by itself was worth the whole cost of another copy of the game. L4D I've bought once, and even with the DLC we got, I don't think it was worth the price. It's a great game, don't get me wrong -- but it feels like half a great game, because there's not actually a whole lot there. Some more maps, some new weapons, some differences in the characters (or at least more new characters characters), new specials, more game modes -- any of that could have been added (en masse or incrementally) and it would have helped a lot. Instead they put it all in a completely new game and ask us to shell out another $60 for it? Without the backwards compatibility offered by a pay-for-DLC or an expansion pack? Bah.

Fine, sloppy wording on my part. I would prefer to see additions to the original game than to see an entirely new game, because it would a) let you use the new features on the old game, and most likely be cheaper. I'm not implying that L4D2 makes L4D bad, I'm saying that L4D1+2 > L4D1 + L4D2, and I see no reason why L4D2 would be better as a seperate game rather than as DLC or an expansion pack.

Except for this: Also what Schwaltzvald said. The fact is that L4D was relatively light on content in the first place. Even with the one update we did get, it's not exactly brimming with content. Most multiplayer games come with a dozen or more different weapons, a good variety of game types, and any number of other mechanics (different character/classes, vehicles, etc) to keep things fresh. L4D has 5 weapons (two of which are just upgrades of two others), three game types (and it started with one-and-a-half), and that's it. Oh, I suppose the specials count as different classes, but they're only available in one game mode and you can't actually pick which one you want anyway. It's a solid base, most certainly, but doesn't have nearly as much content as other similarly-priced games that have a dozen-or-more hour long single player campaign plus multiplayer. Expecting them to release more content for it, especially given their track record with TF2, isn't entirely unreasonable. Ignoring the repeatedly-made point that games that are largely or exclusively single player are different from games that are largely or exclusively multiplayer, I'm not even complaining about the fact that you have to pay for it; just the fact that they're releasing an entirely new game for it. A DLC with a fee attached? Sure. An expansion pack? Fine. A whole new game...? Eeeh... It seems unlikely to me that the difference between the two are going to be large enough to justify that. L4D is a good base, but if they're going to add more to it, I want to see them take what they have and add more, not chuck what they started with and replace it with something slightly different (even if it is superior to the original).

Unless there's a dramatic difference in the engine itself, it really doesn't warrant an entirely new game. A.I. tweaks don't count. New maps and gametypes and weapons and all that are nice additions -- don't get me wrong. But we got all that for free for TF2. It seems reasonable to want the same thing for L4D, doesn't it? But apparently "expecting the same quality of product as other games made by the company" is "being spoiled" now.

Wiimote has hang-ups and glitches galore? I must have missed that memo.

Wasn't FFXI supposed to be the most grind-happy of all the various MMOs out? I'm down with Final Fantasy and all and I think it'd be fun to play a dragoon or something, but with everything I've heard about FFXI I'm going to have to hear some confirmation about this sucking less (for lack of a more subtle phrase) before I get excited about it.

I'm with JC. I wouldn't have minded so much if it was a download that cost something, or even a full expansion pack. Nor would I have minded if it was a single player game, as I already explained. But a multiplayer-only game you expect to have some staying power and see more support from the developer -- especially Valve, which has a reputation for such things. The fact that L4D is more expensive with less content compared to TF2, and now has been abandoned sooner (much sooner, I'd expect) as well, seems like a legitimate complaint to me -- especially when they've apparently made the content (or are at least in the process of doing so), they're simply releasing it as a full-price separately-released sequel instead of a an expansion pack or DLC.

But then he'd no longer be a prettyboy elf thing and the fanrage would incinerate the planet.

IIT Darkesword dictates Truth. Sorry, Penfold, your opinion is wrong.

Well, it's like this. See? Expectations that go unfulfilled causes anger. Part of the reason why people like Valve and Valve games is because of the post-release support, especially for games focusing on online multiplayer. TF2 is a vastly different game now than it was at release; there's been so much content added, from new weapons and abilities to new maps to new gametypes, etc etc. That's part of the reason people like TF2. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect the same sort of treatment for L4D, another Valve online game. But instead of new weapons, new characters, new infected, new campaigns, or new game modes, we get two campaigns unlocked for vs. that really should have been there in the first place, and we get a pseduo-game mode that basically boils down to "all climax fight, all the time", with one (tiny) new map to go with it. Okay, so they threw us a bone, but it's nowhere near the amount of content given to TF2, which is why people get upset.

This. While "zomg you have to pay for shit!?" is a fair attitude, it somehow annoys me that TF2 gets assloads of extra content no charge, while L4D gets basically squat. The Half Life 2 episodes (shouldn't that be Half Life 3 episodes anyway?) I can deal with given that they're single player anyway and thus much more story-driven, which makes paying for new installments at least seem like less of a big deal. But how can they release craploads of stuff for TF2 for free and then turn around and charge for L4D2 and not expect people to be pissed? Luckily for me I don't even own the PC L4D. We'll see how this shapes up and if it looks as good/better than L4D I'll probably get it.

That excuse hasn't worked since Nuremberg.