Like for many other people, Valve single player experiences were one of my favorite of all time growing up. I considered both Half-Life and Portal to be masterpieces. It’s true they’ve always been distracted with multiplayer games as well, things like Counter-Strike or Team Fortress and I did play them for sure, because I was a kid and I had all the time in the world.

These days I’m not a kid anymore and so when I game I tend to look more for memorable experiences instead of mindless grinding. Obviously I remember Valve as the experts in creating memorable experiences and I would like them to keep fully exploring those talents. They don’t have that many employees, but they do have all the money in the world, no external pressure, no publisher to shit on them, it’s just their developers and artists and a vision. But then they use all that and create this. An Overwatch looking moba shooter, really? I’m sure people will like and play it, but is this the results of the vision and ambition of a company like Valve?

It doesn’t have to be Half-Life. I remember them saying that they dont want to do another one in the series because they are looking to innovate and make something truly original. My body is ready, give me anything. I can’t imagine a moba shooter really fits with this description. I’m wondering how such a low hanging concept even becomes a real product at a company as ambitious as Valve.

I hear people are having fun with the new game and I’m happy for them. I am no longer the target audience and I wish them good luck with it. In the mean time let me hear your thoughts on it. Would you like to see another single player experience from Valve?

  • ABCDE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Artifact has good scores from critics, as does CS2, nothing from Zombies. Not sure one game from 20 years ago says much when it’s just 1.6 with bots. The game isn’t bad, people just expected more than that.

    • Kecessa
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      And why is critics’ opinion more important than the opinion of the actual players?

      • ABCDE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because, as I said, it is the same game with bots on top. The game isn’t suddenly bad because of that, so look at reviews of 1.6 instead of cherry picking convenient information. Artifact was review bombed, which I also mentioned.

        • Kecessa
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re also cherry picking only critics reviews and ignoring the majority of people playing and actually paying for the games.

          • ABCDE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Again (third time), it was review bombed. Steam reviews, if you actually look at them, are generally positive, except for people who “played” it for 0.1 - 0.3 hours, or over 100 and jokingly clicked to not recommend. CS was 1.6, and thus obviously not a bad game.