125 Comments
  • 125 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by KillyDarko

Great interview. It was amazing how Erik Wolpaw went above and beyond to defend Demon's Souls even if this was basically about Portal 2. Valve is kinda awesome ^^

Posted by beard_of_zeus

Funny interview, very enjoyable.

Edited by jakob187
@PhanThomas said:

" THAT Eric Wolpaw, form the good ol' Gamespot days? "

Yes, as in "Wolpaw's Law". 
 
Also, it's kind of insane how many former Gamespot employees work in the gaming industry now.  Greg Kassavin, Rich Gallup, Carrie Gouskos, Eric Wolpaw...  It's kind of fucking awesome to see actual gamers and critics of games making games!  That's not even mentioning the roles of Alex at Harmonix and Rorie at Obsidian.  Geez!
Posted by Toms115

stephen merchant? 
 
nicccccccccceeeee.

Posted by Rxanadu
@august: I love how everyone who has commented on my stance against Day 1 DLC IN GENERAL feels sooo empowered when they make comments with absolutely no backbone.  What is is your argument against my stance on Day 1 DLC?  What makes Day-1 DLC so great that you have to defend publishers -that's right, dunce; I'm NOT just talking about Valve, or Rockstar, or Infinity Ward, or any of your precious developers (who, of course, have absolutely NO say in what they want to do with their product, since they're untouchable when it comes to criticism)- who would love to pump every drop out of you to pay for their game that probably won't break even due to their overblown production budgets?    
 
Thought so.  Next time you try to argue with me again, bring an ARGUMENT, not a pathetic biased statement you thought up because you felt butt-hurt.   
Now, get ready to get learned in the art of the argument: 
  
Let's take a look at Alan Wake.  You know, that one game made by the people behind the critically acclaimed Max Payne series.  For all intents and purposes, it tanked.  Despite all the advertisement they pumped for and INTO the game, the developers and publishers knew they couldn't compete with an instant blockbuster like Red Dead Redemption.  Thus, they went ahead and released it around the time RDR came out.  Then, they went and included DLC with limited editions of the game.    
 
Another scenario is Dragon Age: Origins.  It had tons of Day 1 DLC that came with limited edition (or maybe it was all of them, can't remember) versions of the game that people had to shell out more money to get.  Unlike Alan Wake's DLC, it was available for play (as far as I can remember) when you opened up the case.  Everyone who wanted the game but couldn't afford $10 more for the limited edition was at a loss, since they couldn't experience the same amount of content as people who could afford the limited edition.  Obviously, this leads to inefficient use of Bioware/EA's resources, as it makes some people (in this case, those who couldn't afford the limited edition) worse off while making others(the ones that could afford it) better off - a basic principle of economics you're familiar with, I'm sure.  This, however, bears the question as to why the developers/publishers didn't just include the DLC on the disc (or at least set up an update to get more) to make all the people who paid for their game on the first day of release better off.  
 
And there you have it: an argument.  Not a sarcastic comment which could have been made by a child the age of 3.   
Posted by Yummylee

Stephen Merchant to voice the Maneater!

Online
Posted by JoelTGM

that was awesome.  I can't wait for Portal 2!!  Got the 2 pack on Steam, so I am READY.

Posted by Slaker117
@Rxanadu: 
Why did you bring a discussion of day one DLC into a video for Portal 2 if you aren't talking about Portal 2? Seems kinda out of place. There are plenty of arguments for why those DLC packs are ugly, and there are reasons not to like them, but why bring it up here, when everyone else is talking about a game put out by a developer who is the antithesis of what you're complaining about?
 
People were defending Valve because you put your little rant in a context where, by all accounts, it looked like you were accusing them of something they have never done. They weren't even attempting to argue against your stance on day one DLC, they were only pointing out that it doesn't apply here. If you can't understand that, you clearly aren't as smart as you think you are.
Posted by Zero_

This interview makes me want to really see a Vinny Jeff Demon Soul's Endurance Run...    

Posted by Sayishere

yea demon souls was a good game 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oh...yea..portal 2....looks good to :D

Posted by Jackel2072

im going to go get this on PS3. im kind of a 360 guy but i want to see this STEAM support on the PS3. if Valve took over the Playstaion store and treated it like steam proper i dont think i would ever touch my xbox again. we need to get this digital distribution stuff  rolling on the consoles. Games on Demand and PSN is not the answer... not at all. 

Posted by AuthenticM

Who's the black dude!?

Posted by Wandering_Idiot
@Rxanadu: 
 
Nice job talking about every developer other than Valve, given that your original post was obviously directed at Valve.  If that wasn't your original intention and you aren't just trying to backtrack by pretending it was a more general statement after everyone noted how very wrong you were, you are either the worst communicator in the history of the Internet, or a troll.
Posted by Keeng
@Underachiever007 said:
" @Nottle said: 

" I think Jeff sees Mortal Kombat with rose tinted glasses. If it's coming out the same day as portal 2, how many people are going to care about Mortal Kombat? "


   @Keeng said:
" Portal 2. Socom 4.   ...Mortal Kombat? lol sure. "
Considering all the pre-release hype that's been surrounding Mortal Kombat for awhile now it probably has a better shot at taking on Portal than SOCOM. Major sites like IGN and Gamepot, neither of whom have ever cared much about MK in the past, are doing some pretty extensive and positive coverage of that game. "
I agree with most sites that Mortal Kombat seems like a much better game than that franchise has seen in about a decade. I won't buy it, but it's more of a personal preference thing than a quality of that game thing. I just feel like MK is finally a game worth being excited about in a franchise that has essentially been dead. Socom 4, a follow up to Confrontation, which sold pretty well (despite the fact it didn't review well due in equal parts to both its horrible launch and a LOT of bad journalism) is releasing with a very positive legacy. In the last ten years, MK has failed and Socom has thrived. NO ONE bought a console for this MK game and lots of people picked up a PS3 because of their love for the Socom series. I'm not saying either of these games is "taking on" Portal 2, because there's certainly room in the market for all three. I'm just saying Portal and Socom are pretty big deals to a much larger chunk of the market as sequels to incredibly popular, thoroughly beloved games. Mortal Kombat is perhaps the second good MK title in two generations of hardware. 
Posted by Underachiever007
@Keeng said:
" @Underachiever007 said:
" @Nottle said: 

" I think Jeff sees Mortal Kombat with rose tinted glasses. If it's coming out the same day as portal 2, how many people are going to care about Mortal Kombat? "


   @Keeng said:
" Portal 2. Socom 4.   ...Mortal Kombat? lol sure. "
Considering all the pre-release hype that's been surrounding Mortal Kombat for awhile now it probably has a better shot at taking on Portal than SOCOM. Major sites like IGN and Gamepot, neither of whom have ever cared much about MK in the past, are doing some pretty extensive and positive coverage of that game. "
I agree with most sites that Mortal Kombat seems like a much better game than that franchise has seen in about a decade. I won't buy it, but it's more of a personal preference thing than a quality of that game thing. I just feel like MK is finally a game worth being excited about in a franchise that has essentially been dead. Socom 4, a follow up to Confrontation, which sold pretty well (despite the fact it didn't review well due in equal parts to both its horrible launch and a LOT of bad journalism) is releasing with a very positive legacy. In the last ten years, MK has failed and Socom has thrived. NO ONE bought a console for this MK game and lots of people picked up a PS3 because of their love for the Socom series. I'm not saying either of these games is "taking on" Portal 2, because there's certainly room in the market for all three. I'm just saying Portal and Socom are pretty big deals to a much larger chunk of the market as sequels to incredibly popular, thoroughly beloved games. Mortal Kombat is perhaps the second good MK title in two generations of hardware.  "
That's fair. It's tough to discount all the journalistic hype surrounding MK, though, and the fact that it's multiplatform. The MK lines at PAX East were absolutely crazy.
Edited by Keeng
@Underachiever007: (replying to prevent giant text wall) Journalists are going nuts over MK, and rightfully so. I'm curious to see how much of that enthusiasm translates to actual players, though. Either way, it seems like April 19th will be an awesome day for games. 
 
EDT: Also, I rhymed.
Posted by Jumanji

Wolpaw is a baller. Demon's Souls is great and he set it out just the right way. I always thought the GB guys shortchanged it , and now we know from the pros that they did.

Posted by Delorean

Man, video games are so fucking awesome. Well-done, genuine interview. Bring it on April!

Posted by Videogames

The fact that we are still talking about demon's souls almost a year and a half after the american release really says something about the game. 

Posted by SomeDeliCook

"It was overblown how hard Demon's Souls was" 
 
I love Erik

Posted by Hef

Who in their right mind who buy Mk or Socom over Portal 2.  Seriously.

Posted by xAbleAssassinx

Hey fun fact, my Dad was totally in that show OZ for like 5 years!!

Posted by Nottle

Man. I need to play Demon's Souls and so does Jeff. Maybe he can play Dark Souls and use more skill to review it. He didn't even read the tutorials in the first game which i think was kind of funny. I've been looking up videos of the game all day.     It's like 20 bucks on amazon, I want to see if I can get it for any cheaper around town.  

Posted by Gwonam
@Rxanadu said:
" @august: I love how everyone who has commented on my stance against Day 1 DLC IN GENERAL feels sooo empowered when they make comments with absolutely no backbone.  What is is your argument against my stance on Day 1 DLC?  What makes Day-1 DLC so great that you have to defend publishers -that's right, dunce; I'm NOT just talking about Valve, or Rockstar, or Infinity Ward, or any of your precious developers (who, of course, have absolutely NO say in what they want to do with their product, since they're untouchable when it comes to criticism)- who would love to pump every drop out of you to pay for their game that probably won't break even due to their overblown production budgets?     Thought so.  Next time you try to argue with me again, bring an ARGUMENT, not a pathetic biased statement you thought up because you felt butt-hurt.   Now, get ready to get learned in the art of the argument:   Let's take a look at Alan Wake.  You know, that one game made by the people behind the critically acclaimed Max Payne series.  For all intents and purposes, it tanked.  Despite all the advertisement they pumped for and INTO the game, the developers and publishers knew they couldn't compete with an instant blockbuster like Red Dead Redemption.  Thus, they went ahead and released it around the time RDR came out.  Then, they went and included DLC with limited editions of the game.     Another scenario is Dragon Age: Origins.  It had tons of Day 1 DLC that came with limited edition (or maybe it was all of them, can't remember) versions of the game that people had to shell out more money to get.  Unlike Alan Wake's DLC, it was available for play (as far as I can remember) when you opened up the case.  Everyone who wanted the game but couldn't afford $10 more for the limited edition was at a loss, since they couldn't experience the same amount of content as people who could afford the limited edition.  Obviously, this leads to inefficient use of Bioware/EA's resources, as it makes some people (in this case, those who couldn't afford the limited edition) worse off while making others(the ones that could afford it) better off - a basic principle of economics you're familiar with, I'm sure.  This, however, bears the question as to why the developers/publishers didn't just include the DLC on the disc (or at least set up an update to get more) to make all the people who paid for their game on the first day of release better off.   And there you have it: an argument.  Not a sarcastic comment which could have been made by a child the age of 3.    "
Yep, because Alan Wake and DA:O had day 1 DLC, OBVIOUSLY Portal 2 will have it as well. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm pretty sure that no one here likes day 1 DLC, and that's not why people were "arguing" with you. Valve has never charged for DLC in their life, except once on the Xbox 360 when they were FORCED to. Valve is not the company to release day 1 DLC, they have never done it in their existence. Quit spewing your stupid shit and acting all high and mighty being a "rebel" because people are defending a video game company. You're not as smart as you think you are, so get off your high horse and be quiet. And your comment is shit and irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Posted by HalfDane1975

Good interview Jeff !