Left for Dead 2 for Mac Coming Tuesday

[shadygrove]

Probably because the PS3 != Mac

Cant believe people still use a PS3....its all about the Xbox - the 1 thing MS got right!

(for the record, I own both but as you probably guessed, dislike the PS3)

Right... I can't think of a single device with a higher return rate due to product failure and the people still keep buying them. The device is garbage since it came it out. As far as hardware is concerned, the PS3 blows it out of the water. I am not talking just RAM, CPU, and GPU, I am talking to the entire experience from built-in USB rechargeable controllers, a hard drive, bluray, internet browser, bluetooth, and wifi right out of the box. These are things that can't all be said about the various version of the 360 over time.

I don't know a single person who actually plays their 360, that hasn't sent one back. I don't buy products that are inevitably going to fail before the technology itself is obsolete.

 

[skeep5]

that's some pretty sick stuff.

 

[NoNameBrand]

Super excited for L4D2 / L4D.

The XBox/PS3 fanboys taking this thread off-topic are like competitors in the Special Olympics: even if they win, they're still retarded.

 

[Synthetic]

Right... I can't think of a single device with a higher return rate due to product failure and the people still keep buying them. The device is garbage since it came it out. As far as hardware is concerned, the PS3 blows it out of the water. I am not talking just RAM, CPU, and GPU, I am talking to the entire experience from built-in USB rechargeable controllers, a hard drive, bluray, internet browser, bluetooth, and wifi right out of the box. These are things that can't all be said about the various version of the 360 over time.

I don't know a single person who actually plays their 360, that hasn't sent one back. I don't buy products that are inevitably going to fail before the technology itself is obsolete.

RAM, CPU and GPU can be argued... Rechargeable controllers and a web browser is a plus but the 360 does have an internal hard drive and 802.11n witch is better then the PS3's 802.11g card. As for Blu-ray and Bluetooth... Bleh... I'm not a fan of anyone system I'm just trying to set the facts straight.

 

[MyDesktopBroke]

Probably because the PS3 != Mac

Cant believe people still use a PS3....its all about the Xbox - the 1 thing MS got right!

 

[archurban]

Don't you see the poor support of OpenGL on OSX?

open GL only makes HD contents, or 3D software faster. it's not for gaming. Apple developers need to create something like directX. open GL is garbage.

 

[Cougarcat]

Through Steam?

I love Steam. The guys at Valve should get a medal for the way they've helped the Mac gaming market. Keep it up guys!

Not sure if you will be able to buy it on steam or not, but Civ V uses steamworks so you'll be able to register the game on it regardless.

The likes of Aspyr with their crappy Cider ports were killing Mac gaming. Now we're beginning to move past that the future actually looks a lot brighter.

Aspyr does not use Cider, nor does Feral. They are the only two companies left who natively port games, and Aspyr hasn't even released anything this year. Unfortunately everything Ubisoft or EA ports uses Cider, and that hasn't changed yet with the arrival of Steam.

open GL only makes HD contents, or 3D software faster. it's not for gaming. Apple developers need to create something like directX. open GL is garbage.

Tell that to John Carmack. All of ID's games are OpenGL-based.

 

[ikir]

This is THE GAME

 

[ikir]

open GL only makes HD contents, or 3D software faster. it's not for gaming. Apple developers need to create something like directX. open GL is garbage.

OpenGL is awesome and lately our 3D drivers has seen quite a boost on modern machine. And i'm sure our drivers will become much more better soon.

 

[kingtj]

Yep... and by contrast?

I've been eagerly awaiting this game for Mac, and will give them my money for it right away. On the other hand? ANOTHER Civilization game? Sorry, but no thanks.... I loved Civilization back when the first version was a new release -- but that was back in 1991. I've bought 3 or 4 versions since then and am pretty tired of the whole concept now.

I always get my money's worth out of a good 3D shooter though, and it's been a while since I played a new one. I liked "Killing Floor" for what it was, and for the low price --- but the game doesn't have the depth or even graphics quality of something like Left for Dead 2.

Valve would get my $60 in a heartbeat for a Mac version of Civilization V, but a zombie shooter really isn't something that I would purchase. It is wonderful, though, to see Valve promoting cross-platform development with their Steam product.

 

[kingtj]

Kinda off-topic, but I agree with you here ...

I went with the PS3 because it offered a lot more hardware for my dollar. I figured eventually, ANY game console on the market would get hundreds of titles developed for it. To me, the initial purchase was about getting the best platform I could for my money, and PS3 was the clear choice. (Bluetooth wireless controller support, blu-ray disc player, etc. etc.)

Between my computers and a game console? I should have PLENTY of good options for games to play. I'm not obsessed over having specific titles that are purposely restricted to only one platform (like the new Halo series). That's just a gimmick to get more people to buy the hardware -- and I'm not falling for it.

And you know? Even though it's STILL way under-developed so far, the @Home virtual 3D world Sony has going for the PS3 is interesting too, IMHO. It's always possible they'll just leave it as a glorified "chat room" with virtual items you can spend money on to dress up your characters ... but some of the mini-games in it (even the bowling one!) are fun to play, and show the potential. I could see them expanding it into a whole MMORPG environment with a monthly subscription, something like World of Warcraft, if you go to the right "room" in the world.....

Right... I can't think of a single device with a higher return rate due to product failure and the people still keep buying them. The device is garbage since it came it out. As far as hardware is concerned, the PS3 blows it out of the water. I am not talking just RAM, CPU, and GPU, I am talking to the entire experience from built-in USB rechargeable controllers, a hard drive, bluray, internet browser, bluetooth, and wifi right out of the box. These are things that can't all be said about the various version of the 360 over time.

I don't know a single person who actually plays their 360, that hasn't sent one back. I don't buy products that are inevitably going to fail before the technology itself is obsolete.

 

[pr5owner]

Yes! Now I can finally play this game with PC nerd friends.

not really, l4d2 is dead, theres like no one online anymore, they all moved over to bad company 2 and other newer titles.

i have both l4d and l4d2, and i am saying this from exp

this game is already like a year old running on a 5 year old engine, dont see what all the fuss is about

 

[AppleMacFinder]

You're a loser. Okay that wasn't nice.

I just disagree with your opinion. PS3 > Xbox.

In fact, Wii > PS3+Xbox

 

[LagunaSol]

Cant believe people still use a PS3....its all about the Xbox - the 1 thing MS got right!

Yeah, all those self-destructing 360s were a real coup for MS.

Personally I can't believe people still use a 360. In addition to the horrific hardware failure rate, the Xbox also lacks Blu-ray, Bluetooth, wi-fi and free online gaming. And aside from the now-finished Halo franchise (or will MS figure out a way to milk this series to perpetuity?), the PS3 seems to have a better exclusive game catalog these days (Uncharted 2 = epic, Little Big Planet 2 = will be epic), while the other major titles are cross-platform.

The other thing that completely sucks on a PC is the requirement to constantly upgrade your hardware in order to be able to fully enjoy a new game. It's costly and annoying. And since I'm no longer 13 years old, I just don't see the benefit or fun in that anymore.

Agreed. And what's the fun of playing against someone with a $5k overclocked-out-the-wazoo liquid-cooled gaming rig? You aren't solely competing on skill or strategy, you're competing on hardware performance.

I enjoy console gaming because it levels the playing field.

 

[Mattsasa]

The Xbox 360 has a bunch more exlcusive titles, the most notable one at the moment is Alan Wake and next year we will have Gears of War 3. Microsoft makes sure that there is a steady supply of Xbox exclusives, they want that platform to succeed and they want gaming to move away from Windows.

And, unlike somebody said, there is nothing mediocre about Gears of War 2 or Alan Wake.

I tell you what completely sucks about PC gaming: DRM/Copy protection. It's completely painless on an Xbox 360, but on a PC those things have become painful to a degree that they almost break your system (well, as we could read several times everywhere, in many cases DRM drivers actually have broken systems or opened unwanted backdoors).

The other thing that completely sucks on a PC is the requirement to constantly upgrade your hardware in order to be able to fully enjoy a new game. It's costly and annoying. And since I'm no longer 13 years old, I just don't see the benefit or fun in that anymore.

The Xbox 360 solved all those problems for me. And I also don't have a problem with the controller anymore - at first I didn't like it and was missing the mouse and keyboard, but then I got used to it. Heck, I'm a casual gamer - I don't get paid to play games and I also do not get an ego boost because I have such a great frag score.

Games are there to give me a relaxing, good time. They are not supposed to be work or the meaning of life (unless, maybe, you are a game developer and enjoy creating virtual worlds).

K this isn't the forum to talk about it but I am upset now by ignorance

there are far more pc exclusives than xbox exclusives, and gears 3 is for pc!

what in the world are you talking about DRM/Copy protection! there is not any pain at all in a pc, "break your system" what?

you do not need to constantly upgrade your hardware!!! you buy a pc for $250, that is more powerful than an xbox 360, and can run all games faster and higher resolution. Just because pcs have the ability to buy better hardware and run your games way better than an xbox doesn't mean you have to.

Some people may prefer a controller.

For everyone out there who prefers a controller... USE ONE!!! just because a pc offers superior input doesn't mean you need to use it.

In fact, Wii > PS3+Xbox

im afraid your mistaken to

its simply:
PC > xbox

Ps3=best bang for your buck + lots of exclusives

wii = for families and local multiplayer, and nintendo exclusive titiles

 

[LagunaSol]

you do not need to constantly upgrade your hardware!!! you buy a pc for $250, that is more powerful than an xbox 360, and can run all games faster and higher resolution

Your $250 PC won't be able to compete with someone's $2,000 PC in FPS games.

 

[Mattsasa]

Your $250 PC won't be able to compete with someone's $2,000 PC in FPS games.

my computer is $3000+

but..... one of my other computers that was $250 a year ago will run every game on high - ultra 1080p 60fps, the only game that couldn't do high was crysis that had to be run on medium to keep steady 60fps

sure 5 years from now, i will need upgrade, but six years is a full console generation

 

[LagunaSol]

my computer is $3000+

but..... one of my other computers that was $250 a year ago will run every game on high - ultra 1080p 60fps, the only game that couldn't do high was crysis that had to be run on medium to keep steady 60fps

I'm not saying a cheap PC can't run a game well. I'm saying that when the action gets intense in a multiplayer shooter, your framerate is not going to compete against the framerate of the more expensive machine, resulting in a competitive disadvantage to you.

On a console, everyone has the same processing hardware and no one has a hardware-based advantage.

 

[Mattsasa]

I'm not saying a cheap PC can't run a game well. I'm saying that when the action gets intense in a multiplayer shooter, your framerate is not going to compete against the framerate of the more expensive machine, resulting in a competitive disadvantage to you.

On a console, everyone has the same processing hardware and no one has a hardware-based advantage.

and I am saying you are incorrect! the framerate will stay above 60fps.

but yes consoles do have an even playing field

 

[LagunaSol]

and I am saying you are incorrect! the framerate will stay above 60fps.

No, it won't in all cases. And even when it does, you still have a performance disadvantage to machines that are running at significantly higher framerates than you.

Just because your Civic will do 60 and a Porsche will do 60 doesn't mean the Porsche isn't going to smoke you when things get interesting.

 

[Mattsasa]

No, it won't in all cases. And even when it does, you still have a performance disadvantage to machines that are running at significantly higher framerates than you.

Just because your Civic will do 60 and a Porsche will do 60 doesn't mean the Porsche isn't going to smoke you when things get interesting.

im saying it will run around 200fps, and dip down to 100fps when things get interesting!

the human eye cant see any difference from 100fps to 200fps.

there is no hardware advantage!

 

[LagunaSol]

the human eye cant see any difference from 100fps to 200fps.

there is no hardware advantage!

It doesn't matter what the human eye can see, a faster machine is going to result in faster reaction time under load. The faster computer will always have an advantage over a slower one.

Why would people spend so much time and money tweaking their computer performance if everything over 60 fps is irrelevant???

 

[Mattsasa]

It doesn't matter what the human eye can see, a faster machine is going to result in faster reaction time under load. The faster computer will always have an advantage over a slower one.

Why would people spend so much time and money tweaking their computer performance if everything over 60 fps is irrelevant???

Because its what people do! its a hobby! to get the best machine possible! To score the highest benchmark, and to brag about it! I have a $3000 dollar computer, that has no advantage over the other computer in my house. But is many times more powerful, it does not give me an advantage in gaming.

 

[goobot]

Right... I can't think of a single device with a higher return rate due to product failure and the people still keep buying them. The device is garbage since it came it out. As far as hardware is concerned, the PS3 blows it out of the water. I am not talking just RAM, CPU, and GPU, I am talking to the entire experience from built-in USB rechargeable controllers, a hard drive, bluray, internet browser, bluetooth, and wifi right out of the box. These are things that can't all be said about the various version of the 360 over time.

I don't know a single person who actually plays their 360, that hasn't sent one back. I don't buy products that are inevitably going to fail before the technology itself is obsolete.

the xbox has usb rechargeable controllers, ya cause an xbox doesnt have a hard-drive?, internet browser is software (tho i agree that is good) the ps3 doesnt use bluetooth in a useful way at all. until then it is a useless gimistick, the xbox has built in wifi. Also the xbox has for the most part much better software experience, xbox live is much better than psn network and most people prefer xbox's exclusive games over the ps3's. not to mention on the popular call of duty games they get dlc earlier.


that is why MOST prefer xbox over ps3.

 

[LagunaSol]

the ps3 doesnt use bluetooth in a useful way at all

Hmm, I use my Jawbone Bluetooth headset with my PS3. The same headset I use with my iPhone and Mac. Seems pretty useful to me. Better than having to buy an Xbox-specific headset.

And the Xbox only recently got onboard wifi. Welcome to 2007, Microsoft. Even the lowly Wii has had Bluetooth and wifi since day one.