Sections

Next round of Steam sales begins

Saturday, 2nd July 2011 18:10 GMT By Andrew Groen

If you didn’t know, Steam is holding a borderline cataclysmic software sale this week to kick off the Summer gaming season, and the new Saturday deals have just become available.


The last two days included some wonderful deals like the Witcher 2 at 33% off, and a host of other great deals. So we were very excited to see what Valve had in store for our poor, wimpering wallets today.

In usual form, they didn’t disappoint. They’ve got a little something for everybody in this pack with deals like 50% off Fable III, Battlefield Bad Company 2 for $5, and deals on Super Meat Boy and Plants vs Zombies.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg too. The whole package of deals is worth investigating.

Latest

25 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Fin

    Pretty sure I have a problem.

    Star Wars Battlefront II only £1.61? Fuck it, why not.
    I DON’T EVEN OWN A WINDOWS BOX.

    That was yesterday though. Today, anyone who doesn’t own Plants v Zombies should really get it, it’s brilliant.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. TheWulf

    And this is why the PC wins. It’s because of Steam. Valve should just get it the fuck over with and create a Steam OS.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. blackdreamhunk

    i bought like 3 game already for like $5 and 10 woot woot!!!

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Hunam

    My pick (I just randomly decided to do a commentary on this sale for no other reason than I can) of the day is the obvious one, Bad Company 2. Also people should give AvP 2010 a skirting look if you were put off it for some reason, I really liked it and think people should check it out.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. NeoSquall

    I have purchased Hoard last Thursday, at FULL PRICE.

    FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

    #5 3 years ago
  6. ultramega

    Looks like I’ll have to get Super Meat Boy, Magicka, Darksiders, and maybe AvP…

    This is a real abusive relationship Valve and I have… They’re always extorting money from me for these deals.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. Hunam

    Just a quick warning on Darksiders, it contains next to no graphics options, so if you don’t have a half decent PC you’re basically up shit creek sans any equipment to deal with that particular situation.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. endgame

    got Magicka for the co-op. can’t wait to finish dling it. :)

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Maximum Payne

    Bad Company 2 is must buy if you have solid PC and love shooters.
    Plant vs Zombie is must buy whatever you love
    AvP is solid while playing as Marine and not so much as Predator or Alien.
    There is also ”horde mode” and PvP multiplayer but is it still live? don’t know.
    @7 Well yea agree but game is overall good optimize so with 8800gt you are going to play in Full HD…

    #9 3 years ago
  10. YoungZer0

    7,50 for Bad Company 2 is just fucking Mental. 1,70 for the SPECACT. And 4,42 for Vietnam. Or the whole package for 9,99.

    Absolutely Mental. If you don’t buy this, you’re a complete fool.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. Phoenixblight

    I don’t play FPS based on Modern times so I guess I would be a “fool” by not buying battlefield.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. YoungZer0

    I’m sorry you’ve had to hear it from me. :/

    #12 3 years ago
  13. DSB

    Specact is just a ripoff, charging for a few extra skins, but Vietnam is a must, since it fixes a lot of the core gameplay.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. YoungZer0

    @13: It does? Nah, still won’t get it. Never liked the setting. From what i’ve seen the maps are an orgy for campers/snipers. Never liked the jungle maps in the original Bad Company 2 for the same reasons.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. DSB

    @14 True dat. They fixed a few of the important things, like letting the guns rely on recoil rather than dispersion, but they’ve been pretty sloppy with most other things, leading to spawncamping and what not. It feels pretty rushed.

    One of the maps are essentially impossible for the VC, ironically enough because of grenade spam. They start in a gully and the US can just fire any kind of explosive in there and get random kills while just covering the avenues out of the gully. I’m yet to see the VC take a CP on that map.

    Still, I prefer that to vanilla BC2. Guns are pretty important.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. freedoms_stain

    For me Vietnam has 2 great maps, Operation Hastings and Phu Bai Valley, the rest are utter dog shit. Vantage Point and Cao Sin Temple have 2 of the worst bottlenecked maps I’ve ever seen in Conquest, and Hill 137 is as @14 suggests, very jungle heavy and full of campers and snipers.

    Actually, on Hill 137 it’s not unusual for half the NVA side to simply not leave their spawn and just sit there with the M40′s out in the safety of the Out-of-bounds waiting for the poor outnumbered fuckers on their team to get beat back by the US resulting in a super boring sniper camp fest while the tickets tick down. Unless I’m playing with friends who want to play it, 90% of the time I will happily quit out Hill 137 as soon as I can.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. GwynbleiddiuM

    @16 Well you do realize the Hill 137 is based on Battle of the Hamburger Hill (Hill 937), right? It’s supposed to be the way that hill was which was a bloody mess and because of its setting many US troops got slaughtered there in the actual event. So yes it’s a difficult map, so was the real battle.

    It was a fucking mess really, many clusterfucks occurred during that battle like friendly fire and stuff and they captured that hill and had to abandon it latter, caused a lot of outrage too. I personally like that map a lot especially when I’m on the US side, it’s a true fucking battle and requires a lot of work to get there.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. DSB

    And if any military game wanted to replicate reality there’d be women and children dead on the ground and everybody would piss and shit on themselves when they die.

    The fact that bad game design reflects random elements of reality doesn’t justify that bad game design, because games don’t want to, and aren’t trying to be real. There’s no command and control, there’s no fog of war, there’s no discipline, there’s no tactics, there’s no paralyzing fear, and so the list goes on.

    You’re just a bunch of guys running around in a videogame trying to shoot eacother and have fun doing it.

    Very few people would want to play through a wargame that was trying to be real.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. freedoms_stain

    @17, to clarify I was referring to the conquest version of the map.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. GwynbleiddiuM

    @18 Well, I don’t see why you think that is bad design ofc it’s your opinion, but man you’re getting it wrong. I wasn’t talking about realism, I merely said that Hill 137 designed the way it is for that reason I mentioned. Not for realism because battle of hamburger hill was a clusterfuck, it had little strategic importance and because of the setting it resulted in a mess when many US troop casualties and accidents happened, and latter they abandoned it and it caused outrage amongst Americans back in the day because they sacrificed so much to take that stupid hill, and many died, only to give it up later. It’s not a bad design it’s what it is and what it is – is a fucked up situation. Nobody is talking about realism. Good servers has TS or Vent where you can join and coordinate through voice chat with your teammates, if someone wants to play it right they need to coordinate and cooperate with each other and that usually wont happen in random matches. even in Battlefield 2 where there was a commander and squad leaders and command giving specific orders for each squads there where many people going out there and doing whatever the hell they liked to do.

    Again there’s a difference between realism and arcade like game play, Battlefield games always had a bit of both but never was anything too real or too arcadey. It tries to have some tense action gameplay that puts players into a warzone and implement some tactical teamwork. You don’t like these sort of things go play Modern Warfare 2, I don’t like those sort of things I play BF.

    Games don’t try to be realistic, but they have to be relevant, you can’t expect a modern shooter like BF2 or CoD go out there and their weapons which are real world weapons like M4 and HK416 too shoot banana and peach instead of bullets that kills people. There’s always a take on realism but as long as it’s in the interest of gameplay. There’s a need for some level of accuracy just as well as there’s a need for some level of fantasy, or let’s just say unrealistic take on a realistic world.

    @19 I hear you man, again I think Hill 137 is what it intends to be.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. DSB

    @20 Specifically, he was talking about the map making people do things that were damaging to the gameplay. In my book, that’s bad design.

    Hamburger Hill was far from the only battle of the Vietnam war that followed that exact template, it just happened to have a movie made about it. We’re largely doing the same thing today in Afghanistan, leaving hills or villages, and going to retake them again six months later.

    As such, I can see why you would include a “hill” map in a Vietnam game, but I can’t see why you wouldn’t design it so it would actually work for the people playing it. I think it’s the most beautiful map I’ve seen in a multiplayer game, but ultimately the fact that it’s loosely based on real battles doesn’t make it more fun to play, and that’s the primary responsibility of the map designer.

    Nobody cares how hard it is to assault a fortified position in real life – It’s not supposed to be real, it’s supposed to be fun, and there’s a huge difference between the two in real life. You don’t see the guys from Hamburger Hill patting eachother on the back or hifiving eachother after it’s over. They probably didn’t care if they were alive or not, which doesn’t make for very good gameplay.

    If you were trying to be real, then nobody would want to play the VC. They got slaughtered wholesale.

    And in the context of a multiplayer shooter, it’s supposed to be fair and fun for either side, so one team doesn’t end up being a punching bag, which is something that BC2: V has serious problems with, as stated above. The map itself doesn’t resemble Hamburger Hill either, so obviously they made the attempt at forming it to their own specifications.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. GwynbleiddiuM

    Well, I’m gonna stop you there at 2nd paragraph and say you are wrong about Afghanistan. It was a necessary war, sure it was ugly but it was all in good cause. You see I’m not a fan of actual real wars because a lot of people gonna die and lives of many people gonna get ruined but Afghanistan was a necessity. You don’t live amongst Muslims and you don’t know where their anger comes from their ideal world is the one that all infidels are dead or converted, pretty much what that happened with Christianity centuries ago. But we are talking about games so lets keep it that way.

    So you say when things get hard and tense you blame the devs for it? No it’s not supposed to be realistic, but what I’m getting from your comment is you are not accustomed to challenging situations. Are you saying you rather wuss out because someone tried to challenge you in a way you were not challenged before? is that what you’re saying buddy? It’s basically what your entire argument sounds, you don’t like to be challenged then it’s fine you can always skip. But some people actually enjoying the stuff and really welcome the idea every now and then.

    Almost every game out there has this mentality, sometimes they want you to feel like you got caught between a rock and a bad place, especially for changing up the tune and preventing repetitiveness.

    Again everyone is entitled to their opinion and in my opinion this is all where it needs to be and doesn’t feel like what you’re saying.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. DSB

    Getting desperate, are we? The only reason why you’d be playing Bad Company 2 in the first place is because the guys in CoD are too fast for you. Any sissy can run around in slow motion, getting his points by delivering lunchboxes to his buddies, who are actually trying to get a few kills under their belts. Is that the playground smacktalking over with, champ? I’ll leave it at that.

    It’s a bullshit argument. I’m talking about game design that puts one team at a disadvantage over the other, while you’re blabbering about reality somehow justifying it, when you’re dealing with a map that has nothing to do with reality, in a game that has nothing to do with reality. The battle you’re referring to, as well as many others before it, had an entirely different proportionality in terms of troop strength, perfectly underlining the simple fact that you’re using a bullshit argument to try and justify the sloppy design of people who obviously don’t know how to balance their maps.

    The fact that being caught in the battle, was as little fun as playing the map is a pretty useless fact, given that nothing else about it actually resembles the battle in question, beyond also featuring a hill.

    You’re certainly right that other mediocre multiplayer shooters also have poorly designed maps, but ideally a good multiplayer shooter, one that features a winner and a loser, will aim to be just that – Competitive. Putting one team at a disadvantage is easy, any idiot can make an unbalanced map that favors one side. Actually knowing how to balance it, is what seperates the great designers, from the lousy ones.

    It’s obviously pointless to argue based on actual knowledge, but I’m absolutely right about Afghanistan. I haven’t said a word about the justification of the war, but the fact is that we’re taking valleys, taking villages, leaving them again, and then taking them again six months later because we figure we made a mistake, or because some new brass at the top figures he’s finally found the golden strategy to winning the war – At least until he transfers out and someone else brings a new one.

    It’s exactly like the hills in Vietnam. Look up Musa Qala, for a textbook example. We lose guys every time we have to retake that shithole, and then we figure it’s too boring to stick around, and we let the taliban have it again, after which they shut down or destroy every single project we built in that village, leaving us to lose even more guys once we decide to retake it.

    It’s an incredibly mismanaged war where mistakes are repeated on a daily basis, just as they were in Vietnam.

    #23 3 years ago
  24. GwynbleiddiuM

    @23

    lol! yes the game is too fast but it ain’t the problem for me as I used to play the mother of all fast first person shooters Quake 2 and after that 3 and in terms of fast action gameplay I’d promise you there’d be only War$ow of which is a f2p standalone mod of quake 3 that can fit in the list, even Unreal Tournament was not as fast as any quakes, so no you’re wrong. I used to play fast shooters long before not playing much now, only when gathered around with old quake buddies. CoD I played MW and CoD2 a lot, still playing sometimes, yet the fast action gameplay is not as much of a problems as camper n00bz running and guning with glitchy gameplay of MW2. Let’s face it even quake 3 maps were bigger. The problem with CoD today is it designed to attract noobz and casuals and it worked for them so they now have loyal customers who prefer that kind of gameplay. Bad Company 2 is not that slow either it’s just bigger so it’s justified for a modern military shooter. Play ArmA II MP to realize what slow means and how long would it take to run a distance only to fall down dead with just a bullet.

    Again you don’t like a map you skip it no body holds you at gun point and forces you to play, I find it challenging and fun, and it’s only natural for people to have difference in opinion, play-style and gameplay preferences, that’s why you like MW2 let’s say, and I like BFBC2 and before that BF2. Just like nobody is forcing me to put hours into things that I despise, it goes the same way for you.

    Afghanistan is different situation and US forces are not abandoning the captured locations after just they took’em. US goal in Afghanistan was to deal with Al-Qaeda and because taliban was giving them problem they had to deal with it first, with their goal achieved they no longer feel that it’s necessary to waste time and resources there and ready to pull their forces out slowly and put it back in the Afghans hand.

    Mistakes happen during wars that is how they’re won and lost and those mistakes that comes to strategic values and advantages and disadvantages can be costly. If you have any interest in history and read up some notable wars, you can easily spot similarities in terms of mistakes because the decisions are real time and most of the time they had to go with whatever looks better at the time and those who are making those decisions are human just like the rest of us and humans make bad call or judgement and sometimes they take a risk and risk is a gamble sometimes it pays off sometimes it bites you in the ass. Have you ever been to war or a conflict? Here in our country military service is not an optional thing everyone has to spend 2 years in any branch of military on active duty and they will be reserves for the rest of their lives. I’m not saying that I seen many conflicts because I didn’t but this comes from the Amirs and Colonels that were my commanding officers, and my country was in war with Iraq for 8 years after the so-called great Islamic revolution (my ass). Iraq was a shithole then and it didn’t change much after USA came to take down Saddam Hussein, except this time they were much more desperate and infested by terrorist cells.

    War is war and ain’t nothing pretty about it. From every angle you look at it there are many wrong things that pops out and seem like that the whole thing was a mistake in the eyes of the civilians, but it ain’t always like that. Some guy decides to blow up your country and you have to retaliate no matter how it turns out and how it looks fucked up.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. DSB

    Which brings us back to square one, which is that those maps often aren’t fun to play, as stated above.

    I’d advise you to study the war a lot harder. The coalition has been in the process of taking and leaving areas as a matter of doctrine over the last many years in Afghanistan. We surge into Helmand, we pull out, and the taliban take over, we surge into rural Kandahar, we pull out, taliban take over, we surge into Kunar, we pull out, taliban take over.

    It’s exactly the same as what happened in Vietnam in the Iron Triangle and other problem areas, and often with the same results. We aren’t able to protect the population, we aren’t able to protect our projects, and those people know it all too well, and aren’t going to bet their lives on us. We aren’t defeating the enemy, we’re merely displacing him, and he’s able to replenish whatever losses come as a result of the sporadic direct confrontation that ensues, in part because we never allotted the correct ammount of troops to beat an enemy of their size, and in terrain as challenging as Afghanistan. Planes, missles and artillery are great at killing, but they won’t ever hold an area for you, and we don’t have the boots on the ground to do it.

    Of course the project is doomed to fail since the coalition has been relying upon the notion of a central state solution, just like the British and Soviets before them, which Afghanistan has never effectively had, and never ever even considered accepting. Any ruler or rulers it’s ever had, have served at the mercy of the tribal warchiefs and local strongmen in the country. You’re dealing with several distinct ethnic groups that are left at eachothers throats as a result of yet another grand British design of borders cutting straight through their respective homelands. It’s the problems of Palestine, Imperial India, Kurdistan and Iraq rolled into one.

    To win a war, you need superior situational awareness (through intelligence) you need a comprehensive plan based on that intelligence, and then you need the resolution to carry it out with the risks you’ve accepted beforehand. In Afghanistan since 2001, and in particular since 2003, it’s been common practice for the coalition and its battlegroups to change their overall strategy at least once a year, sometimes a lot more often. On that point, we were actually a lot more competent in Vietnam, sticking to strategies that might not be right, but at least got a chance to succeed.

    Chasing your own tail like that will always lose you a war, and that’s exactly why we’re faced with the humiliating notion of desiring a truce with the taliban, rather than leaving the country for the afghan people themselves.

    #25 3 years ago