I was the same way when I was younger, only my brother and I alternated. He was and still is the better gamer, more skilled, more dedicated, and seemingly enjoying it more, but I still miss the days when we would sit for hours pondering out the answers to the questions, accidentally (or purposely) spoiling bits of the story that we'd reached when the other wasn't around, and helping each other through one section or the other.
I rarely play competitive online games, preferring co-op when I do connect, and I think all those hours with my brother are the reason.
@NoBullet: His opinion makes it sound like he was not very good at the game, frankly. The whole point of the armed guards was that you were supposed to take them down without getting shot.
And what about Paul Dini? I think he, who worked on the game, knows Batman much better than Landry Walker.
This is a great story. It reminds me of my own "four year rule": if I look back at who I was four years ago at any given time, I have the proper distance to realize I was an idiot.
Such a clear-eyed look back at your own faults hurts. It's good that Mike Fahey now has this forum to share that story, but better that he got his shit together. #gamingaddiction
I'm not a PC gamer, so I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong about Steam, but it seems that they're doing it right, a fair relationship between the creators of the game and the sales channel.
Is it a conflict of interest? I don't think so, but the argument isn't entirely without merit. Regardless of that, though, it strikes me as good for PC gaming in general, and I think that's more important.
Interesting insight, but I don't think putting Left 4 Dead in as an example of a game with a shorter campaign in favor of multiplayer is helping the argument. L4D is not really meant to be a single player game, and the level content of the single player experience is identical to the multiplayer. L4D was always meant to be MP; the single player is secondary.