Left4Dead 2

    "My dream is to have 16 characters"

    So that's L4D3 and 4 confirmed.

    Also, everything Valve have said over this game just seems like they're making excuses as they go along. In that link Chet says TF2 content is in simple, small increments, which isn't possible with L4D - so why promise that content in the first place when it's apparently impossible?

    Quote from kleinluka

    i dont really understand why you people are getting pissed off about this... you'll still be able to play L4D online anyway...

    Yes, you really do not understand. Because thats not the point, why we (or rather me) get pissed off.

    You could compare it to this:

    Instead of releasing a new soccer game every year, EA would release a free DLC every year for their first or second soccer game.

    L4D2 does mean that you get new content for Left 4 Dead. content that is rather easy to develop on a base of an existing game. They don't have to reinvent the A.I. Director or gameplay or whatever. They just made a 'mod' and want the full-price for it.

    And L4D is seriously lacking content at least in form of new campaigns/maps.

    The community is trying to fill this gap (like in every previous valve game) but Valve did not even fully implement the integration into the matchmaking system and that after over half a year after release.

    Quote from kleinluka

    i dont really understand why you people are getting pissed off about this... you'll still be able to play L4D online anyway...

    Even better, you'll be able to play L4D in L4D2, they're porting the levels forward, or at least planning to right now. That right there solves all my issues with L4D2 and will happily buy it when it comes out.

    I initially had a problem with the L4D sequel so soon for all of the reasons stated above, but who am I kidding, I'll probably have it on pre-order as soon as it's on steam. Given Valve's track record, I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt.

    Now that I think about it, I didn't like steam when it first came out, and now I prefer buying games on steam; I was disappointed when they canceled Black Box and did Orange Box only, but now I don't care anymore because Portal and EP2 made the price well worth it several times over; and now I'm upset about L4D2 so soon after L4D, and valve will probably find some way to make me happy with the situation (like allowing L4D content to be played in L4D2 with the L4D2 enhancements)

    I think the only way out of this for them would be to offer a huge discount for the game for previous L4D owners. I mean Huge as in we only pay U$ 4.99 for it and still the damage would have been done since they promised and didn't delivered. I know making games costs a lot of money, but they promised to release a lot of cotent and set a mark with the TF2 content. I still give them the benefit of the doubt. I would expect this from some other publishers but not Valve, not the valve from Orange box (retail price for 5 games and mod support for each and every one of them).

    They should release it for free to l4d owners. TF2 was 30,- and even less if you bought it as a package with the orange box, and it offered more then l4d and l4d2 combined.

    Quote from Dark

    The game would serve better as a lower priced expansion.

    We don't know how much they plan on charging for L4D2 (probably depends on how long this furor lasts). For all we know it'll end up being exactly that in all but name (and way more content than just an expansion).

    I wonder if people would think differently about Battle Garegga if it called rank the Bullet Director.

    If any company other than Valve were doing this I'm not sure there would be such an outcry. Unfortunately what's really biting them in the ass here is their otherwise excellent post-launch support.

    Maybe valve is doing this because they are hurting (because of the economy etc) as everyone else is, and they are just trying to survive?

    Quote from Skjalg

    Maybe valve is doing this because they are hurting (because of the economy etc) as everyone else is, and they are just trying to survive?

    I seriously doubt it, they're a private company and bow down to no publisher, and their games are all selling fantastic, and they sell other people's games. If Valve is hurting from the economy than this is officially Great Depression 2 and I expect to see stock traders jumping out windows any day now.

    According to the RPS interview with L4D2's project lead, it's because L4D was mostly made by Turtle Rock, external to Valve, but the internal Valve guys really loved the concept and wanted to expand on it, make it their own work, but there wasn't much time for them to do it. They had so many ideas and so many different directions they wanted to go in that the total of the ideas was far past what L4D entails, so they approached Gaben and asked him to OK a full sequel, and he reluctantly said OK.

    Quote from Jetsetlemming

    that still doesn't really justify making it a full-priced sequel though, at least not for a valve game. i downloaded dod for free back when it was still a beta, then valve bought it and developed it into dod 1.0/retail, with as far as i can tell 100% new content, even the sounds and hud were completely replaced. but because i had the mod installed, i got dod 1.0 and all its updates completely free. if they're saying the new features wont work with the L4D engine, they ported the entirety of dod:s over to the orange box not that long ago so that's not a valid reason either.

    if the old content is included and l4d owners get a discount then i wont mind paying for it as much, i don't like the new characters (except nick) but new campaigns is what everyone wanted all along. i don't see that happening though since they'd need so much new dialogue for the original 4 survivors for the new campaigns and any conversations with the new characters.

    DOD:S has had better service than l4d.... i mean they kept that up to date with the engine and tested their new character style + did their first cinematic with it \:

    L4D got survival mod. which is nice... but this game should be 10-20 bucks at most \:

    I think calling the original 'barren' is way, way wide of the mark. Each campaign takes roughly an hour to play through; 4 campaigns = 4 hours of gameplay right there. Some single player games last 4 hours start to finish while lacking any kind of replayability. When you play with three friends, L4D is eminently replayable; all of the maps are high quality. More to the point, I've seen the same 4 maps play out in markedly different fashions. The directory can completely change the way you play the map (e.g. no tier 2 weapons versus a tank) and it helps keep the game fresh. I've played well over 200 hours and I'm only now beginning to tire of it, and even then it's not down to the lack of level content.

    The lack of weapons is definitely a bummer, but the weapons present are solid and satisfying. To whoever said that TF2 is 'better value' because of the amount of stuff in it: I've got TF2 and despite the infinite choice, character and variety on offer, I find L4D to be better value 'cause I've played it more . TF2 is cool, but it doesn't make me want to play it anymore. There's nothing like booming a whole team followed by someone getting smoked off the edge, then two hunter 25s in the face.

    My criticisms of L4D (most of these probably are to do with versus)

    - Match making is abysmal. People constantly rage. There is no way to match up 4 v 4 or do anything of that sort. E.g. yesterday we waited 30 mins to get a game going. We played against some clan who were obviously looking to 'pub stomp'. After 3 maps of them failing to incap any of us or come close to putting us in trouble, they just stood in spawn and then shut their server down. The human element is worse than any of the game mechanics.

    - It really sucks at letting players join games sometimes. You can have one game where it works flawlessly (someone quits, another joins within 5 seconds!) and others where it fails to function at all (5 maps of 4v3).

    - Ironically, I think the length of the campaigns has been part of L4D's downfall. More isn't better. Committing to an hour+ long game isn't easy, especially when one team is getting comprehensively beaten. The really long game times are great when you're having an evenly matched game, but when it's a mismatch, it drags on for the losing team. I think most folk are used to 15-20 minute round times. Dip in, dip out. 5 maps and 1 hour+ is too much of a stretch. IMO they'd be better off structuring it around a 3 or 4 map stretch.

    - Cheap tactics. Lots of the panic events can be bypassed or nullified through the use of questionable tactics. It totally removes the sense of urgency and tension when teams do this (e.g. closet camping, shooting alarmed cars and running inside, rushing crescendos breaking the director / AI)

    - The scoring system is fairly muddled.

    My interest in L4D2 is centred on whether Valve has done anything to correct these problems. It's the matchmaking and people issues that let L4D down. Overall I'm not sure about Valve releasing this as a full game so quickly simply because I don't know what changes they're making. If it's just a superficial change with some new weapons and levels, it'll be hard to buy into. They obviously know what they're doing and I'm going to buy it regardless, but I feel they may have misjudged people's expectations. I am fully satisfied with my L4D purchase purely because of the fact that I've played it to death and loved it (200 hours = ~10 pence per hour of entertainment), but if a lot of folk are not happy with the amount of stuff L4D came with, they're probably not going to shell out another 30 quid on L4D 2 if it looks like more of the same.

    Quote from Defrag

    - Ironically, I think the length of the campaigns has been part of L4D's downfall. More isn't better. Committing to an hour+ long game isn't easy, especially when one team is getting comprehensively beaten. The really long game times are great when you're having an evenly matched game, but when it's a mismatch, it drags on for the losing team. I think most folk are used to 15-20 minute round times. Dip in, dip out. 5 maps and 1 hour+ is too much of a stretch. IMO they'd be better off structuring it around a 3 or 4 map stretch.

    I actually agree with this more than anything. I love playing the game but it's such a time investment to do a full round, especially in VS. I've considered dabbling in a campaign off and on and the number one thing I've decided if I do is it'll be 3 maps instead of 5, and probably shorter ones at that.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login