Another successful boycott! (L4D2)

    I brought Left 4 Dead and the sequel. This is my disclaimer, it feels a bit like saying "I've got a gay friend" before saying something deeply homophobic, but let's press on. L4D did not have enough content. "If I divide the hours I played it by--" Don't even start, you were waiting for that extra content after release just like every one else, as it was promised and expected. Is it awesome? Yes. Do I spend more money on bad games? Yes. But I can see why some people in target demographic weren't completely behind it.

    "Why wasn't the L4D2 content in L4D?"

    Because Turtle Rock spent a long time developing the game's mechanics and features. Once acquired, they and Valve started to polish and build upon what was there.

    L4D had 4 great campaigns, that took me and my friends a long time to play through. And we replayed the campaigns multiple times. Unfortunatly the game got stale quite quickly once you figured out how to "break" the game.

    When Valve started to make L4D2, it started out as an expansion, a large patch perhaps; an interview with the lead of the project says so, he even had to break it to gabe that they wanted to release a sequel, instead of free content.

    The reason for this? If you, or anyone who was against L4D2, had played the game you would instantly know why; I can imagine the realisation dawning on Valve as they added new features to prevent the kind of stagnant gameplay that emerged in L4D, the spitter and the charger and the jockey - the L4D maps simply didn't fit their gameplay, yet they were a perfect counter to the clost-camping tactics used by players in the original game. How heartbreaking to realise that you have the perfect fix for a problem that would make your game longer lasting, more fun and more of a challenge - yet you can't just release these as an update because they won't work in the maps you originally made; and the reason they don't work is because you designed the maps around very specific enemy types.

    The story and new characters wouldn't have worked either. People already feel like they know the original 4, but with the story that was being told in L4D2 it would not have been possible with those characters. It would have felt all too much like a map pack, rather than a journey.

    "Why is L4D2 a full price game?"

    Simply put: because it's a full price game. There is enough new content to warrant a purchase. After playing only 3 campaigns I am already aware that I want to play them again, and experience the gameplay that is presented in them. They have tied the levels together so that the players are taken on a journey following the infection. It feels much more like an actual story than the original. You get to know your characters much more, and sympathise with their emotions - often times you will say something to your team mates through VOIP or on Vent, and your character ingame will utter nearly the same phrase (pointing out an enemy, a route, or a warning).

    The levels are not just a slight improvement over L4D, they are totally different, there is some reused content (but look at MW2 there is a hell of a lot of reused content from MW1, a hell of a lot) but for the most part you are treated to a totally new experience with some really nice gameplay ideas incorporated into them. You are taken on a real journey through some of Valve's most beautiful levels yet.

    It's not just a case of "new weapons skins" either, the way the weapons are placed in the levels has drastically changed, you don't just start with an SMG or a shotgun and wait for the auto shotty or the M16 or second pistol and then stick with it for the rest of the campaign, maybe switching to a rifle for some pop shots at the start of a map.

    There's difficult choices to make regarding things like lazer sights, ammo types, even health kits and pills have alternatives that require more teamwork to decide what you will need the most. Scavenging for these things becomes even more important, you feel implored to go off the beated track to make sure you're not missing something that will make your life easier further down the line.

    The maps in L4D didn't allow this kind of exploration, but the new maps allow it, even encourage it, and they balance it all with the higher importance of sticking with your team.

    The game is much harder now, even on Normal it is as challenging as the originals Advanced mode. And now we have a Realism mode that further increases replay value. I haven't even delved into the various VS game types, and have only played one VS match and already I know I like it much more than the original (which felt like a troll-fest).

    There is so much more in terms of trivial content too, things like jukeboxes that play multiple songs (sounds pointless? It is in terms of core gameplay but it binds you to the world and gives you the impression that you are a part of your surroundings, rather than a floating head with a gun), a shooting range that has a scoreboard, etc. The little things that took time to set up, but increase the immersion, and the quality of the levels.

    The varying enemy types. Killing mud covered animalistic zombies in the swamps, clowns in the carnivals, police officer and military zombies in the evac areas - it all adds up to a more grounded experience. They are telling the story in a much more subtle, yet overt way (if you can get your head aorund that), there's still writing on the walls, but they've delved deeper into their story-telling and the polish and attention to detail is stunning.

    Then there's things like the new gibbing system. They've implemented a feature much like Crytek's procedural tree-gibbing, they cull some polies and fill the holes with messy organs and broken bones. This is something that could have been added in L4D but it's just the fact that rather than leave something at "adequate", they've taken it that step further and improved the visceral nature of the feedback players get from the thing they do most: shooting zombies.

    Other sequels like Halo 2, 3 or ODST, or even MW2 haven't drastically changed the way the bodies take impacts. Whereas Valve have taken that step and looked at something that worked perfectly well - and improved upon it, rather than just leaving it be.

    The vast quantity of new dialogue and sound effects/music also add to the value, putting it above just an expensive update.

    i think writing this off as greed on Valves part is a little simplistic, it is trying to make the world Black and White, rather than varying shades of Grey.

    Valve are not a big evil baddie looking to suck money out of the little guy. Their support for TF2 has shown that. In fact all their games have shown that.

    Just because they did a game in a year doens't mean it was rushed or half a game. Have you considered the fact that they were planning on doing addons/updates before L4D came out, and that it evolved into a sequel? Or shit I dunno, the fact that they have some incredibly talented people working there, or that a lot of the Valve staff were on the game, speeding up production times drastically?

    And frankly I am glad to see such a quick turn around with such a huge leap in quality. If L4D3 has such a boost in quality as 2 has had over 1, then I pray that it will come out in a year, and I'll gladly hand over another £25. For something as unique as the L4D experience we should be encouraging developers to take chances on these new kinds of games, rather than turning the whole episode into a drama that it needn't be.

    As (I think) Chad F said prior to release: "trust us, wait until you've played the game". Boy was he right, I felt like some of you do before I had playe dit, even when I bought it I was unsure, the demo didn't inspire me, but upon playing the game.. you realise that it was worth the money, and thank god it was such a short wait!

    I don't think anyone can comment on L4D2 until they play the full game. The demo compared to the full game stunk, but the experience of the full game, the quality of it, it's just amazing. Complain all you want about Valve making a sequel in less than ten years, but it was well worth paying for.

    Quote from Section_Ei8ht

    why is it that for the last week or so I've found myself agreeing with just about everything Rick says?...wait... why is it so cold in here...

    so, hell finally froze over?

    Quote from Rick_D

    "Why wasn't the L4D2 content in L4D?"Because Turtle Rock spent a long time developing the game's mechanics and features. Once acquired, they and Valve started to polish and build upon what was there.

    L4D had 4 great campaigns, that took me and my friends a long time to play through. And we replayed the campaigns multiple times. Unfortunatly the game got stale quite quickly once you figured out how to "break" the game.

    When Valve started to make L4D2, it started out as an expansion, a large patch perhaps; an interview with the lead of the project says so, he even had to break it to gabe that they wanted to release a sequel, instead of free content.

    The reason for this? If you, or anyone who was against L4D2, had played the game you would instantly know why; I can imagine the realisation dawning on Valve as they added new features to prevent the kind of stagnant gameplay that emerged in L4D, the spitter and the charger and the jockey - the L4D maps simply didn't fit their gameplay, yet they were a perfect counter to the clost-camping tactics used by players in the original game. How heartbreaking to realise that you have the perfect fix for a problem that would make your game longer lasting, more fun and more of a challenge - yet you can't just release these as an update because they won't work in the maps you originally made; and the reason they don't work is because you designed the maps around very specific enemy types.

    The story and new characters wouldn't have worked either. People already feel like they know the original 4, but with the story that was being told in L4D2 it would not have been possible with those characters. It would have felt all too much like a map pack, rather than a journey.

    strangely enough i'm not asking this. i am asking why l4d2 wasn't the game released instead of the original l4d? i would assume it is a much more balanced game since they have had reflections from the first game. i am just saying that all of this - all the reflections they got from the first game - should have been identified through testing. they should have made l4d the game that they made l4d2. and making people pay extra for that, well, i find that a bit unethical. they should pay for their own failures, not require people to pay them. this is also a reason why i don't like turtle rock (apart from their horrendous counter strike condition zero - raven gets full props for making the deleted scenes, those were awesome).

    as for the mw2 problematique: i'm predicting a bi-yearly sequel. the difference made is that the primary part of the game (the multiplayer) has had a much longer time to cool down (as opposed to l4d2). over the course of 2 years, people's interest in a game will decline, leaving only a small percentage of people still playing it. by introducing a sequel at the right time, you can manage to garner sales from the core players (who are in need of a fresh breath), as well as players that stopped playing the game before that. i would go so far as to say that if l4d2 was released a year later, there would be much less fuss about it than there is now.

    as you might have noticed, i haven't answered the question of when it is accepted for a sequel to be marketed for a game. i didn't because the question isn't really up for debate; i am not the judge of said sequel. the vast populations of gamers are, and whether you like it or not their opinions matter in numbers. if enough people start disliking your first game, there won't be any reason to create a sequel. if they do, however, you have made a successful product (not to be confused with a good game). sequels aren't decided by the amount of new content or other qualities of any game or piece of media. they are decided solely on how well a game sells in the first place (or in the case of a planned prequel-sequel/trilogy strategy, how much each game can bring in).

    Quote from Sentura
    Quote

    i am asking why l4d2 wasn't the game released instead of the original l4d?

    At the time L4D was released that was the game that people wanted to play. That was the game that was made, and that was the game that kept people entertained for 6 months.

    Valve do some of the best focus testing I have ever seen; they do everything they can to get honest feedback from the testers, they test incredibly frequently and they implement features and changes based on the results. There really aren't a lot of companies who do this for SP or MP. So if the problem didn't arise during the testing and only showed up once the game was tested "in the wild" then that is not Valve's fault. They realised it once the game had been playing for a good few months, the game-breaking tactics only emerged after people had had a chance to go through the campaigns a few times.

    At that time I presume they were already working on an update, and things got more detailed than a simple fix.

    Once they realised they were going to have to do a full game they went all out and really made it worth a fully fledged sequel.

    Quote

    i'm predicting a bi-yearly sequel.

    A prediction based on the fact that the games have had a 2 year cycle for the last 6 years? cod1: 2003; cod2: 2005; cod42007; cod6: 2009.

    Quote

    i would go so far as to say that if l4d2 was released a year later, there would be much less fuss about it than there is now.

    I agree, but Valve had built a damn good game in less than a year, so why would they hold on to it for a year just to avoid hurting some peoples' feelings. I think it's worth seeing what comes our way in terms of DLC for L4D before we make any judgements. Look at what happened with TF2, simply by adding upgradable weapons they added a whole new element to the game and breathed a lot of new life into it. Then came the hats and by god the internet went wild.

    I wouldn't say that Valve don't know what they are doing; I think after 9 years of some of the best games we've ever played (not to mention all the support for modding and so on) and a Digital Distribution system that was on the cutting edge of the industry, we owe them a little trust, and should allow them to to do things the way they think they should be done.

    Quote

    as you might have noticed, i haven't answered the question of when it is accepted for a sequel to be marketed for a game.

    I don't think I ever asked that question? Surely the answer to it would be that, firstly if the first sold enough copies - or was projected to sell enough copies - and secondly, when it was completed. Valve pulled some magic out of the bag and produced a fantatsic game in under a year. Rather than complaining we should have been praising them for their quick turn around. A fully fledged sequel of such quality in such a short time is unprecedented in nearly any industry.

    And it IS a sequel, not a glorified expansion, just because they "only" made new weapons, maps, sounds, characters, special infected and new modes, doesn't mean they are cheating. A game doesn't have to reinvent itself every time it has a sequal. Look at the critically acclaimed Call of Duty series. They reuse a hell of a lot of stuff between the games. I don't see anyone complaining about that. Is it because they use the magical 2 year gap between sequels? Is it because with CoD we have never had the kind of free updates that Valve have spoiled us with for so long?

    There's a lot of complaining, mainly from people who haven't played the game, and in my opinion it is mostly, 99%, groundless. We got a fantastic sequel to tide us over until they release a new game. And we should be supporting a developer, without whom, many of us wouldn't even be in the industry! Surely they have earned our trust and respect by now?

    Sorry I don't want to argue continuously, I just think there is alot of over-reacting (which is pretty lol considering the shit I have said about MW2, I've claimed to be a lot of things but I never said I wasn't a hypocrite) over what is actually a really good game that deserves to earn Valve some money.

    I genuinely felt the way a lot of people did, right up until I played the game. Suddenly it all made sense.

    there are a few things that sprang to mind reading your wall of text ricky.

    a) you say that the boycott is 99% groundless. obviously there are reasons for why people would want to boycott companies, in the same way there are people that would wage wars for profit. however, in the same sense, valve doesn't need people defending them. i am sure that a prominent company such as valve would have their own arguments for why exactly they went the way that they did. or, even if they don't (which i think is highly unlikely), it's still their business to defend it - not yours.

    b)

    Quote

    And it IS a sequel, not a glorified expansion, just because they "only" made new weapons, maps, sounds, characters, special infected and new modes, doesn't mean they are cheating. A game doesn't have to reinvent itself every time it has a sequal.

    i don't know if i agree with this. i think that a game should at least introduce major changes in story, atmosphere, gameplay, technology as well as have the correct timing to warrant itself a sequel. i personally believe that anything which doesn't have these significant changes in quality isn't enough to be considered a sequel; it is just glorification. however, my opinion isn't really what matters here. like i said before, companies themselves have their own reasons for marketing games or updates or even glorified expansion packs as sequels. while i don't believe that each and every one of these reasons is justified for the creation of said sequel, my only choice as a consumer lies in whether i choose to purchase the game or not - just like everybody else.

    everyone has their reasons for buying or not buying a game; and these do not have to be logical at all. you forget that some people even bond emotionally with video games in the sense that they feel more involved because of a certain narrative or characters they can relate to. what i personally dislike is being pushed around because of my opinion of a game after i've decided not to purchase it. games of this caliber don't need the extra free marketing or wannabe salespeople trying to shove down personal advertisements down people's throats. it is unnecessary in the same way trying to defend a company such a valve is unnecessary.

    Quote from Sentura

    i don't know if i agree with this. i think that a game should at least introduce major changes in story, atmosphere, gameplay, technology as well as have the correct timing to warrant itself a sequel. i personally believe that anything which doesn't have these significant changes in quality isn't enough to be considered a sequel; it is just glorification. however, my opinion isn't really what matters here. like i said before, companies themselves have their own reasons for marketing games or updates or even glorified expansion packs as sequels. while i don't believe that each and every one of these reasons is justified for the creation of said sequel, my only choice as a consumer lies in whether i choose to purchase the game or not - just like everybody else.

    everyone has their reasons for buying or not buying a game; and these do not have to be logical at all. you forget that some people even bond emotionally with video games in the sense that they feel more involved because of a certain narrative or characters they can relate to. what i personally dislike is being pushed around because of my opinion of a game after i've decided not to purchase it. games of this caliber don't need the extra free marketing or wannabe salespeople trying to shove down personal advertisements down people's throats. it is unnecessary in the same way trying to defend a company such a valve is unnecessary.

    But you see, if they introduce a major change in the story then you have issu- Wait what story? That was basically the plot for L4D1. Zombies. There was no storyline and that was how they designed it. In L4D2 there is more of one. Atmosphere: Have you seen Hard Rain? Seriously the only campaign that feels like L4D1 in the slightest is The Parish. Gameplay: We've gone over this... They've completely changed Vs. for a better more polished less ragequitting experience.

    I'm still not sure why sequels should have to listen to some time constraint.

    Nor am I exactly sure why we're arguing/discussing.

    Quote from Lord Ned
    • [*:4mukdvr2]a public meeting or assembly for open discussion
    Quote from Sentura

    obviously there are reasons for why people would want to boycott companies, in the same way there are people that would wage wars for profit. however, in the same sense, valve doesn't need people defending them.

    That's a bit of a red herring because I don't think any of those things are really related; and if they are I am not seeing the connection to the discussion at hand, perhaps you could explain what you mean in laymans' terms.

    Quote

    everyone has their reasons for buying or not buying a game; and these do not have to be logical at all. you forget that some people even bond emotionally with video games in the sense that they feel more involved because of a certain narrative or characters they can relate to. what i personally dislike is being pushed around because of my opinion of a game after i've decided not to purchase it. games of this caliber don't need the extra free marketing or wannabe salespeople trying to shove down personal advertisements down people's throats. it is unnecessary in the same way trying to defend a company such a valve is unnecessary.

    There's a number of points there that are important but I think the crux of your argument is "it's our money, we will choose what to do with it; and there's no need to advertise for a company as big as valve".

    The thing is, choosing what to do with your money is fine, that's capitalism, go nuts and spend it all on frozen chicken nuggets if you like. However that isn't really what's been happening is it? People are negatively" advertising" L4D2, and providing all these reasons, which if someone didn't actually look into might seem awfully convincing, not to buy the game.

    I'm not trying to advertise the game; I'm merely trying to point out why I think such arguments as have been gone over previously, are not accurate, they don't represent the feelings of people who have actually played the game; they are the opinions of people who are making judgements on something they haven't experienced. Reminds me of when I was a kid and I said something stupid like "Yeah I never get hangovers" - yeah no shit because I'd never drunk enough to cause one!

    Quote

    i think that a game should at least introduce major changes in story, atmosphere, gameplay, technology as well as have the correct timing to warrant itself a sequel. i personally believe that anything which doesn't have these significant changes in quality isn't enough to be considered a sequel; it is just glorification.

    Not only is that an incorrect and unfair definition of "sequel" (if every sequel introduced a major change in gameplay then they would be unrecognisable form each other, take something like Rainbow 6 for example), but L4D2 actually has most of those things you've just mentioned.

    The story has changed from being 4 seperate campaigns that are only linked together by the fact that the core charatcers are the same, to now being a continuous journey where the 4 main characters go from not know each other at all, to working their way through an infected area, eventually leading to an escape, becoming friends, and experiencing a journey together.

    The atmosphere has drastically changed, surely you can see that? The most basic thing you could say is that it's gone from night to day (although L4D2 features plenty of nighttime action). The south is dripping in atmosphere, their attention to detail leaves you feeling like you have literally just made your way through a street in Memphis, or wherever. It's set in a totally new area, and within that area are unique set pieces and environments.

    Perhaps just looking at videos might lead you to believe that the gameplay has remained unchanged. However, everything you could do in L4D, can no longer be applied in L4D2. A case in point: we attempted to hold out on a raised platform during a finale, we lasted 10 seconds before a Spitter had covered the floor with acid, and we all had to scatter, the second we moved, one guy got pounced by a Hunter, another grabbed by a Jockey, and the other two split up by a Charger; and then came the regular infected from L4D.

    I played through all campaigns on Expert in L4D, but now we're having trouble on Advanced in L4D2 - they have made enough drastic changes to make it feel like a new game.

    Not to mention all the overhauls to the weapon placement. Like I already said, the way the weapons are used in L4D2 is totally different, you don't end up with 1 gun, constantly refilling ammo. You have to make hard choices, and not just about your primary weapons, there's a choice for everything.

    Technology, oh yes. I went through the first few maps of the Developer Commentary. It was interesting to see just how much they had changed behind the scenes. Just off the top of my head:

    Pipebombs no longer produce a cloud of red mist to hide the bodies being removed; they now gib the ragdolls and send them flying, with full physics interaction.

    They've added an advanced gibbing system that culls polies on a model and "caps" it with a premade clump of organs/bones - to enhance to gory nature and the feedback you get when shooting zombies.

    Not to mention all the changes to the finales - the previous game simply had you pressing a button and waiting - now there's so much more going on, not to make it drastically different, but they've certainly upped it from being a simple case of waiting in a closet and not dying.

    The final point you make, and I think the one that most people have a problem with, is timing. It's released a year after the first. Personally, when I heard Valve were releasing a new game, I had my fingers crossed for Counter-Strike 2. When I heard it was L4D2 I was, disappointed, I wondered what they could possibly do to make it worth bringing out a game so soon. I felt like that right up until I actually bought the game, and only changed my mind when I played it for the first time.

    I think there's way too much hate on something that is a damn good game, a fantastic experience, and worth the small amount that Valve are asking for it.

    The problem here is that you guys are not just not buying the game, you're actively encouraging others to not buy the game, and you're posting about it like you have a full experience of the game from which to make a judgement. When this is obviously not the case.

    If you don't want to buy it, then don't buy it. But don't try and force your opinion (not experience, just an opinion) onto others just because you've made a choice not to buy it.

    I apologise if that was not your intention, or if I am treating you as the spokesman for all the people that have been posting their tripe all over the internet about L4D2, but it's really annoying to see people just making shit up, and crying about a fucking good game that does a lot to advance the series; and then they go out and buy Persona 8 or FF74.

    again, i'm not sure why you're trying so hard to defend this game - is it to justify your own purchase of it? like i said before, our opinions only matter insofar they help us decide whether to buy a game or not.

    Quote

    If you don't want to buy it, then don't buy it. But don't try and force your opinion (not experience, just an opinion) onto others just because you've made a choice not to buy it.

    yes, but (with reference to what you call a red herring) neither should you try and force your opinion on others because you've made the choice to buy the game. i don't need persuasion for when i've made a decision, nor i am sure most other people don't either.

    I'm defending it because it's not a shit game and in various posts several people seem to be saying that L4D2 is not a real sequel. And I am saying: yes it is, you are wrong, here are the reasons why.

    Quote

    l4d2 to me has always begged the question, "why didn't they make the first game this instead of releasing a sequel a year later?"

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

    Also, I bought Velvet Assassin on Steam for £30. I'm not one to try and justify awful purchases just because I paid money for them.

    Just tired of seeing people shit on Valve as if they have put out a mod with a new title screen and asked for £50 for it.

    When have Valve ever made a truly bad decision? Except for DoD:S - we don't talk about that

    I may be taking out my annoyance on what I have seen elsewhere here but there's still a lot of the silly banter being thrown around. "It's an expansion pack" "not a full game!" "this is what l4d should have been!".

    Come on, this could apply to a hundred games (sports franchises for instance) but people are trying to make out that valve have done something horrible here.

    Don't buy it then, but don't rebrand the same arguments when I explain why you are wrong

    Quote from Rick_D

    I'm defending it because it's not a shit game and in various posts several people seem to be saying that L4D2 is not a real sequel. And I am saying: yes it is, you are wrong, here are the reasons why.

    all reasons herein are purely subjective and only count as opinions. there is no wrong or right here, and you can't prove anything logically. you can't prove that l4d2 is or isn't a "real" or "proper" or "good" sequel; you can only say what your opinion about l4d2 is. any attempt to find logical fallacies in any opinion is rendered futile, because an opinion is a stand and not an argument. so really, why are you trying so hard?

    Strawman. You're presenting your opinions as reasons why L4D2 should not be a sequel, or why it should have been in the first game, I gave you the reasons why it wasn't, albeit secondhand. Here's an interview that covers pretty much all your concerns:

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/06 ... ittle-bit/

    Of course that is just his opinion

    Quote

    you can't prove anything logically.

    No Sentura, I certainly can't! I've only given exact extracts from the game that counter your arguments. Would you like me to provide videos of all the points i made? Perhaps some spreadsheets?

    I'm not trying to be a dick, it comes naturally, but your reasons on why a sequel should only be considered a sequel if it meets your certain criteria - well those criteria are not accurate at all, they are your opinions (the definition of "sequel" mentions nothing that you considered vitally important), and even so I was able to point out that L4D2 did in fact meet all of those points, surely that diminishes your concern?

    Sure, some people just don't like it; but that is different to saying you don't consider it a real sequel because of "x, y and z", or that L4D2 should have been in L4D.

    Quote from insta

    Hereby vis-à-vis therefore, furthermore L4D2

    A sentient comment nonetheless, I refer you to my colleague: Dr John StPatrick, who will be able to consider any revelations you may progress upon the furthering of our theological patriarchy.

    Good day, sir.

Participate now!

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

Register Yourself Login