Another successful boycott! (L4D2)

Quote from Rick_D

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.

exactly, they're opinions, not arguments. therefore you cannot counter them. QED.

I thought the demo sucked.

Quote from dux

I thought the demo sucked.

This.

I also thought the first demo sucked to boot. Guess zombie games arn't for me, just cant see where the fun is in L4D, I whacked it on the hardest setting for both demo's and didn't even die during the SP demo.

Nothing else to say really.

Quote from Sentura

exactly, they're opinions, not arguments. therefore you cannot counter them. QED.

lol. you seem to be continuously missing the point with your strawman "it's my opinion therefore they cannot be argued with" argument.

• [*:3ousbgie]In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.

Your proposition/opinion that L4D2 is not a real sequel because it lacks "major changes in story, atmosphere, gameplay, technology [along with] correct timing" is a statement you put forward. I disagreed with your statement, and thereby argued, retorted, or countered your points because L4D2 simply has all the things you said a sequel had to have.

Quote

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.

Not quite, my dear fellow. You put forward your reasons why L4D2 is not a proper sequel, and I countered them by explaining that L4D2 did in fact feature all the things you required a legitimate sequel to have. I didn't make these things up, they exist in the game, they are not a fallacy or non-argument or my opinion, these things exist!

What it looks like to me, is I put forward a reasonable argument against your statement that L4D2 is not a real sequel; and then you retorted with "it's just my opinion you can't prove an opinion wrong!". Well, it's my opinion that all black people should be sent to prison camps where they are forced to make lamps out of the flesh of children.

About that whole "opinons can never be wrong" bullshit..

Quote from Ginger Lord

This.

I also thought the first demo sucked to boot. Guess zombie games arn't for me, just cant see where the fun is in L4D, I whacked it on the hardest setting for both demo's and didn't even die during the SP demo.

Nothing else to say really.

Agreed, I disliked the demo immensely and in fact felt it played worse than the first L4D. After playing the game however you realise that the demo was just incredibly badly put together, which is not a surprise for a demo, but more of a surprise that Valve let it go through.

Weather or not something is a sequel is a matter of semantics. They could have just changed the maps and called it a sequel. But Valve does not get the respect it receives for chugging out sequels every year, they get because their games usually are very strong, last long, and nurture whole communities, and they also tend to take a long time to make.

As far as I can see l4d2 has less new content than most other AAA sequels. It took 1 year to make at a company that is taking 2+ years for a sequel to a small episodic game, and it shows. No one had the same reaction to TF2, to HL2, to Uncharted 2, to MW, to MW2. MW2 alone, has a whole new campaign full of content, has 16 separate co-op missions, one gun in mw2 has more addons then there are guns in l4d2, and far as I know they had as much people working on it as there are valve employee's, plus it had a proper predecessor. What you've done is list every single little detail, much like a mapper explaining all the reason for specific areas and how they influence game play, but with that level of scrutiny one could write a whole novel for something like HL2.

I didn't list every single detail, I merely countered the points Sentura said a sequel has to have. The reason it was such a long list is because there is a lot of new content.

Less new content? Every map is new, every weapon is new, every character is new (zombies as well), 75% of the sounds are new (and sounds are something series' reuse a hell of alot btw, CoD series especially), it has 3 totally new modes, and a new story (considering the first didn't even have a legible story..).

"Modern Warfare 2 cost $40 million to $50 million to produce, but if you add marketing expenses and the cost of producing and distributing discs, the launch budget was $200 million."

An incredible sum, so naturally there is a lot of content. They also spent 2 years working on it. Valve spent less time and made a game, when compared to the first, is a big step up in content and quality; I don't see the problem.

Not every game has to revolutinize a genre or make a huge step forward, a game is allowed to just be, you know. Consider GoW2, there is a fair amount of new content but there is also a hell of a lot of reused assets. Halo 1 -3 didn't make any significant leaps in terms of quantity or quality, they simply refined what they ahd already created until they reach the largest console exclusive release ever.

Killzone 2 was funded by Sony, as it was a flagship title, they had a lot of support from other companies working with the engine, as well as an incredible amount of help from Sony themselves. Same with Uncharted and Uncharted 2, they have received a not insignificant amount of support from Sony due to the nature of the game, and the exclusivity of the title.

MW2 has a new campaign, but nothing is particularly reinvented, merely refined; it even ends with the same type of finale, merely refined. Multiplayer hasn't changed significantly, it's just a refined version of what is essentially CoD1's MP.

Also, there IS a book about HL2, it's a good read.

PS. I skipped a lot of details, and merely went over the basic facts, I edited out a lot of stuff so as not to have a huge long post. I know, the irony of it all.

Quote from Gloglebag

Weather or not something is a sequel is a matter of semantics. They could have just changed the maps and called it a sequel. But Valve does not get the respect it receives for chugging out sequels every year, they get because their games usually are very strong, last long, and nurture whole communities, and they also tend to take a long time to make. As far as I can see l4d2 has less new content than most other AAA sequels. It took 1 year to make at a company that is taking 2+ years for a sequel to a small episodic game, and it shows. No one had the same reaction to TF2, to HL2, to Uncharted 2, to MW, to MW2. MW2 alone, has a whole new campaign full of content, has 16 separate co-op missions, one gun in mw2 has more addons then there are guns in l4d2, and far as I know they had as much people working on it as there are valve employee's, plus it had a proper predecessor. What you've done is list every single little detail, much like a mapper explaining all the reason for specific areas and how they influence game play, but with that level of scrutiny one could write a whole novel for something like HL2.

So now that you have a gun with a million different loadout choices, MW2 is a proper sequel?

You could say the same thing for the zombies: There's 5 face textures and body textures, and 20,000 different zombies now (or so). So that's still 4,000 combinations per-texture. Sounds like more addons than that gun in MW2.

You can argue L4D2 has enough extra content, I've played through all the campaigns and it certainly does. But arguing it has more than MW2 is a tad ridiculous. Though I don't think this was ever about what L4D2 had anyway, but L4D1 feeling unsupported and unfinished when its sequel was announced.

I had a shitload of fun with L4D; it never felt unfinished to me, and I never really bought that argument. It didn't have copious updates aside from the VS additions (which require more than just flipping a switch and adding infected) and the 2-map update recently, but just because Valve have done it in the past doesn't mean they are in some way obliged to always give away free content for all their games. The fact that they are doing it for TF2 doesn't make the lack of it for L4D a negative thing, it makes the content and updates for TF2 a positive thing.

I paid for the first game, and got a lot of playtime out of it, much more so than I did out of even MW1 (SP and MP), and miles more than MW2. Getting L4D2 wasn't a big issue for me, and after recently finishing the Hard Rain campaign I would say those 5 maps alone are worth the purchase.

Like I said previously, Valve have always been a great developer and surely we can give them some leeway with this? The whole argument put forward by those who want more free updates for L4D strikes me as a bit ridiculous. People saying they didn't get enough playtime, or that they only bought the game because Valve said they would provide more campaigns. Bullshit.

People need to stop looking at TF2 and saying "where are my free updates for L4D" and use that as an excuse for hating L4D2. That is taking something for granted that is still rare: how many games have gotten the amount of content TF2 has as free DLC? None? It's not right to assume that everyone at Valve will follow the TF2 team's release model, and beyond that, L4D2 isn't L4D and the amount of new content and features cannot be integrated into the original game.

For me, L4D2 was very well worth the purchase. It just is a different game than L4D was, and it's hard to even compare the two.

I think most people know this, but its nice to scream about it anyways since then you MIGHT get something for free

Like how when Valve updated TF2 constantly with free content?

Nah fuck those bitches man, Valve have provided so much free stuff to their customers that you would have thought people would be willing to give them some leeway, or at least trust them. Oh no, kids act like Valve employees personally chain-raped their 80 year old grandmother and took a shit in her mouth, leaving a bloodied old pile of bones with a 3 foot pile of human feaces over her face.

Quote from Rick_D

I didn't list every single detail, I merely countered the points Sentura said a sequel has to have. The reason it was such a long list is because there is a lot of new content.

dude, you didn't counter them. you attempted to counter an opinion, which doesn't work as a logical argument. like i said previously, you cannot argue against opinions.

How didn't I counter them Sentura?

Quote

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.

You put forward the opinion that because L4D2 doesn't have (and I quote) "major changes in story, atmosphere, gameplay, technology [along with] correct timing", it cannot be a true sequel, in your opinion.

I put forward a list of evidence taken from the game itself that countered each point of your proposition, showing that L4D2 does in fact meet all your requirements for a sequel.

So essentiaqlly you are saying: "Yeah but what I said was an opinion and an opinion is not a fact therefore you cannot prove it wrong because it was never true in the first place".

In which case I accept your defeat, albeit somewhat ungracefully, and would ask you to consider not being such a faggot in future. Of course that is just my opinion.

Quote from Rick_D

How didn't I counter them Sentura?

You put forward the opinion that because L4D2 doesn't have (and I quote) "major changes in story, atmosphere, gameplay, technology [along with] correct timing", it cannot be a true sequel, in your opinion.

I put forward a list of evidence taken from the game itself that countered each point of your proposition, showing that L4D2 does in fact meet all your requirements for a sequel.

So essentiaqlly you are saying: "Yeah but what I said was an opinion and an opinion is not a fact therefore you cannot prove it wrong because it was never true in the first place".

In which case I accept your defeat, albeit somewhat ungracefully, and would ask you to consider not being such a faggot in future. Of course that is just my opinion.

i never said you didn't try to counter it. however, you weren't successful since i still have the same opinion. which again brings me to the point that opinions cannot be countered. stop being an idiot - it doesn't suit you.

Quote from Sentura

You put forward the opinion that because L4D2 doesn't have (and I quote) "major changes in story, atmosphere, gameplay, technology [along with] correct timing", it cannot be a true sequel, in your opinion.

I put forward a list of evidence taken from the game itself that countered each point of your proposition, showing that L4D2 does in fact meet all your requirements for a sequel.

So essentiaqlly you are saying: "Yeah but what I said was an opinion and an opinion is not a fact therefore you cannot prove it wrong because it was never true in the first place".

In which case I accept your defeat, albeit somewhat ungracefully, and would ask you to consider not being such a faggot in future. Of course that is just my opinion.

i never said you didn't try to counter it. however, you weren't successful since i still have the same opinion. which again brings me to the point that opinions cannot be countered. stop being an idiot - it doesn't suit you.

Acting like an idiot is unfitting for you too.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I won't pretend that I have or that I care, but it looks to me now that you have reached that point where everybody is pointing and yelling at each other, calling each other an idiot, which makes you look like goofballs...and that is against the forum rules I think. Please stop now before you hurt my feelings...I'm sensitive

poow widdle fwiechamp.

anyway, i win.