Posts by Rick_D

hahahaha omg that is fucking awesome

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 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.

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 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.

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.

yeah I was being a dick, ignore me.

I find that spending a short amount of time gatehring referneces, and drawing a top down layout, possibly with some perspective sketches, and then moving straight on to building in 3d help get better results. You find that once you begin building in 3d the ideas you think worked suddenly don;t work, or that the spaces you envisioned don't work well in actual 3d.

As for your layout, it's hard to comment without knowing fully the flow into the area, but it looks you are going to have a hell of alot of areas to cover for the attackers. 2 routes down below could be stripped down to 1, the middle opening could be a window with minimal options for firing out of (like the end of badwater I think - the pl_ map). The entrance on the far right (in the third pic) seems to be a very easy route into an area that gives a lot of power. It all depends on what you turn those cylinders into, If they were raised platforms that could be protected from bombardment from the other openings then perhaps it would work well.

Of course it's all guesswork, needs to be played! Perhaps tf2maps.net (or whatever that site is) can provide some volunteers for testing?

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

you do know that's the baseball bat you get if you preorder the game, right?

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.

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.

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?

asshole mode: that took 3 weeks?

Quote from Lord Ned

Valve as ever, on the bugs.

what does that even mean?

are you disappointed they are fixing bugs?

are you suggesting that valve are the only company to release a game that contains a bug?

Quote from Sentura

so, hell finally froze over?

that'sthejoke.jpg

Quote from Furyo

Every position should be uptodate now, congrats again to those involved

Can you change me to Environment Artist please. I am probably the worlds worst LD and I would hate to give LD's a bad name by association.

Also website is:

http://www.rick-d.com

Cheers furyo

Quote from sellyanes

My favourite movie is Pirates of the carribean. I like the almost all scene. I can not give specifically one scene but If you are taking one scene then Jack sparrow's all comedy scene. He is using his humor awesomely.

why do you have a link to flash card in your sig?

this is like the most subtle spammer in the world.

Quote from Gloglebag

I always had a stealth build for when we were getting owned in cod4. Because then the opposite team usually has uav all the time, and it was fun as fuck. What I do not understand is why so few people have the AT4 as secondary. I feel like I'm the only one shooting at air in this game, when it's so much easier to take air down this time. Also I'm not happy with the amount of complexity and windows in this game, it really makes it a camper heaven.

console players like to sit still and shoot at things that move across their screen.

think space invaders.

"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!

Didn't you have to hit him multiple times? That could have been the issue for me, either that or I was so bad with the sticks.