Another successful boycott! (L4D2)

[Serenius]

First off all I didn't say it wasn't a sequel, I said it was the least updated. And what I consider a good sequel, a sequel that adds enough to justify a full price tag would be TF2, HL2, MW, MW2, BF2, BF:BC. L4D2 amounts to barely more then new maps, and models, it's as many said more how the first should have been then something that go's beyond. It is in no way in the same league as the aforementioned games, they added a lot more to the previous games, and took more then a year to make. And teams like IW and dice have a lot of experience making games on tight schedules, when has valve ever made something in less then a year?

The only thing that hasn't been significantly updated for L4D2 over the first are the core gameplay mechanics and the graphics. Were are you getting this info from?

[Lord Ned]

And frankly it shows, it's one of the least updated sequels I've seen this gen.

Because... completely new content, new characters, new materials, models, maps, settings, gameplay, ai, director, techniques, effects, shaders, etc don't count as a sequel? What do you call a sequel then?

First off all I didn't say it wasn't a sequel, I said it was the least updated. And what I consider a good sequel, a sequel that adds enough to justify a full price tag would be TF2, HL2, MW, MW2, BF2, BF:BC. L4D2 amounts to barely more then new maps, and models, it's as many said more how the first should have been then something that go's beyond. It is in no way in the same league as the aforementioned games, they added a lot more to the previous games, and took more then a year to make. And teams like IW and dice have a lot of experience making games on tight schedules, when has valve ever made something in less then a year?

So you're okay with paying $60 for MW2, and that's a "Full" Sequel, while you don't want to pay just over half that ($35) for L4D2?

Also if you listen to the developer commentary in L4D2, they've put a ton of work into it. There's something like 20k zombie combinations now, which is *I THINK* ^5 more than the first game.

[Duff-e]

[Sentura]

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?"

note that i'm not saying they should implement all they have done into l4d, i'm just wondering why they didn't start out with this instead. either way, i'm not getting this because i'm biased against turtle rock studios.

And frankly it shows, it's one of the least updated sequels I've seen this gen.

Because... completely new content, new characters, new materials, models, maps, settings, gameplay, ai, director, techniques, effects, shaders, etc don't count as a sequel? What do you call a sequel then?

First off all I didn't say it wasn't a sequel, I said it was the least updated. And what I consider a good sequel, a sequel that adds enough to justify a full price tag would be TF2, HL2, MW, MW2, BF2, BF:BC. L4D2 amounts to barely more then new maps, and models, it's as many said more how the first should have been then something that go's beyond. It is in no way in the same league as the aforementioned games, they added a lot more to the previous games, and took more then a year to make. And teams like IW and dice have a lot of experience making games on tight schedules, when has valve ever made something in less then a year?

So you're okay with paying $60 for MW2, and that's a "Full" Sequel, while you don't want to pay just over half that ($35) for L4D2?

Also if you listen to the developer commentary in L4D2, they've put a ton of work into it. There's something like 20k zombie combinations now, which is *I THINK* ^5 more than the first game.

i think what he means is the grade of the content. essentially l4d2 is l4d in a new setting, with more weapons. there simply isn't enough change to justify a sequel. if you look into other game sequels, they will often provide more content than just this - therefore consumers are more likely to think of it as an expansion pack rather than a sequel.

also, people couldn't care less of how much work is put into a game. people want visible results; they want a new, enhanced experience - not something they have essentially seen before (see above statement). not everyone is aspiring to get into the game industry and looking at it through our eyes. i don't even think most people care to watch the developer commentary, much less analyse and reflect upon them.

[Lord Ned]

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?"

note that i'm not saying they should implement all they have done into l4d, i'm just wondering why they didn't start out with this instead. either way, i'm not getting this because i'm biased against turtle rock studios.

And frankly it shows, it's one of the least updated sequels I've seen this gen.

Because... completely new content, new characters, new materials, models, maps, settings, gameplay, ai, director, techniques, effects, shaders, etc don't count as a sequel? What do you call a sequel then?

First off all I didn't say it wasn't a sequel, I said it was the least updated. And what I consider a good sequel, a sequel that adds enough to justify a full price tag would be TF2, HL2, MW, MW2, BF2, BF:BC. L4D2 amounts to barely more then new maps, and models, it's as many said more how the first should have been then something that go's beyond. It is in no way in the same league as the aforementioned games, they added a lot more to the previous games, and took more then a year to make. And teams like IW and dice have a lot of experience making games on tight schedules, when has valve ever made something in less then a year?

So you're okay with paying $60 for MW2, and that's a "Full" Sequel, while you don't want to pay just over half that ($35) for L4D2?

Also if you listen to the developer commentary in L4D2, they've put a ton of work into it. There's something like 20k zombie combinations now, which is *I THINK* ^5 more than the first game.

i think what he means is the grade of the content. essentially l4d2 is l4d in a new setting, with more weapons. there simply isn't enough change to justify a sequel. if you look into other game sequels, they will often provide more content than just this - therefore consumers are more likely to think of it as an expansion pack rather than a sequel.

also, people couldn't care less of how much work is put into a game. people want visible results; they want a new, enhanced experience - not something they have essentially seen before (see above statement). not everyone is aspiring to get into the game industry and looking at it through our eyes. i don't even think most people care to watch the developer commentary, much less analyse and reflect upon them.

So... What's MW2? Some gameplay tweaks, and some new maps... What justifies the sequal?

Crysis->Warhead: More storyline told from a different person.

Halo 1-> Halo 3: More storyline, new places, new characters.

Sounds like L4D2 has got all of this.

Also I think they do have a new enhanced experience. Versus mode is FUN. They made some serious tweaks to it so health bonus no longer takes place. It's now a more polished experience that doesn't leave one team 3k points ahead of the other at the end. If you guys can play all of the different modes of L4D2 and tell me that it's not a new enhanced experience, I'm going to ask you what you're smoking and if I can have some of it.

As for the reason it probably wasn't l4d1: It wasn't originally from Valve per say. It was Turtle Rock Studio, and it developed from CSS where they'd take 4 players against bots on expert skills with knife only. I think everyone but one dude from TRS has moved up to Valve's HQ now though. It was originally being co-developed with Ep1, Ep2, Orangebox, etc. There were also limits as to why some of this wasn't done in the first game.

To clarify: I'm not mad at you, I'm not angry or upset. I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just honestly curious why you don't consider it a valid squeal?

[Taylor]

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.

[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.

"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!

[FrieChamp]

i am going to spend 30 minutes writing a post when i get to work.

god help you all.

Uhoh Valve better watch out...

Rick_D post incoming !!!

[Nineaxis]

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.

[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...

[Sentura]

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?

[Rick_D]

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?

that'sthejoke.jpg

[Sentura]

"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).

[Rick_D]

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Lord Ned]

*Bigass walloftext* x2