Another successful boycott! (L4D2)

[Rick_D]

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.

[Sentura]

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)

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.

[Lord Ned]

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.

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.

[Rick_D]

Nor am I exactly sure why we're discussing.

• [*:4mukdvr2]a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

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.

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!

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.

[Sentura]

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.

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.

[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.

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

[Sentura]

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?

[insta]

Hereby vis-à-vis therefore, furthermore L4D2

[Rick_D]

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

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.

[Rick_D]

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.

[Sentura]

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.

[dux]

I thought the demo sucked.

[Ginger Lord]

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.

[Rick_D]

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.

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..

[Rick_D]

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.

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.