[Official] Left 4 Dead 2


Recommended Posts

Are angry fans using Left 4 Dead 2 to unfairly make Valve into a villain?

Welcome to this week’s hump day, folks! It’s Wednesday, and you know what that means…Ghost Hoaxers Hunters on Sci Fi! Wait, no… That isn’t what it means. It means that it’s time for my article this week (and I know you’ve all been biting your nails from Monday to now just dying to read my prose). Since it’s being covered by GamePolitics.com, Kotaku, Videogames Republic, and pretty much everyone else, you had to figure that sooner or later I would give my three cents on the Left 4 Dead 2 protest.

21ltwed.jpg

Well then, here we go.

Below I’ve pasted the list of what the protesters are…protesting…about L4D’s sequel, due out this coming November. I’ll address each of their grievances one-by-one as we go along.

1. Significant content for L4D1 was promised, and never delivered

Well, they have this half right… Valve already released Death Toll (Versus), Dead Air (Versus), and Survival Mode…for free. While I understand that “significant” content is just a code word for “new campaigns for both co-op and Versus,” I think outright disregarding what’s already been delivered is a little unfair. Valve hasn’t completely met this content promise yet, but they haven’t neglected it, either.

I’d also like to point out that one of the levels released for Survival Mode was “Lighthouse,” a map that isn’t from No Mercy, Death Toll, Dead Air, or Blood Harvest, the original four campaigns. There’s a strong possibility that Valve didn’t just develop that map for Survival alone and it could be a preview of a future campaign released as DLC.

2. Valve put little faith in L4D1 since they almost certainly started working on L4D2 right after release

Suggesting this is downright stupid. “Valve was certain that Left 4 Dead would fail, so upon its release they immediately starting working on its sequel.” What? Think about how long it took Beyond Good & Evil to get a sequel…and how much clamoring fans and critics had to do to get it. Saying that Valve knew L4D would do poorly and wanted to continue that trend is just silly.

3. The fact that L4D2 is nearly identical to L4D1 will decimate the community for both games

Once again, I think this is half right. I don’t think the games are “nearly identical.” What changes do you expect to be made that will drastically change the game’s identity, anyway? The addition of aliens? Third-person melee combat with kung-fu? Vehicles? Bullet-time? Isn’t the point of a sequel to make the game nearly identical to the original with slight changes and new content? How different is Halo 3 from Halo 2?

The community split is a valid concern, though. Some people will stay with L4D1 (and some are boycotting the sequel and will stay with the first because of that), and some people will enjoy L4D2 more and stay with that. L4D2 will also have some gameplay adjustments players will have to make, I’m sure, and transitioning between L4D2 and L4D could be problematic for some people. Not to mention that with a split community, it’ll be harder to get games going. So yes, this could certainly be true.

4. The announced date is not nearly enough time to polish content or make significant gameplay changes

This is a pretty bizarre thing to say. How can anyone except for someone working for Valve know how long it will take to polish the game? Only Valve can say how long it will take Valve to polish the game, and anyone else claiming that they will have insufficient time to finish it is kidding themselves. Left 4 Dead is also unique in that, unlike another Valve game like Half-Life, there is no story-driven cinematic cut scene to perfect. There probably won’t even be any major graphical overhauls. Most, if not all of Valve’s time will be devoted to content and gameplay. Saying that they won’t have enough time to polish that is silly. It’s very possible and we just can’t say as outsiders looking in.

5. The new character designs seem bland and unappealing so far

Anybody want some cheese with this whine? Louis, Francis, Zoey, and Bill have zero backstory. None. Louis is “the black guy,” Francis is “the tough guy,” Zoey is “the girl,” and Bill is “the old guy.” That’s it. The new cast of characters has “the gambler,” “the tough black guy,” “the girl,” and “the tough guy.” I think this frankly boils down to people being attached to the current 4some, and while I don’t blame them (I always play as Louis when given a choice), I think it’s far, far, FAR too soon to condemn the new 4…especially considering that they have the exact same level of detail and background as the originals.

6. L4D2 is too bright to fit in with L4D1's visual aesthetic

Who died and appointed anyone other than Valve responsible for deciding what is and isn’t too bright or too dark for L4D’s visual aesthetic? Not to mention this point sort of contradicts itself. How can L4D2 be too bright for L4D1?

7. The fiddle-based horde music is extremely disliked, though the differently orchestrated music is otherwise welcome

What about the people who enjoy fiddle-based music in general? After all, this game is based in the south. Y’know…where people have and play fiddles. This complaint is immediately voided if anyone from the northeast, northwest, east coast, or west coast placed it into the list of reasons to boycott L4D2.

8. L4D2's release will result in a drop in quality and frequency for L4D1 content, even compared to before

The Orange Box released in October 2007, and Valve is still releasing content for Team Fortress 2 on the PC and working on an all-encompassing content package for the Xbox 360 version of the game. This is pretty much unfounded and speculative considering Valve’s penchant for sticking by and constantly updating their games.

9. The community has lost faith in Valve's former reputation for commitment to their games post-release

Based on what, exactly? All of the weapons, achievements, and skins being constantly released for Team Fortress 2 almost two years after its release? The additional content that’s already been released for L4D? Claiming that Valve’s reputation is tarnished by a lack of commitment when they constantly show that commitment is idiotic.

The protesters are further requesting…

1. That Valve honor its commitment to release ongoing periodic content for Left 4 Dead.

Who said they won’t? The game has been out for half a year, and there still half a year left for them to release content before L4D2 hits shelves. Even after L4D2 hits shelves, that doesn’t mean they can’t still release L4D content. Is it unlikely? Yes, but stranger things have happened.

2. That Left 4 Dead 2 not be released as a stand-alone, full-priced sequel but as either a free update to Left 4 Dead or an expansion with full compatibility with basic Left 4 Dead owners.

Hm.

3. That Left 4 Dead owners be given discounts for Left 4 Dead 2, should it be released as premium content.

Hmm.

My Final Take

Would anyone have complained about Resident Evil 5 if it came out a year after Resident Evil 4? Would anyone complain if Resident Evil 6 was announced for May next year? How about if Halo Wars comes out next May, too? If Halo 3 came out a year after Halo 2, would anyone have complained? What about the fact that WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw and NBA/NFL/NHL/MLB games release every year like clockwork with few, if any, changes?

Valve has dedicated fans, and frankly, they deserve to have them with the amazing games they make. At the same time, the fans are spoiled as hell, too. “Give us content for free, and do it now.” EA Games wants to charge you $5 a month for roster updates on NBA Live 09, yet Valve releases Sniper vs. Spy for no charge on TF2 for the PC. Microsoft demanded that when Valve releases the content package for TF2 on the Xbox 360, that Valve charges for it. Otherwise, Valve would be giving it away for free.

Valve’s fanbase is so spoiled and used to getting everything for free that they immediately flip out and throw a fit at the announcement of L4D2. There isn’t even a price tag on the game yet, and nothing, such as L4D compatibility and so forth, has been announced, either. I admit that it does make me feel like I’m not fully getting my money’s worth with L4D, but I enjoy the game so much as it is right now that I’m actually excited to have new content, new characters, new campaigns, and new weapons so soon. I’m eager to see how the game is different in daylight, and I trust Valve’s judgment enough to let them do their thing without throwing a 17,000 signature bitchfest about it.

And you know what? It doesn’t matter if 17,000 or 170,000 people signed a petition to boycott a Square-Enix, Capcom, BioWare, Blizzard, or Nintendo game… You know what any of those companies would say? “Thank you for your concern, we hope you’ll reconsider in November when the game releases.” They would brush you off and not give a damn, and pour a few extra chunks of cash into their advertising and marketing campaign.

Valve, though, will listen to the complaints, and they’ll listen because they’re Valve. That’s just what they do. In the meantime, why don’t we all try to hold off judgment and death wishes until we find out more details?

And one final thing to remember? If you don’t want the game, don’t buy the damn game. Gabe Newell isn’t holding a gun to your head, cheapskates.

Thanks for reading, guys! Until Friday, be well!

fasjkl.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the argument. The argument is that we're not going to pay for something we don't think is a good deal. The argument is akin to saying "I'm not going to pay for a new apartment when my current apartment is fine and the only difference is the paint color."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't buy the damn game and dry your eyes people - Jesus.

I think it is ok for people to complain. Consumers need to drive the market. We should not have to rely on a corporation to decide what we want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the argument. The argument is that we're not going to pay for something we don't think is a good deal. The argument is akin to saying "I'm not going to pay for a new apartment when my current apartment is fine and the only difference is the paint color."
No, I think it's more akin to saying "Gabe Newell, I'm not going to move to the apartment you're offering, but I do like the color of the walls, get over here and paint my apartment. For free. And bring me a sandwich. Also, you've got a purdy mouth."

If you don't want it, don't buy it. The problem here is that people do want it, they just don't want to buy it.

Edited by Dead_Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is ok for people to complain. Consumers need to drive the market. We should not have to rely on a corporation to decide what we want.

No that's up to the marketing & PR companies. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is ok for people to complain. Consumers need to drive the market. We should not have to rely on a corporation to decide what we want.

Yes, but if consumers dictated everything, they'd want everything to be free. This is a clear example of people just whining because they don't want to pay for something that in the past has been free. But we don't know what Valve's financial situation is as they don't have to report it being a private company.

My only point is that people should stopping being a little bitch about this until we get closer to the time of release and we have more detail. Valve is sort of like Apple when it comes to being closed mouth about their products and we know of at least one game mode that hasn't been announced, I'm sure there's more that Valve has up their sleeve.

And it could just be that they need money.

Again, I pose the question: would you rather have the WoW model and pay monthly for the ability to use Steam and play their games or would you rather have it this way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is ok for people to complain. Consumers need to drive the market. We should not have to rely on a corporation to decide what we want.

the economy is better off as a demand pull not supply pull as it is now.

Quote - (kliu0x52 @ Jun 9 2009, 14:28)

Well, I think that my take-home message is to restore the balance between producers and consumers. And to recognize that the market is demand-pull and not supply-push ("if you build it, they will come" is BS; if you produce something, it's worthless unless you have a market). But many in Washington still think that it's supply-push.

Henry Ford, when asked why he paid his workers so much more than the usual factory worker wage at the time, responded that he needed to build a market for his cars. He understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but if consumers dictated everything, they'd want everything to be free. This is a clear example of people just whining because they don't want to pay for something that in the past has been free. But we don't know what Valve's financial situation is as they don't have to report it being a private company.

My only point is that people should stopping being a little bitch about this until we get closer to the time of release and we have more detail. Valve is sort of like Apple when it comes to being closed mouth about their products and we know of at least one game mode that hasn't been announced, I'm sure there's more that Valve has up their sleeve.

And it could just be that they need money.

Again, I pose the question: would you rather have the WoW model and pay monthly for the ability to use Steam and play their games or would you rather have it this way?

WoW model and paid content packs are pretty stupid. PC Games have avoided most paid content packs thus far. Content packs for COD 4 and WaW have been free. Unreal 3's huge update was free. Mass Effects added content was free. Not the same for the consoles.

There is no reason it should not be free. 60 bucks is a lot for a game. Consoles have really paved the way for paid updates. Halo maps, now Halo ODST which really isn't that different but is another 60 bucks. Once these standards become norm, they do not stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WoW model and paid content packs are pretty stupid. PC Games have avoided such things thus far. Content packs for COD 4 and WaW have been free. Unreal 3's huge update was free. Mass Effects added content was free. There is no reason it should not be free. 60 bucks is a lot for a game. Consoles have really paved the way for paid updates. Halo maps, now Halo ODST which really isn't that different but is another 60 bucks. Once these standards become norm, they do not stop.

What is WaW?

WoW's content updates may be free, but you still have to pay a monthly fee to play the game. But thanks for the playing though (Y) You clearly didn't get the point of my post at all.

WHAT?! Who the hell said L4D2 is going to be $60? :blink: The first game wasn't even that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT?! Who the hell said L4D2 is going to be $60? :blink: The first game wasn't even that much.

It was on console. I've been waiting for it to go down to $30 like Orange Box did (bought it at full retail and watched the price plummet) before I pick it up actually. Valve cuts software prices like nobody's business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WoW's content updates may be free, but you still have to pay a monthly fee to play the game.

It's not really in the same bracket as steam though is it? Steam is a content delivery programme. MMOs are... MMOs. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was on console. I've been waiting for it to go down to $30 like Orange Box did (bought it at full retail and watched the price plummet) before I pick it up actually. Valve cuts software prices like nobody's business.

No doubt about that. I don't play Valve games on the console, just on PC, so I apologize. Did not know it was that much on the console, but that isn't shocking. One of the reasons why I don't play many console games is because of how expensive the games are :x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt about that. I don't play Valve games on the console, just on PC, so I apologize. Did not know it was that much on the console, but that isn't shocking. One of the reasons why I don't play many console games is because of how expensive the games are :x
I use Goozex mostly. Other people use gamefly. You deal. The PC guys spend their money on a new video card, and system upgrades, we spend it on a software premium and new HDTV. Probably all comes out about the same in the end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really in the same bracket as steam though is it? Steam is a content delivery programme. MMOs are... MMOs. :|

It is still the same principle though. Why do you pay for WoW on a monthly basis instead of just the one time fee like the current system Valve has setup?

The type of game doesn't really matter here as long as it is an online game that you play vs. other people.

Valve could easily start charging monthly fees for play their online games (DoD, CS, TF2, L4D, etc.) if they wanted to. But instead, they are offering those games as a one time fee and you don't have to purchase the sequel if you don't want to.

If the issue is indeed money that is, Valve could easily start charging $5/month + the cost of the game. That would easily increase their revenue and then they could give us this update for free. That would be an extra $60/year per player.

Or they could just issue an update and charge $30 for it one time and you play all you want forever.

I just don't get why people are complaining about this when Valve could be going other avenues to charge us more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason it should not be free. 60 bucks is a lot for a game. Consoles have really paved the way for paid updates. Halo maps, now Halo ODST which really isn't that different but is another 60 bucks. Once these standards become norm, they do not stop.

There are many reasons it shouldn't be free, I trust Valve when they say there is alot of content in L4D2 that it's passed the realm of "DLC". (Hate that term)

There are however, many reasons why L4D2 should not be a sequel, some of them highlighted in the article on the previous page. I don't know why people have to be so binary when it comes to discussing this whole issue, there are other options, like releasing L4D2 as an expansion pack rather than a sequel, that would satisfy both parties.

Valve could easily start charging monthly fees for play their online games (DoD, CS, TF2, L4D, etc.) if they wanted to. But instead, they are offering those games as a one time fee and you don't have to purchase the sequel if you don't want to.

Pfahahah, force monthly fees onto a one-time purchase game? Hah, not only might that be illegal, but it would kill Valve overnight. Valve depend on the community for the servers they host and pay for, only recently have they started hosting a handful of servers.

I love the irony of your reply to Intelman, when you seem to consistantly miss the point that the main issue of this whole debacle isn't really the fact they're charging money, but the fact that their current method of release is a sequel.

Not to mention, your argument of Monthly-Fees is absurd. If you ever took a look at the CS/CS:S forums after an update you would see there is always resistance to changes made, why force people to pay for content they don't want? They'd just go elsewhere, either back to steam-free CS (Like they always do post-exploit fix for a week or so) or some sort of CS:S "pro mod".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Apparently Racism Exists in ... Left 4 Dead 2

Yesterday, from the Houston Chronicle's Game Hacks Blog, Willie Jefferson wrote about how current and soon to be released games are becoming consistently racist. Usually, I don't even pay attention to blogs/articles like this because it's just a blogger. But the article has picked up some speed, and has started to become the new controversial topic (again).

Jefferson writes,

One of the games that comes to mind is "Left 4 Dead 2." Though the game isn't out yet, it's already causing an uproar. Set in New Orleans, players will have to fight their way through hordes of zombies - with several of them who appear to be African-Americans. When I saw the first trailer for the game, all I could think about was Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. Setting the game in a city that was scene of dead, bloated bodies floating by so soon afterward was a bad call, IMHO. The city has had enough to deal with -- Valve, you should have spared them, even if it's just a video game.

Responses to Jefferson's blog have been mixed, and the blog itself has had the effect of poking a somewhat dead horse. Comments on the Houston blog site have ranged from outraged to apathetic. Some users were even disappointed that no new information about video games was brought up. In any case, only time will tell if Jefferson came late the party or stoked the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.