Ricardo Gil Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I didn't think L4D was bad, but I do think it was overrated. I mean, I get tired of battling the same wave after wave of zombies after a while with a few "bosses" thrown in. It didn't excite me after a while -- it just annoyed me.@ Ricardo Gil: Quit playing dumb. Sports games are changed every year because of the changing aspects of the sports themselevs -- trades, free agents, new stadiums, all-star events, team expansions/moves, etc. And they are also typically sold for less money. Call of Duty games aren't real sequels. World at War was not a sequel to Modern Warfare. If you want an example of that, look at Modern Warfare 2. Music games are just money-grabbing things with hardly any changes. Which is why I said are those really the examples you want to use -- because it's obvious this is just a money-grabbing routine with Left 4 Dead 2. You asked for examples, I gave them. Now let's see who's playing dumb: "Sports games are changed every year because of the changing aspects of the sports themselevs -- trades, free agents, new stadiums, all-star events, team expansions/moves, etc." - L4D is gonna have new characters, new maps, new weapons, etc.. "And they are also typically sold for less money" - Really, in what world does that happen? "Call of Duty games aren't real sequels" - Say what? CoD2 came out in 2005, CoD3 in 2006, CoD4 in 2007..., etc., etc. Want to keep playing dumb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 My God you're impossible. SPORTS GAMES ARE MODELED AFTER REAL LIFE CHANGES. THEY ARE CHEAPER. THEY ARE RELEASED YEARLY BECAUSE, GASP, THERE ARE SEASONS IN SPORTS! If your argument is that it's OK to release games yearly like sports games because they're the same, then I have to wonder about you. Stop acting so naive. Call of Duty 4 was NOT a sequel to Call of Duty 3. Is it really that hard for you to comprehend? My God man, they are nothing alike in the very least bit! There is a leapfrog strategy used by Activision, the games don't have the same storyline, they didn't use the same engine until World at War, 3 and 4 weren't even in the same time period. Left 4 Dead 2 is a cheap cash-in just like the music games you mentioned. The fact that you're even arguing the opposite is absolutely bewildering. New characters? OMG! I get to play as 4 different skins that have absolutely no difference! New maps? Oh yay, because that couldn't be done with DLC! New weapons? OMG, they reskinned the old weapons and added MELEE weapons! R U 4 REALZZZZ???? GET THE EFF OUT!!!!11one And get this: Left 4 Dead mods will work in Left 4 Dead 2 because they're not changing crap. They're adding new skins and new maps and calling it a whole new game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzykotic Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Valve has always had a lack-luster ability to support games. They're a fly-by-night developer in a sense. Counter-Strike is really the only game they've ever truly "supported". Look at Day of Defeat Source, they published a couple updates to the game and the community released maps/content for it. The fact is ..when you buy a Valve game you should know (and most do) that when they purchase it, it will probably get two or three content updates then it's basically dead and you wait for the next incarnation. I have not purchased a Valve game since Day of Defeat Source was released. Valve has clearly gone a different route from being the developer of content to a publisher of it. That's fine but you don't normally see people like say ...Activision making their own games alongside what they regularly publish. The other problem is their development studio; when LF4D was released, they focused ALL of their resources on that game and shipping it rather than updating or fixing TF:2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Gil Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 My God you're impossible.SPORTS GAMES ARE MODELED AFTER REAL LIFE CHANGES. THEY ARE CHEAPER. THEY ARE RELEASED YEARLY BECAUSE, GASP, THERE ARE SEASONS IN SPORTS! Stop acting so naive. Call of Duty 4 was NOT a sequel to Call of Duty 3. Is it really that hard for you to comprehend? My God man, they are nothing alike in the very least bit! There is a leapfrog strategy used by Activision, the games don't have the same storyline, they didn't use the same engine until World at War, 3 and 4 weren't even in the same time period. Left 4 Dead 2 is a cheap cash-in just like the music games you mentioned. The fact that you're even arguing the opposite is absolutely bewildering. New characters? OMG! I get to play as 4 different skins that have absolutely no difference! New maps? Oh yay, because that couldn't be done with DLC! New weapons? OMG, they reskinned the old weapons and added MELEE weapons! R U 4 REALZZZZ???? GET THE EFF OUT!!!!11one And get this: Left 4 Dead mods will work in Left 4 Dead 2 because they're not changing crap. They're adding new skins and new maps and calling it a whole new game. Yeah, writing in bold caps sure makes you look right... 1. Sports games could easily handle new seasons through DLC, but they don't. Anyone complaining? You do, but only in L4D. 2. CoD3 is the successor of 2, both were similar WW2 games. You're the one just looking at the difference 4 brought. Hey, there's WW2 again in 5... 3. " OMG! I get to play as 4 different skins that have absolutely no difference! New maps? Oh yay, because that couldn't be done with DLC! New weapons? OMG, they reskinned the old weapons and added MELEE weapons! R U 4 REALZZZZ???? GET THE EFF OUT!!!!11one" Congrats! You've just described what every sports game does, what CoD did (except #4, happy?) and what NFS does. Hell, you could reduce every game to that. A simple re-skin. Do you even know what a sequel is? It's supposed to be in the same vibe, with new content. What did you expect anyway from the sequel, I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts. Mmm, maybe not. Bottom line Mr., if you're gonna flame L4D for being a simple rehash, then look around and pay a little attention. We're surrounded with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Bottom line Mr., if you're gonna flame L4D for being a simple rehash, then look around and pay a little attention. We're surrounded with them. That's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samn9 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Valve has always had a lack-luster ability to support games. They're a fly-by-night developer in a sense. Counter-Strike is really the only game they've ever truly "supported". Look at Day of Defeat Source, they published a couple updates to the game and the community released maps/content for it. The fact is ..when you buy a Valve game you should know (and most do) that when they purchase it, it will probably get two or three content updates then it's basically dead and you wait for the next incarnation. I have not purchased a Valve game since Day of Defeat Source was released.Valve has clearly gone a different route from being the developer of content to a publisher of it. That's fine but you don't normally see people like say ...Activision making their own games alongside what they regularly publish. The other problem is their development studio; when LF4D was released, they focused ALL of their resources on that game and shipping it rather than updating or fixing TF:2. DOD:S, they released a massive update for it 2 years after it came out TF2, of course they have supported it, they've released dozens of updates over the past year. They had a bad week with the random drops system, but they fixed that by adding milestones. Some people are just spoilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Wait, wait, wait... being the "succesor" of something makes it a true sequel now? So, what you're telling me is that Call of Duty: World at War is a sequel to one of the games in the franchise, right? Hate to break it to you: it is not. It's an entirely new game. You cannot reduce every game to a simple reskin. That's just stupid. Games typically have engine changes that remove compatibility when a sequel is made, for instance. Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 will have absolutely no differences in the engine according to a recent interview with Valve. Sequels typically have new gameplay mechanics of some sort. Left 4 Dead 2, according to every preview I've seen, does not. Sequels typically are far more than a simple re-skin. Bottom line: if you're going to call every game a simple rehash, do your homework. We're not surrounded with them with the exception of certain cash-grabbers... which is what Left 4 Dead 2 is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imran Hussain Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 SPORTS GAMES ARE MODELED AFTER REAL LIFE CHANGES. THEY ARE CHEAPER. THEY ARE RELEASED YEARLY BECAUSE, GASP, THERE ARE SEASONS IN SPORTS! Cheaper? Do you have ANY idea how expensive the licenses are for those real life changes and likenesses ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treemonkeys Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 If you didn't think L4D had enough content to be worth the price, you shouldn't of purchased it, you can complain all you want but until you learn the lesson that you should have been more careful with your money it won't do you any good. Personally I love L4D as it is, free content is always nice but it is worth the $40 I paid for it, I play it almost daily with my friends. As far as L4D2, the changes in the AI director will be huge, if they pull off what they say they can do it will completely change the excitement and replay value of the game. That combined with the other changes should make it well worth being a sequel and not an expansion or DLC. Expansions do not completely change the internal mechanics of the game. Ayepecks you are a moron if you think the AI director changes will not change the game's mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey B. Veteran Posted June 5, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 5, 2009 i did not play the first L4D so i can already say i will not be purchasing the second one however it is not because of the company that made it it is simply because i did not play the first one and i did not find the game to be interesting in the least. However i can say that if the create another team fortress game i will more than likely purchase it and love it for every second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason S. Global Moderator Posted June 5, 2009 Global Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2009 do people truly understand what theyre fighting about in this thread? a company that produces video games. get over it. not happy w/ them? save your breath and just dont give them money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Cheaper? Do you have ANY idea how expensive the licenses are for those real life changes and likenesses ? I mentioned those changes later on. Should have clarified that by cheaper I was referring to the planned obsolence -- after a few months, the price goes down, next version released, price goes down, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LogicalApex MVC Posted June 5, 2009 MVC Share Posted June 5, 2009 I've read this thread and a lot of the supporting links included in the various sides of the issue. I'm not quoting people directly simply because the number of snippets I'd be responding to would be far too many and span multiple stages in the discussion. With that said I'll chime in with my thoughts on the issue. Valve is in a very sticky situation. Irrespective of how people view L4D2, in regards to an expansion or a sequel, there was the expectation of major updates for L4D1. In the modern world of business branding is extremely important. Valve has built a brand that says it isn't like the larger game companies (EA, for instance) in that they stand behind their games and patch them overtime with lots of updates. They are the poster child for the "Don't drop the ball" kind of development that people have come to expect from them. As a result, the flack they are getting for L4D2 is simply the result of them running counter to their own brand. This is a very dangerous move on Valve's part mainly because it can cause irreparable damage to their image. It is fair to say that one shouldn't buy a game based on future hopes or even promises, but that is reality when you've attributed that to the brand image of the developer. It is much like how WalMart has the brand image of lower prices and people go there expecting lower prices. It wouldn't work out too well for WalMart's image if you weren't able to trust that their prices were lower than others. The same goes for Valve. People trust that they will support their games. To be fair, they have not said they are dropping the ball on L2D1, but it does seem to be a pretty heavy letdown between L4D1 and L4D2 from what I've seen. I never was heavily interested in L4D and only purchased it to play with a few buds when it was on the 50% off weekend deal. It always felt like a short and incomplete game to me and wasn't worth the full price I paid for Orange Box. But I play Team Fortress 2 a lot. That game has gotten so many updates it is impossible to not say it has received free expansion packs. The huge content packs with new weapons and game play modes (like Arena Mode) have changed the game immensely. When I saw L4D2 announced I expected some MAJOR updates to warrant them charging more for it and not dropping it as a free update like they frequently do for TF2. I expected them to announce, at least, major additions like maybe vehicles and far deeper story line. I expected a lot more than was announced. Who knows what will actually ship (it could be more or less). Otherwise I'd expect Valve to sell it at expansion pricing, at least. As I said, it is easy to say consumers of Valve's products have become spoiled or now have entitlement issues or whatever else, but that is the brand that Valve has crafted. It can expect some fire when it deviates from that image. Deviating too far can also kill a brand. It is much in the same way that Apple iPhone users EXPECT a free upgrade to new OS versions as they are released on their older devices (minus hardware change requiring features). If Apple decided to yank that back in iPhone OS 3 there would have been similar anger. The Orange Box wasn't the same issue either. I remember also being angry over that issue as I owned HL1 and I think EP1 as well. It was a bit of an anger point having to buy those games again, but it was smoothed over by also getting games like Portal and TF2 included alongside EP2. With L4D it doesn't look like we'll get that same kind of deal. I would probably be talking a lot different if it was being bundled with EP3 or something. Enough of my $.02 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SYBINX Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I've read this thread and a lot of the supporting links included in the various sides of the issue. I'm not quoting people directly simply because the number of snippets I'd be responding to would be far too many and span multiple stages in the discussion. With that said I'll chime in with my thoughts on the issue.Valve is in a very sticky situation. Irrespective of how people view L4D2, in regards to an expansion or a sequel, there was the expectation of major updates for L4D1. In the modern world of business branding is extremely important. Valve has built a brand that says it isn't like the larger game companies (EA, for instance) in that they stand behind their games and patch them overtime with lots of updates. They are the poster child for the "Don't drop the ball" kind of development that people have come to expect from them. As a result, the flack they are getting for L4D2 is simply the result of them running counter to their own brand. This is a very dangerous move on Valve's part mainly because it can cause irreparable damage to their image. It is fair to say that one shouldn't buy a game based on future hopes or even promises, but that is reality when you've attributed that to the brand image of the developer. It is much like how WalMart has the brand image of lower prices and people go there expecting lower prices. It wouldn't work out too well for WalMart's image if you weren't able to trust that their prices were lower than others. The same goes for Valve. People trust that they will support their games. To be fair, they have not said they are dropping the ball on L2D1, but it does seem to be a pretty heavy letdown between L4D1 and L4D2 from what I've seen. I never was heavily interested in L4D and only purchased it to play with a few buds when it was on the 50% off weekend deal. It always felt like a short and incomplete game to me and wasn't worth the full price I paid for Orange Box. But I play Team Fortress 2 a lot. That game has gotten so many updates it is impossible to not say it has received free expansion packs. The huge content packs with new weapons and game play modes (like Arena Mode) have changed the game immensely. When I saw L4D2 announced I expected some MAJOR updates to warrant them charging more for it and not dropping it as a free update like they frequently do for TF2. I expected them to announce, at least, major additions like maybe vehicles and far deeper story line. I expected a lot more than was announced. Who knows what will actually ship (it could be more or less). Otherwise I'd expect Valve to sell it at expansion pricing, at least. As I said, it is easy to say consumers of Valve's products have become spoiled or now have entitlement issues or whatever else, but that is the brand that Valve has crafted. It can expect some fire when it deviates from that image. Deviating too far can also kill a brand. It is much in the same way that Apple iPhone users EXPECT a free upgrade to new OS versions as they are released on their older devices (minus hardware change requiring features). If Apple decided to yank that back in iPhone OS 3 there would have been similar anger. The Orange Box wasn't the same issue either. I remember also being angry over that issue as I owned HL1 and I think EP1 as well. It was a bit of an anger point having to buy those games again, but it was smoothed over by also getting games like Portal and TF2 included alongside EP2. With L4D it doesn't look like we'll get that same kind of deal. I would probably be talking a lot different if it was being bundled with EP3 or something. Enough of my $.02 ;) I tend to agree here with this statement, I can understand the frustration and anger but it does not change anything. I'm in the same position and being a member of the gaming community for many years now I understand why developers change direction and bring out expansions or a sequle to the first game, and you have to go and either buy another game or download it via Steam. Yeah it sux but it's how the industry works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I bought the Game of the Year edition of L4D1 two days before they announced L4D2. I'm ****ed. Not only will the announcement of the sequel stop many from buying the first game (since the sequel is coming out in a few months), but that means less people online to play with, not to mention i haven't heard anything about future plans (if any) for L4D1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 you know I think its funny that gamers are boycotting that a gaming company is releasing a game "TOO SOON" after the first, considering we all fuss that it takes to long for them to release a sequel to a game we really like 99% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toadeater Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Bottom line: if you're going to call every game a simple rehash, do your homework. We're not surrounded with them with the exception of certain cash-grabbers... which is what Left 4 Dead 2 is. Agreed. It is an expansion pack, it's not a sequel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 (edited) Wait, wait, wait... being the "succesor" of something makes it a true sequel now? So, what you're telling me is that Call of Duty: World at War is a sequel to one of the games in the franchise, right? Hate to break it to you: it is not. It's an entirely new game.You cannot reduce every game to a simple reskin. That's just stupid. Games typically have engine changes that remove compatibility when a sequel is made, for instance. Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 will have absolutely no differences in the engine according to a recent interview with Valve. Sequels typically have new gameplay mechanics of some sort. Left 4 Dead 2, according to every preview I've seen, does not. Sequels typically are far more than a simple re-skin. Bottom line: if you're going to call every game a simple rehash, do your homework. We're not surrounded with them with the exception of certain cash-grabbers... which is what Left 4 Dead 2 is. It's not a reskin and there IS new gameplay mechanics, melee weapons, 3 New SI and also new common infected, dynamic level changing, 5 completely new campaigns, and a new game mode. among other changes. I'm sorry but you are an complete moron if you are calling it a "re-skin" Overpriced maybe, or an expansion but certainly not a reskin. I'm sick of idiots saying crap like this. Do your homework. Also this is an early version of the game that is not finished yet. We haven't even seen a lot of the new stuff yet, they've only shown tiny parts of one campaign and a glimpse of one of the new si. Edited June 5, 2009 by ViperAFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HostileGamer Posted June 6, 2009 Author Share Posted June 6, 2009 As being the original author of this thread I'd like to try and give this thread a little more direction. I was in now way, shape, or form talking about LFD1 or 2 or 2 billion! I was just trying to say that Valve is losing focus on being the game company that made stellar games, updated them often, and took alot of feedback from the community. I feel that Valve just used HL2 and the whole lineup of games based on their source 1/2 engines to push steam down everyones throat & now that its a success they are just focused on being a middleman between no name developers and the buyer. This is not bad for them to do, I think steam is a decent platform, however I do not believe they can be the game developer they once were if they go down this road. Pick one valve! Don't make half assed games please! Be innovative again! PS Valve if your going to sell games and be the middle man and take people money, get some telephone support ya cheap ******* :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I won't boycott Valve because of this game. But I won't be pre-ordering games from Steam at full whack anymore. I'll wait for them to be highly discounted. The only reason I was ever happy to pay high up-front prices pre-launch was because of the trust I have in Valve with relation to developer support in frequent updates to fix bugs, modify game mechanics (for the better) and deliver new content as promised. After this event I cannot justify paying the high entry prices anymore if Valve has decided to change the way they do business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HostileGamer Posted June 6, 2009 Author Share Posted June 6, 2009 I won't boycott Valve because of this game. But I won't be pre-ordering games from Steam at full whack anymore. I'll wait for them to be highly discounted. The only reason I was ever happy to pay high up-front prices pre-launch was because of the trust I have in Valve with relation to developer support in frequent updates to fix bugs, modify game mechanics (for the better) and deliver new content as promised. After this event I cannot justify paying the high entry prices anymore if Valve has decided to change the way they do business. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idioot Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Never even played the first one. I looked at the gameplay videos and thought "well, this will be fun for half an hour max" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S00N3R FR3AK Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Next time buy the game for what it is, not for what you expect it to be in the future...I've had a blast playing it with my friends, both offline and online, no major bugs. Well worth the 35? I paid. Boycott all you want, I'll gladly buy L4D2. Yep having played mmos for a few years I never buy a game for what it could be, thats stupid. You buy it for what it is because they may not deliever on their content they said they would give us. Take Warhammer took out 4 classes said we might get them back. I didn't buy the game on the chance we would get them(which we did) I bought the game for the content that was in it at launch. All games should be treated this way. I though L4D was amazing before the content update with new mode and rest of maps made for vs. Gamers do not have a right to free content udpates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimoose Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Valve should ship the old campaigns/characters/weapons into L$D2 and then give people who bought L4D a discount. Then they can stop believing that they will successfully be able to update L4D with new content, when all the new content that they could put in is already in the sequel and they can focus on releasing/updating the second one. They could still support L4D, just not release new content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samn9 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Valve should ship the old campaigns/characters/weapons into L$D2 I hope that was an accident :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts