Reply With QuoteBleh, it's still a bummer that L4D2 will now be the focal point, instead of releasing new campaigns for L4D.
eh, i don't know if i believe these comments from chet. the things they are doing with l4d2 could have totally been patched into the first game. the mod and map backwards compatibility makes that all the more clear.Put simply, Valve wasn't entirely satisfied with the original game. "Left 4 Dead 1, like I said, had some of those fundamental things that we wanted to change about it, like the changes to the director, which took really long periods of time and a really long period of testing," he said. "And so, those changes fell in line with the long period of time it takes to create characters and everything else. That's why we're doing Left 4 Dead 2, right?"
they talked up the longevity before left 4 dead 1 came out. i call bs.
Bleh, it's still a bummer that L4D2 will now be the focal point, instead of releasing new campaigns for L4D.
Originally Posted by Demon G Sides
So....basically the same thing they said about the first game. Mabye if it releases for $40 on xbox, but no way am I paying full retail.
Did anyone stop to think about where the f#!$K HL2 EP 3 is? :) Granted, I'm not a game developer, but why didnt Valve do EP 3 before looking at L4D 2?
-Chris
hell, or portal 2. even that was released before l4d!
Agreed. It's great that L4D2 will supposedly last longer but that doesn't help the fact that L4D will seemingly be left behind. The game was purchased on the idea that it would be updated via Valve and many modders. There has been very little since, an SDK six months after release, immediately followed by L4D2 announcements (likely hindering development of mods somewhat).
I am sure it will be great and many will enjoy it, but I just don't see the point, nor do I want to risk another game with promised updates that never happen.
You do realize . . . nevermind. Wave at Anne Rice as she goes into the voodoo shop after stepping over all of the black-clad kids with makeup sitting in the streets begging.
H.
Ya, i did. Right about post 123.
Hm, so in 6 months they unlocked 2 more campaigns for versus mode, created a new game mode, and supported it by creating a bunch of new maps.
They also released an SDK and have progressively improving their matchmaking code. Why the love for Demigod's months of matchmaking rewrites, and not l4d's? Because l4d released with good matchmaking instead of unplayably terrible matchmaking?
Maybe if you compare it to the years of content released for tf2, you can make disparaging remarks -- however, name any game that has gotten more content for free in the 6 months after release?
I guess if Valve feels like spouting off about being paragons of virtue, they deserve to have it thrown back in their face later. I just think if you compare the level of support left4dead has enjoyed so far, to its competitors, that l4d comes out in a good light.
You can hardly call the addition of versus to two already existing campaigns much of a feature, I'm sure most probably think that should have been included out of the box and honestly it should have. The only addition to the game has been survivor mode which mostly uses sub sets of existing maps. It's hardly tons of content and certainly isn't near the amount Valve was talking about prior to release.
I don't think many people are complaining that there hasn't been enough content in the given time frame, I think they're annoyed that with the announcement of the sequel that content simply won't ever come. I thought it was light when they only had four campaigns and only two of which supported versus but I bought it under the impression more would be added as many others obviously did.
Well, Valve certainly doesn't need the money so I doubt that this is profit driven. I'm guessing that L4D must have some fundamental issues at it's core that prevent them from using it as a platform the way they want to. It seems extreme to release a whole new retail SKU to fix that but they're good to their communities, so they must be doing it for a reason. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Valve doesn't have a track record of engaging in cheap cash grabs.
Anne Rice lives in Kenner (a suburb) in a former Saints player's house. She sold St. Elizabeth's and its now a condominium.
Also, gutter punks/squatters != goths. Don't take everything they say in the Vampire: The Masquerade New Orleans by Night source book as gospel. If you do, you'd be spending all your time looking for the subway that doesn't exist.
I don't wonder that perhaps its just a game balance issue. Along with the melee weapons, L4D2 is going to add new zombie types apparently, and day/night missions and so on. It seems to me that they may be changing some of the fundamental feel of the current experience in L4D1. The Current melee strategy seems to be turtle and pummel till the goo comes off. The new one has to be quite a bit more engaging, and game changing. And we have no idea what changes new zombie types would bring to a new game, and what types of things they would break on maps not ready for them...
True, but EA needs cash, mabye they are pushing this.
Even if there is a legitamate reason for a L4D2 it does not change the fact that I feel a bit burned by L4D. Honestly I thought i was a bit thin and wasn't going to bother getting it. Valve seemed to suggest they were going to over time make it a more robust game, so I jumped on board with that expectation.
Now it seems they have changed direction a bit and want another full retail release. That's all fine and if those four maps were enough that you felt L4D was worth it, sweet. Personally I didn't think it was so I feel like I spent my money on a false pretense.
Obviosly we are not talking about huge amounts of money here, but it's more that I feel a bit misled.
That would be awesome if it forced people to hold their weapons over their heads (or get them wet and disable them temporarily). It would really require teamwork for some people to cover the others, and it would put a damper on the rush-based rounds that I've seen in the past.
Uh.....yeah. Valve is altruistic philanthropists that really just want to make up for their past sins.
Let me expand a bit, Valve is awesome at knowing a good thing when they see it, DoD,TF2, and L4D were not dreamed up by Valve, they saw someone doing something interesting and bought them. Why? $$$$. Valves golden gift is taking said idea, and shining it to a perfect hue, and marketing the shit out of it. Having their own industry adopted distribution engine doesn't hurt.
As a developer that makes games a business, they are the king, I'm not holding that against them. But , if you really think they have noble thoughts about righting some wrong in the game design...yeah, doubt that is the primary reason whey they are making the sequel.
Last edited by Major Malphunktion; 06-03-2009 at 10:46 AM.
Actually, I've figured it out. Valve refuses to develop any franchise significantly unless it has a 2 after it. Team Fortress 2, Half-Life 2, and now Left 4 Dead 2. Fortunately, this means that we'll be playing L4D2 for years.
This... Makes sense. Wow.
Yeah, I think hiring an expirmental psychologist to maximize the profit from sales and marketing probably goes against them not needing the money. Well, they may not need it, but it seems they sure like it.
personally i cant wait for L4D 2 and its worth $50 bucks in my opinion. there was a great interview with Valve's Chet Faliszek on a recent rock paper shotgun podcast. from what i gathered all the new content they wanted to create, new settings, characters and back-story seems to suggest a stand-alone game was the only option. Valve has yet to fail me (except for steam problems but thats another story) and i don't think they will here either.
Back up a little. Valve wants to make money but they aren't (historically, at least) interested in cheap cash grabs. These 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive.Uh.....yeah. Valve is altruistic philanthropists that really just want to make up for their past sins.
Obviously. Did you guys feel the need to rip off a rant today or something? Don't read too much into my post. I never argued that Valve was a charity.Yeah, I think hiring an expirmental psychologist to maximize the profit from sales and marketing probably goes against them not needing the money. Well, they may not need it, but it seems they sure like it.
If you think of Left4Dead the console game, it makes great sense. They seem to have had limited success pushing out updates for their xbox products... if you are going to go about signficantly re-writing their map code and AI, as well as more than doubling the content, might as well release it in a console-consumable way. I can't imagine anyone suggesting all the additions and changes released as l4d2 would make sense as just some dlc in the xbox marketplace.
Why should a pc gamer expect so much more from a 50$ purchase than a console gamer does from a 60$ one? If EA's indication during its fy 2008 shareholder meeting that simply publishing l4d on the xbox made it a top 4 revenue stream, then console gamers seem pretty happy to trade their money for l4d -- despite knowing the relatively limited updates they would recieve.
They are doing it for the console gamers! *tears up* Can't you heathens appreciate Valve's selfless sacrifice in service to console gamers everywhere? All that dirty money under their fingernails, just to satisfy those slave drivers at M$CRO$OFT, and the uninhibited greed of EA. Doing everything they can, simply out of love for their loyal console customers, and you turn on them, you bastards turn on them!
I just thought it was neat that the Chainsaw in the pictures is made by Hale. Nice tie in to TF2.
Count me in with the people who've put in 100+ hours on L4D and will be among the first in line for L4D2. I just can't get mad at Valve.
I know a handful of what I would consider casual gamers who picked up L4D and were quite satisfied with what they got (note that this was after the first couple of patches that added co-op for all campaigns, ect). If they're adding a ton of new content, it makes sense to put out a new retail package because those casual gamers aren't going anywhere close to DLC.
L4D was always very interesting since Valve initially was just publishing the game before taking it under its wing. Given this background, it makes sense to re-develop it with the full Valve treatment.
Jose, all the rage is based on the premise that all of the DLC was supposed to be free. Essentially, lots of people bought the game expecting it to be an investment rather than a regular game purchase.
Last edited by Staff Sergeant; 06-03-2009 at 01:05 PM. Reason: why did I read MSUSteve instead of Jose Liz?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Through the majority of the level you are generally in control, then for an agonizing minute or so you are highly vulnerable and moving slowly.
I seriously read that as "dick in the box".
Hey, look at this way: As someone who only got into investing late last year, you should be thrilled your copy of left 4 dead didn't become worthless overnight.
Hey, look at it this way: Someone sold you 5 dollars worth of merchadise for ten bucks and told you they would get the rest to you later. Instead they decided they wanted to charge you another ten bucks for the remaining merchandise instead.
If Valve had not said they were planning to use L4D as a platform to add characters and campaigns to I don't think I would have bought it, and I would not care that they were releasing L4D2 rather than supporting the first game.
I'm sorry mabye I'm the minority here, but 4 fucking scenarios for 60 bucks...so not worth it. I understan a lot of you Steam guys only payed 40 bucks (way more worth it) and have less reason to complain. Mabye the marketing strategy for L4D is to offer a good value to the PC player and soak the shit out of the console guys, I don't know.
That was just meant as a little financial disaster humor. Sorry to hear people so angry...
Posting Permissions