L4D 2 annouced.

[zoobernut]

Lol yeah I felt the same way TT they brought up great points but man was it hard to sit through all 7 minutes of their video. They need to just talk rather than read a darn script or something.

[Kerberoz]

Couple of RL buddies of mine do "GamerRants" on Youtube and posted there new Vid agaisnt the L4D2 Boycotters, thought it summed it up nicely.

YouTube - Gamer Rants: Left 4 Dead 2 Boycott

Rofl... they actually compared it to call of duty, acting like call of duty is a good game. Self-ownage?

Fucking casual consumer whores, ruining gaming. Go back to Halo and EA.

[ArchDizzle]

Rofl... they actually compared it to call of duty, acting like call of duty is a good game. Self-ownage?

Fucking casual consumer whores, ruining gaming. Go back to Halo and EA.

Not sure what your getting at here.. Comparing the release of a title shortly after a previous release in the same franchise with no backlash was there point. Your Self ownage makes no sense, they self-owned themselves because they compared a FPS about killing zombies to a FPS about killing people and nazi zombies? (Again the comparison wasn't about OMG COD4 is the best, although I consider it a really good FPS, they were compairing another franchise that is extremely popular with a similar release pattern that gets no QQing about having to pony up another $60 a year later) And calling people who play practically every genre minus sports games "casual gamers" is retarded.

[Cjskater]

If you can't tell the difference between CoD releases and L4D -> L4D2... I don't know what to tell you. I mean I could reiterate what you've probably seen a million times I guess...

Two different developers mainly work on CoD: Infinity Ward and Treyarch

Check the dates for sequels: Call of Duty (series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Notice how they sort of trade off? Even the CoD series has at least a 2 year wait for each developer.

As much as I hate to say it, Treyarch has given more DLC for W@W than Turtle Rock has given L4D. How does this even happen? Treyarch of all companies. If you didn't know: they are on their second map pack which includes 4 completely new maps... pretty sure it's 8 in all (completely new). They are also free for PC users and even though they are late it doesn't bother me a bit knowing I'm not paying for it.

A more accurate comparison for the L4D situation, even if it sounds terrible, is a sports franchise. If you asked me the last time I bought a sports game I would tell you... probably on the N64 (Blitz and Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey '98 ). I guess you could say that would be the equivalent of boycotting.

[ArchDizzle]

If you can't tell the difference between CoD releases and L4D -> L4D2... I don't know what to tell you. I mean I could reiterate what you've probably seen a million times I guess...

Two different developers mainly work on CoD: Infinity Ward and Treyarch

Check the dates for sequels: Call of Duty (series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Notice how they sort of trade off? Even the CoD series has at least a 2 year wait for each developer.

As much as I hate to say it, Treyarch has given more DLC for W@W than Turtle Rock has given L4D. How does this even happen? Treyarch of all companies. If you didn't know: they are on their second map pack which includes 4 completely new maps... pretty sure it's 8 in all (completely new). They are also free for PC users and even though they are late it doesn't bother me a bit knowing I'm not paying for it.

A more accurate comparison for the L4D situation, even if it sounds terrible, is a sports franchise. If you asked me the last time I bought a sports game I would tell you... probably on the N64 (Blitz and Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey '98 ). I guess you could say that would be the equivalent of boycotting.

Your response still has nothing to do with what he was calling self ownage, I see your point with COD but it was a better reference then a sports title, this is the first sequel to a new franchise hardly an EA yearly rehash of a game. And Ok so they have put out more DL content and.....? Why is that and when has it ever been a factor when purchasing a game? I like to get extra stuff for a game that I enjoyed, but most of the time it is either too long after you are done with the original content or not worth the price tag. I still don't see this new found logic of "We are owed additional content to be fully satisfied with a game and warrant a sequel". To each there own but it seems way overboard for a game that is just making a sequel that should be better then the original. If Valve said from the get that they are releasing L4D and within a years time they would like to have the sequel out would that have made it any better?

[Cjskater]

I wasn't addressing the self-ownage thing. Just the part about comparing CoD and L4D. The W@W and L4D DLC comparison matters because one delivered on their promise and the other didn't and there's still another year - year and a half (most likely) before their game comes out. It's been a factor ever since companies made it a selling point.

If Valve said from the get that they are releasing L4D and within a years time they would like to have the sequel out would that have made it any better?

You bet your ass it would have. If they would have said "L4D will come out this year and each year we will release a new part of the series as a new game. We have no plans to add any additional content to L4D so what you see when you install is what you get." During which time they would have set MSRP at $20 most likely seeing is it's more episodic than a "service." I would have been "ok" with that, I'd still expect the patches and fixes (and vs on all campaigns) seeing as it is a Valve game. That isn't how it played out though of coarse and nobody expected it to happen at least until Source 2 (?) came out.

[ArchDizzle]

I wasn't addressing the self-ownage thing. Just the part about comparing CoD and L4D. The W@W and L4D DLC comparison matters because one delivered on their promise and the other didn't and there's still another year - year and a half (most likely) before their game comes out. It's been a factor ever since companies made it a selling point.


You bet your ass it would have. If they would have said "L4D will come out this year and each year we will release a new part of the series as a new game. We have no plans to add any additional content to L4D so what you see when you install is what you get." During which time they would have set MSRP at $20 most likely seeing is it's more episodic than a "service." I would have been "ok" with that, I'd still expect the patches and fixes (and vs on all campaigns) seeing as it is a Valve game. That isn't how it played out though of coarse and nobody expected it to happen at least until Source 2 (?) came out.

So before you buy a game you scour every source you can find compile everything the company has stated about what may/may not be featured as additional content somewhere down the line and that determines whether you buy the game or not? Doesn't matter if the game gets stellar reviews, great word of mouth from your friends, and regardless if you play a demo of the game or a copy a friend bought and love it, if the DL content doesn't seem up to par there is no way you will pick it up? Maybe your the exception but from what I have seen no one has been shafted by the amount of play time they got out of L4D, nowhere even close to saying it should be a $20 game, I agree that the survival pack content should have been in from the start, but I knew that it wasn't when I bought it, and was still ok with it I was happy when they added it and would be happy if there was another addition between now and L4D2 but it isn't that big of a deal. If a game releases for $60 and it isn't up to this generations standards, presentation/graphics/story/controls/glitches/enough content to make it last more then a few hours with no replay value, that is what I consider should be a $20 game, L4D doesn't fit anywhere in that category. Sure it could have had more and done more, that is why they are making a sequel it doesn't take away from the enjoyment people got from, people bitching act like the day before it was announced L4D was a great game all of a sudden the announcement of a sequel somehow makes the first one less of a game and now is garbage wtf. Did I miss somewhere where they said they were releasing a L4D title every year? I read where they plan for the series was to have 4 games totaling 16 characters to tie in at the end but that was about it.

[Kaisha]

One of the few things that bugs me about comparing L4D2 with the likes of other yearly-release games (ignoring sports) is that its a multiplayer-only title (you're joking me if you bought it to play with the bots) being sold at full price, where-as your average game typically has a full-on single-player campaign, a separate multiplayer mode with multiple game modes, and, as the current trend goes, a co-op campaign based typically on the single-player one, or a separate online game-mode altogether.

With L4D, all we got were 20 levels split into 4 campaigns, and 2 game modes (one added after the fact along with a single map, making the total of maps 21) based on those same maps, with little alterations made for balancing purposes, and that's it. There's not really much going on for the maps, other than the majority of the time spent fine-tuning it, and then fixing them when players find exploits. To be honest, I'm surprised it took them a full year to get L4D2 out, but perhaps they're just giving it the usual Valve polish, as they could have easily cranked it out in half the time, or are just barely giving L4D some breathing space to maximize sales on that before starting focus on selling L4D2.

Aside from crescendo events and AI pathfinding, L4D maps are pretty bare-bones in the scripting department (AI director helps make up for that downfall somewhat), making them faster to produce than say, a portion of a Halo3's campaign with all that scripted shit flying about and crap occuring to pass the story on and etc. L4D2 is either easy money for Valve, or perhaps they're really going to put some real effort towards it and add something 'special' to the campaigns and AI director in general (aside from Charger) that they've yet to unveil.

[Cjskater]

huge single paragraph

Would it be right of me to assume you are a console player? I just get that vibe from you and I'm curious.

Onto your huge paragraph: I research games I'm interested in, yes. You don't? You must make a lot of bad purchases. A very large amount of people I've talked to feel L4D wasn't worth the $50 price tag on PC much less the $60 price tag on Xbox. Those are the ones who got it for $25-30. Valve has even said in an interview I'm pretty sure that the majority of people who own L4D haven't even played it for 10hrs. Those are the ones who bought it during free/discount weekends and never touched it again.

You really do give off a major console player aura and it would explain why you have the view you do. I would honestly rather not keep this old tired debate going anyway.

[Metah]

Man L4D2 is gonna be sweet

Except the music

[ArchDizzle]

Would it be right of me to assume you are a console player? I just get that vibe from you and I'm curious.

Onto your huge paragraph: I research games I'm interested in, yes. You don't? You must make a lot of bad purchases. A very large amount of people I've talked to feel L4D wasn't worth the $50 price tag on PC much less the $60 price tag on Xbox. Those are the ones who got it for $25-30. Valve has even said in an interview I'm pretty sure that the majority of people who own L4D haven't even played it for 10hrs. Those are the ones who bought it during free/discount weekends and never touched it again.

You really do give off a major console player aura and it would explain why you have the view you do. I would honestly rather not keep this old tired debate going anyway.

Sorry for the long paragraphs, most of the time when I post I am doing so while driving. Yes I do research the games I buy and rarely do I make a bad purchase, but I research the game itself. When a developer makes a statement before a game comes out about there will be bla bla future DL content I don't consider that all in my decision to purchase the game because as I stated before most of the time there either A. Full of shit never deliver on content, B. It comes out to long after the game has lost its charm, C. Not worth the price they want for the little bit of BS content they give.

You are right I am a console player, I own a PS3, 360, PSP, & a DS and have forever, the only game I play/have played on PC is FFXI, I just prefer playing games on consoles. I am not biased or a fanboy of any of the major systems, I only don't own a Wii cause there is nothing that interests me on it. I don't see why that matters though, you say it like it's a fault but I just view it as a preference. Neither one is really superior to the other play on whatever system/pc you want doesn't make a difference to me.

These people you speak of who had those issues with L4D after purchasing it I would agree they have a justifiable reason to bitch for those reasons and it pertaining to a quick sequel. Problem is on most forums/reviews and people I play and talk with they were few and far between. L4D is far from perfect but it seem the majority of people played it and enjoyed it for what it was and everything was fine, my problem is when that miniority of people who had complaints about this game back when they bought it should express there problems with the sequel all of a sudden 30,000 people jump on the bandwagon and act like they have been saying the shit all along, well if you were we would have heard more about it before now.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree, and have no issues with people putting forth valid concerns and problems they see with the L4D sequel, but most of the people who are rallying against it aren't saying anything that makes sense.

I would still like to know what the hell this console aura is you speak of!

[Qalbert]

Plus in all honesty I would wager that 50% or more of the boycotters buy the game anyways.

[Cjskater]

It's pretty hard to explain without sounding like a jackass. PC gamers and Console gamers have hugely differing expectations. PC gamers generally want things fixed and they want it fixed in a timely manner. Console gamers would generally settle for getting anything at all. They seem to have a lot lower standards. I would probably blame Microsoft for the lacking content delivery system on that part though. PC gamers seem to be way more articulate than console gamers also. A PC gamer will scan just about everything regarding a game purchase while a console gamer will just read previews. Hardcore vs casual I guess.

For the most part: PC gamers are the ones outraged, not console gamers. That's not the whole reason I say you have a console gamer aura... it's probably like 20% of the reason if I had to give it a number. It's like talking to somebody from a different country, you can just tell.

[Qalbert]

Don't lump all console players together. I read anything I can find about a game assuming I hear about it before launch. In the case of L4D I just got a lot of money for xmas and a bunch of my friends played it.

[Cjskater]

Don't lump all console players together. I read anything I can find about a game assuming I hear about it before launch. In the case of L4D I just got a lot of money for xmas and a bunch of my friends played it.

I knew you was a console gamer too. XD Like I said, it's hard to explain without sounding like a jackass. We are just... different. Devs have explained this in interviews too. It was supposed to be more of a "majority of console players are like _______." and then the flipside for PC gamers. Not trying to lump every single console gamer and pc gamer into one huge generalization. Each platform has players that act like they are from the other... like the CS:S kiddies are really similar to Halo kiddies. >.>

Edit: Even without looking at the playerbase... you can tell how they will act. Microsoft makes you pay for DLC, makes you wait to receive said DLC (they have to approve), you get a limited amount that can be added with each DLC, patching is practically nonexistent, etc. PC is completely the opposite. Console players are shit on, that isn't some arguable opinion. Being shit on all the time you wont expect much.

[ArchDizzle]

Ok I see what you are saying, but I would not consider myself a casual gamer at all, when there is any game coming out I am interested in I spend a lot of time actually finding articles regarding previews of people who have had a chance to play early builds of the game as well as looking for articles from the devolpers to see what they have to say and how the game is coming along. I have been in video games for nearly 20years now and actually owned a couple of retail stores that centered around them. I agree consoles get shit on way more then PC but considering until this current generation really and maybe even the xbox patching/updating a game for consoles wasn't as easy as it was for PC's, now however the tides have turned and consoles should receive the same treatment that PC players get. Unfortunatly that won't happen as devolpers are set in there ways it seems and when you have been playing on consoles for so long you are right we don't expect it. My choice I guess for consoles has a lot to do with the fact I like to be able to relax on my couch and play on my 60" 1080p tv with a controller I prefer to use over keyboard/mouse (Every controller I have used on a PC seems to sooner rather then later start acting like shit). I agree with a lot of your post, but don't take my willingness to overlook patches/updates as a sign that I am a casual gamer.

[Qalbert]

Also I have it on both, seven rl friends play, 4 on 360, 3 on PC. So ha!

[zoobernut]

It's pretty hard to explain without sounding like a jackass. PC gamers and Console gamers have hugely differing expectations. PC gamers generally want things fixed and they want it fixed in a timely manner. Console gamers would generally settle for getting anything at all. They seem to have a lot lower standards. I would probably blame Microsoft for the lacking content delivery system on that part though. PC gamers seem to be way more articulate than console gamers also. A PC gamer will scan just about everything regarding a game purchase while a console gamer will just read previews. Hardcore vs casual I guess.

For the most part: PC gamers are the ones outraged, not console gamers. That's not the whole reason I say you have a console gamer aura... it's probably like 20% of the reason if I had to give it a number. It's like talking to somebody from a different country, you can just tell.

Everything you are spouting off is complete utter bull crap generalizations. There are people who like to think these kinds of things because well I don't honestly know... it makes them feel bigger or better about themselves?

Hardcore vs. Casual, articulate vs. inarticulate all have nothing to do with what platform you play.

There is a reason why it is hard for you to say what you are trying to say without coming off as a jackass, newsflash it is because it is a jackass retarded thing to say.

[Kerberoz]

When you type your sentences that way, you're just proving him right about the inarticulate point.

Yes, they are generalizations. They're also mostly true. Of course not everyone fits the stereotype, but a lot of people do. "For the most part" does not mean every single person.

Finding one person in Alabama with a higher IQ than one person in Connecticut doesn't prove that Alabamans have a higher IQ.
Finding one person playing Halo who doesn't stick the mic in their mouth and scream doesn't discount the other 500,000 who do.

[Cjskater]

@zoobernut: Hah. Are you honestly trying to tell me the average console gamer cares about how much AA their game has/can have? Or how much FPS the game will run at on their hardware? Are they going to track MP info on the latest game? I'll help you, that's a no. Generalizations are generalizations for a reason. PC gamers are way more likely to track any of that information. You'd probably make a fool of yourself if you tried to argue this.

It's called ignorance. Prove me wrong.

also this:

Even without looking at the playerbase... you can tell how they will act. Microsoft makes you pay for DLC, makes you wait to receive said DLC (they have to approve), you get a limited amount that can be added with each DLC, patching is practically nonexistent, etc. PC is completely the opposite. Console players are shit on, that isn't some arguable opinion. Being shit on all the time you wont expect much.

Edit: I should have refreshed, didn't see Kerberoz's reply.