Left 4 Dead 2

So, I was looking forward to this tremendously. Pretty much the entire gaming press has been slobbering all over this game, and I really liked the first one, so I was eager to check out the demo.

But is it just me, or was it kind of... meh? I thought it was just more of the same. The melee weapons were kind of cool, but I thought the new zombie types were nothing special at all — kind of dull, actually. I thought the atmosphere of the level they gave you left a lot to be desired, too. Maybe it's because it's during the day, but I felt like there was no paranoia or oppressive feeling like there was in the first game.

This was gonna be a day one buy for me, but now I think I'm gonna pass. Maybe I'll get it when it's cheap sometime next year. I doubt it though, since I don't think anyone will be playing it then, and if you can't get any games going, it'd be pointless to pick it up, I think. We'll see.

I don't suppose anyone agrees with me?

I agree with you.

I tried the demo and it felt like more of the same.

Of course I tried it solo, L4D shines when played with friends.

I passed on the 1st game and always ment to pick it up but now im waiting for this title. I played the demo and I loved it, I have never played the 1st game and really enjoyed this. I a big valve fan and ill be picking this up for sure when it comes out.

I pre-ordered it (4-pack) and think the demo is awesome. The new special infected are awesome - the charger is especially fun when the survivors are out in the open and you drag one far away, it's like the smoker but more effective at ground-level.

It's alright, it's just more of the same with different things. I did like the throwable Boomer Bile as an item. I tried throwing it on a witch and no zombies came out to attack her. It sucks in the demo that they don't let you have the fire ammo (unless I'm missing it) and I wanted to try a chainsaw, but the skillet and machete are alright.

I know I don't usually care much for stories but I kinda wanted to see them tie the game with the first one. I hear there's a rumor the cast from the first game will be in it in one way, so hopefully they can bring the two together. I hope Left 4 Dead 3 would be both teams of survivors and eight player multiplayer.

I feel the same way. I played the demo and was left with a, "wow, Left 4 Dead with new people" feeling that I couldn't shake. A friend of mine mentioned the bile grenade that kind of got me interested again, but I don't know. Doesn't seem like a $60 game to me.

Even though I think there's enough new stuff in the game, I really don't see what the problem is with 'more of the same' considering how awesome the first game is.

Decapitating and chopping zombies in half with the machete is fucking great.

As far as the daytime setting of the demo not giving you any real sense of fear, I can agree with that, but I hear the ai director now has control of the weather and can make it pour rain making visibility terrible and when it happens you cant see the outline of teammates. I'm thinking that'll turn things crazy in an instant. Plus I think most of the rest of the game is at night.

TerryMasters said:

Doesn't seem like a $60 game to me.

Click to expand...

Yea that's why I paid $33.75

I got to live out my Guitar Wolf fantasies when I picked up the guitar and started beating on zombies.

TerryMasters said:

I feel the same way. I played the demo and was left with a, "wow, Left 4 Dead with new people" feeling that I couldn't shake. A friend of mine mentioned the bile grenade that kind of got me interested again, but I don't know. Doesn't seem like a $60 game to me.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't think it was bad at all, but I'm certainly not ready to blow $60 on it, not when there are so many other quality titles I could get instead. If by some miracle I desperately want a new game that soon, I think I'll get Ratchet and Clank instead.

And I know people have said this before.... But why not just add new campaigns and new weapons to L4D1? That game's still got some legs left. I guess Valve didn't want to alter their policy about charging for DLC content (as far as the PC goes... I'm still mad about the 360 side of it).

In the end, though, I'll probably forgive Valve anything when Half-Life 2: Episode 3 comes out.

butta said:

Yea that's why I paid $33.75

Click to expand...

VALVe is really smart with their marketing. Selling co-op games in 4-packs is a great idea, especially given people's concern about paying the full $50 for a quick sequel. I'm really glad they do it (always got some friends to buy with).

Sucks though for the people that don't have a graphics card and have to pay nearly twice as much for a gimpo version. I bet VALVe makes about the same amount of money from either, given they have to go through EA and Microsoft for the 360 version.

Played the demo. Felt like it should have been the DLC expansion they originally planned it to be. Pass.

Played the demo. nothing new but i´ll buy it anyway.
liked the feel of the new weapons,sound and gore. and i´m sure there will be some "night" set pieces. Split screen seems a bit better."Realism" mode looks fun also.
Day one purchase even tough i´m still not tired of the first game.

My impression of the demo (played on Xbox 360

The graphics seem somewhat improved.

The new weapons are fun to try out. One of my big complaints about the first one was the lack of weaponry. Hope the retail build will have even more weapons.

The level designs felt somewhat linear. I know that this is part and parcel of any FPS campaign mode, but some games manage to avoid this perception and others seem to fall right into it. Perhaps because it's simply 'run and shoot' without any other objectives.

Fighting in the daylight was pretty strange but not very good for the mood of this type of game. Fighting indoors in the dark was more atmospheric and intense.

The new infecteds were fine with me. Variety is always good.

The delivery and approach seemed to be more along the lines of Dead Rising or Planet Terror, where everything was presented with a tongue in cheek feel. I enjoy Dead Rising and Planet Terror for what they are, but I preferred the more frightening, less schlocky delivery of the first game from the standpoint of playing a FPS, where they're trying to create the sense that I am in that world through the use of a first person camera perspective.

It was great once again seeing the wall writing in the safehouses in the demo. Things like this are what separate great games from good ones. Good games are fun and playable. Great games possess these things and also establish their own identity in the process.

For me, the biggest problem with the demo was that the infected just kept coming. You could never clear areas and create that false sense of security and safety because the threat was always there. In the first game you could clear an area and be moving along cautiously, but eventually you would hear those familiar horns in the OST and it's 'here come the bad guys.' As a gamer, I knew that any sense of safety I created was only momentary in the first one, but the game wisely let me establish that before taking it away from me. It was more of an 'oh shit!' moment, when every attempt to protect one's self is only temporary and you know the collapse is coming. I think all survival horror genre offerings should have this aspect to them. In the demo for L4D2, that build up of tension never existed-the infected were always there so that element of creeping suspense never came to me.

I think that for any survival horror/post apocalyptic zombie game, I need this emotional stimulus. In a FPS game based on zombies, if I don't have that emotional element and all I'm playing it for is the gameplay, I might be better served playing a more robust FPS based in a different genre.

All of that said, I'll be buying the game on day one. I have four games coming out that day (Assassin's Creed II, Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles, Left 4 Dead 2 and God Of War collection), and I've kind of been saving my money for this huge week. At this point, I think I've anticipated that week as some kind of mini-holiday for myself, so I'm locked in. The demo didn't really deter me from purchasing the game, so I'm staying the course.

genjiglove said:

I got to live out my Guitar Wolf fantasies when I picked up the guitar and started beating on zombies.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing!

I found the machete to be more entertaining though.

I really like the addition of the melee weapons. I never use my pistol anyway.

Just a heads up, it's going to be $39.99 @ K-Mart on Black Friday, possibly other places as well. I'll probably wait to pick it up then as MW2 is a day one for me.

Nothing else on the horizon that's catching my interest, so these will probalby be the only two games for the holiday season I'll be picking up.

subcons said:

Just a heads up, it's going to be $39.99 @ K-Mart on Black Friday, possibly other places as well. I'll probably wait to pick it up then as MW2 is a day one for me.

Nothing else on the horizon that's catching my interest, so these will probalby be the only two games for the holiday season I'll be picking up.

Click to expand...

Not to go off topic, but MW2 comes out at midnight tonight pretty much everywhere, right?

You guys really think there's not enough new stuff to warrant a new game?

5 new campaigns with multiple paths
3 new special infected (plus the lady boomer and the wandering witch)
5 new regular infected
melee weapons
new guns
new ammo types
new supplies (defib, boomer bile, etc)
ai director now has control of level layout, lighting, and weather

Seems pretty good to me for a sequel. Or is the issue that it's being released a year after the first instead of 2-3 years?

butta said:

You guys really think there's not enough new stuff to warrant a new game?

5 new campaigns
3 new special infected (plus the lady boomer and the wandering witch)
5 new regular infected
melee weapons
new guns
new ammo types
new supplies (defib, boomer bile, etc)

Seems pretty good to me for a sequel. Or is the issue that it's being released a year after the first instead of 2-3 years?

Click to expand...

There is an okay amount of new content, but the game itself plays exactly the same as its predecessor. There is pretty much no innovation to how the actual mechanics work (even the new special infected work in ways we've seen before — the jockey is like a hunter that's more mobile, the charger is like a mini tank, and the spitter shoots molotovs at you, sort of). I can't say I expected them to reinvent the wheel or anything, but I just don't see why I should pay sixty dollars for pretty much the same thing a year later. It wouldn't make any difference to me if this came out a year or more later — my issue is that it's the same exact game.

HeartlessNinny said:

There is an okay amount of new content, but the game itself plays exactly the same as its predecessor. There is pretty much no innovation to how the actual mechanics work (even the new special infected work in ways we've seen before — the jockey is like a hunter that's more mobile, the charger is like a mini tank, and the spitter shoots molotovs at you, sort of). I can't say I expected them to reinvent the wheel or anything, but I just don't see why I should pay sixty dollars for pretty much the same thing a year later. It wouldn't make any difference to me if this came out a year or more later — my issue is that it's the same exact game.

Click to expand...

Pretty much every sequel plays exactly the same as its predecessor or at least very close to it.

butta said:

You guys really think there's not enough new stuff to warrant a new game?

5 new campaigns with multiple paths
3 new special infected (plus the lady boomer and the wandering witch)
5 new regular infected
melee weapons
new guns
new ammo types
new supplies (defib, boomer bile, etc)
ai director now has control of level layout, lighting, and weather

Seems pretty good to me for a sequel. Or is the issue that it's being released a year after the first instead of 2-3 years?

Click to expand...

The specific reason I don't think this warrants a sequal is because of how short and incomplete the original was at a full price tag with the promise to fill it out over time with the things you mentioned above. Its bait and switch.

butta said:

Pretty much every sequel plays exactly the same as its predecessor or at least very close to it.

Click to expand...

Very close is not exactly the same, and vice versa. And most games don't recycle the same enemies, items, etc. Comparing this sequel to all other sequels is a silly premise.

Short and incomplete? Are we playing the same game? I've put countless hours into the game and it's still fresh. I guess you could put it on easy and fly through the entire game in a few hours on single player, but I really don't see an incomplete game there.

I don't remember the promise of all that stuff being added to the first game, got a link where valve says that? Regardless it wouldnt be the first time a developer didnt keep a promise and even though it took a while, we still got a new gametype and a new campaign along with finally getting the sdk.

But hey if you guys want to pass on an excellent game because for whatever reason you feel entitled to getting cheaper dlc instead, fine by me. It's just about as dumb as the argument that SSF4 should be dlc.

UGH

HeartlessNinny said:

Very close is not exactly the same, and vice versa. And most games don't recycle the same enemies, items, etc. Comparing this sequel to all other sequels is a silly premise.

Click to expand...

Except L4D2 gameplay falls into the category of being very close to the same, since it sure isnt exactly the same. Not to mention you're basing your opinion on a short two level demo. where obviously lots of things are not shown.

Also most sequels don't recycle some of the same enemies and items? Are you serious? Talk about silly...

butta said:

Pretty much every sequel plays exactly the same as its predecessor or at least very close to it.

Click to expand...

I think it was released too fast.

Two years is a pretty good cycle for stuff like this, particularly when the whole crux of the game is essentially online play. In the meantime they could have released a couple DLC add-on campaigns.

I mean surely the original L4D was still selling?

butta said:

Except L4D2 gameplay falls into the category of being very close to the same, since it sure isnt exactly the same. Not to mention you're basing your opinion on a short two level demo. where obviously lots of things are not shown.

Also most sequels don't recycle some of the same enemies and items? Are you serious? Talk about silly...

Click to expand...

They use the exact same weapons and enemies, and add a couple new ones. If, like me, you don't find the new stuff all that innovative, the game will seem stale. This is the crux of what I'm saying. If you disagree, that's one thing, but you clearly don't understand why this game is not like what I would call a quality sequel. If you want to nitpick about minute details and claim they make the sequel different, that's your business, but to my eye (and to many others it seems), this is the same exact game over again.

Again. I never said I thought this was a bad game, I just think it's a tough sell to try and get me to plunk down another sixty bucks on it when it doesn't feel like a new game at all, but rather an expansion of an old one. If you think it's a good deal, by all means pick it up. It matters little to me. My opinion is only that, you can ignore it if you like, I don't mind. Really.

P.S. I think basing an opinion on a demo is perfectly valid. Last I checked, that was the point of having a demo in the first place. If a developer doesn't want me to form an opinion based on a demo, they shouldn't release it. They're inviting you to form an opinion. That's what it's for.