Left 4 Dead 2 Message Board  

After Pre-Ordering Both games I dont think L4D2 was worth $50.
I think it should have been a DLC for L4D.

Not if you're here it has no blood or gore i cant tell if you actually hit them.

I'm fine with having it. But i actually didn't buy it wiht that price.

Yes because they could totally include:
All the new weapons,
All the new maps,
All the new A.I.
The new A.I. Director
All the new textures and skins
All the new zombies
All the new characters
The new source engine
In a single DLC when it offers the same amount of playability if not more thatn the first Left 4 Dead.

[Edited by NobleCrusader, 1/11/2010 9:36:44 PM]

it wasn't worth it. not to me.

I never played Left for Dead 1 before buying Left for Dead 2. So I enjoyed playing Left for dead 2 with no prior frame of reference. I liked it alot.

Then I bought Left for dead 1 for £6 from steam a few weeks later...played it...and I actually thought it was BETTER then left for dead 2 which was funny to me. The scenarios and the characters from L4D1 are better then in L4D2...I havent really completed either game yet, I just tend to pick up and play multiplayer when I am bored.

I didnt pay $50 for it I paid £26 which is around $40 (off the top of my head currency conversion, its almost $50 anyway), either way for then fun I had playing left for dead 2, I personally think the price tag is fair, although I do see what people are saying about L4D2 being an expansion of left for dead 1.

The first is better in a few ways, but the second was an experiment with a lot of their new things.

Director 2.0, different finale types, etc. But it does feel like a full game. And here is why (for the third time).

You have:
A full flowing story.
New playable characters.
Doubled amount of SI.
Almost tripled weapon supply.
Introduction of melee (with it's associated weapons)
A better variety of maps.
New game dynamics.
All new and expanded voice work.
Two new directors (infinite replayability).
New music cues.
New UI.

Putting the new characters and infected in the first game would leave players saying, "What the ****, how does this fit, this seems completely different."

Also, putting the new directors (ability to randomly spawn different weapons depending on multiple factors) into the old maps (which are not designed for this) would create a host of bugs.

L4D also has a bug which makes it increasingly hard to add new content to the game without a complete overhaul.

You want to access a second game from the UI of the first game. Why not do this with all sequels?

Also, I love the people who say, "This game is completely different!" (in a good or bad way). Then they say, "They should just put the two games together!"

What the hell? Combining two different things is like putting Fallout with Oblivion. Sure, the premise is the same, and they play the same way, but they have very little in common.

While we're at it, let's just cram all games of all genres into one game. Now we'll have, "Generic FPS: Combat Style" and "RTS: Command the Army".

I may have gotten carried away there, but you can see what I mean. Left 4 Dead 2 is not Left 4 Dead 1. Left 4 Dead 2 has too many new things. Could all of the DLC for Fallout 3 been released as a new game? No, because it ADDS ON to the Misc. Quests. Left 4 Dead 2 has all the elements of a complete game, and none of the elements of DLC. Crash Course is DLC. L4D2 is a new game.

I vote no for several reasons.

Most of this is in defense of my opinion and directed at Zeth_Durron's difficult-to-swallow "argument" to the validity of releasing Left 4 Dead 2 as a separate game.

The look, feel, action, environment, goals, etc. are exactly the same as the first game. There are some differences; none of which could individually require a separate game to implement.

The idea that bugs are a valid reason for making l4d2 a new and separate game is silly. The elimination of bugs is the main reason for patching any application. (Why should a poorly implemented DLC capability be corrected when one can disguise a potential expansion as a completely separate game?) If you'll recall, the single player campaign is called a campaign (ironic isn't it). Some RTS's come with many campaigns; others, a few; still others, only one. Quite a few games offer the ability to add campaigns, via 3rd party mods, expansions, etc.

You referenced the DLC for Fallout, some of which didn't even (technically) happen in the same world as the original campaign (simulations, spaceships, et al), but they were still DLC and built on the core mechanics of the original game.

L4D2 is NO different. The director 2.0 you tout is no different than another set of scripts run when a level is played through. This is not a difficult task for a game designer to implement. This level automatically runs this set of scripts, plot data, actors, weapons, models, etc., etc.. Unless the designers were complete retards, it is no problem at all to change (with the original tools, of course) what set of scripts and resources are used in any given level.

Now if there needed to be significant engine changes in order to facilitate the depth of new features they planned for the new campaign, then they could easily have versioned up to a 1.5 or something to communicate the significant differences between the feature-set of the original and the updated in preparation for an expansion DLC.

Sure there are new weapons, and melee. Arguably these should have been in the first already. Why not patch this into the 1.5 as a bonus of getting the expansion? then customers could use new weapons in the original campaign, melee, etc.

Sure there are new locations, new gameplay types. Level differences and scripts. Absolutely not a reason for a new game.

A new UI, on the other hand, is pretty much required if you're going to make a new game. Mainly to address complaints and prevent confusion among players about which game they might be playing. It, in-and-of-itself, is no reason at all to make a new game. UI's go through several revisions during testing anyway. An expansion could change the UI, if only to signify it's presence or address problems with a prior one.

For the most part, Left 4 Dead is exactly the same as Left 4 Dead 2, except for a few superfluous differences: characters, locations, and features available to the player. Any expansion, DLC could add those differences. The plot is the same: zombie apocalypse. The mechanics are the same: kill zombies, using weapons and teamwork to survive. The universe is identical, save for different locations in the same country. There are new features in l4d2; this does not a new game make. New characters and locations do not make a new game, either. A new chapter or campaign, perhaps.

I can see doing it on the basis of extreme quality differences such as: 3x spoken dialog; higher-res textures and models on everything; 4x as many polys everywhere; new, more realistic, natural environment algorithms all around; use anything in the environment as a weapon, even the enemy. I would consider at least 2 of any of those necessary to qualify for a new game, versus an medium-larger expansion. Realistically, L4D2 didn't come close on any of those points.

I hold fast to the idea that Valve released it as a separate game simply to make more money. DLC could probably fetch $30 tops from customers, while a new game would go for $50. Less work for them, for more money in return. Let's call it greed—or capitalism, if you prefer.