Left 4 Dead 2 announced. Release date 11.17.2009

[Uosdwis R. Dewoh]

L4D came out last November and they're announcing a sequel already? I guess there's no official expansions coming to the original L4D. I'm still playing the first L4D, why couldn't Valve announce Episode 3 instead?

Link to teaser. Warning, lots of blood and gore.
http ://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/49967?type=flv

[MOIDALIZE]

I was just going to link this.

This seems very unlike Valve. I smell the taint of EA.

[Spurious George]

I smell the taint.....


Aggggh! Mental picture.... it is unwanted!

[Lute Skywatcher]

L4D2? Sounds like an astromech droid.

[Uosdwis R. Dewoh]

Here (http://www.l4dmods.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153:left-4-dead-2-announced&catid=2:news&Itemid=82) is an article that goes into some of the gameplay changes we can expect from L4D2. There's also links to some gameplay videos. I can't see much difference to the first L4D in terms of graphics, but the environments seem to be larger. The new melee weapons seem cool and the fire ammo is awesome, but this feels more like an expansion pack than a whole new game.

[Revtim]

I agree it looks like an expansion pack.

[tr0psn4j]

Has technology changed that much in this last year to warrant a sequel already?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Here (http://www.l4dmods.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153:left-4-dead-2-announced&catid=2:news&Itemid=82) is an article that goes into some of the gameplay changes we can expect from L4D2. There's also links to some gameplay videos. I can't see much difference to the first L4D in terms of graphics, but the environments seem to be larger. The new melee weapons seem cool and the fire ammo is awesome, but this feels more like an expansion pack than a whole new game.

It needed it. I don't know why they didn't put out more content or release this like Rockstar released The Lost And the Damned (and the upcoming extra scenario, too). I'm guessing that this means there's something about the mechanics that they figured out post release that wasn't easily patchable. Either that or they wanted more cash.

Either way, this is a good thing. Left 4 Dead is pretty stale now.

[HPL]

I second the OP in that L4D2 but still no Episode 3?

I mean, L4D is awesome, but at some point they're eventually going to have to start on Episode 3.

[Interconnected Series of Tubes]

Both Left 4 Dead 2 and Call of Duty 4...2.. (?) elicit huge :rolleyes: from me.

As a massive Valve fanboy, this disappoints me.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Both Left 4 Dead 2 and Call of Duty 4...2.. (?) elicit huge :rolleyes: from me.

As a massive Valve fanboy, this disappoints me.

I empathize, but such is life.

[Captain_C]

I'm still waiting for them to release a full game's work of content for the first one. I'll be damned if I am paying again for what should have been released at launch.

[Uosdwis R. Dewoh]

Here (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/50350?type=flv) is (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/50348?type=flv) some more gameplay videos. Lots of wide open spaces. The Boomer and the Tank are screwed.

[SenorBeef]

I second the OP in that L4D2 but still no Episode 3?


It's a seperate development team for the most part - it probably isn't hugely affecting the development of ep 3.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Here (http://www.l4dmods.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153:left-4-dead-2-announced&catid=2:news&Itemid=82) is an article that goes into some of the gameplay changes we can expect from L4D2. There's also links to some gameplay videos. I'm irritated that they're not expanding L4D, and they'll want more money from me for this. But it looks so cool, I'll probably fork it over. (Though you know what? It would be nice if they gave a discount to current owners of the first game.) But it does look like a lot of fun.

Case in point: in the first video linked in that blog post, there's a nifty Arrested Development reference: "Shoot the guy in the $3000 suit? Come on!" :)

And then there's the tanks redneck cousin, the Charger. Love his overalls.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Here (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/50350?type=flv) is (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/50348?type=flv) some more gameplay videos. Lots of wide open spaces. The Boomer and the Tank are screwed.

Well, the Boomer and Tank, as we know them, at least.

[Roulette]

Ok, first off, I love l4d. If it's current version had been the initial release, the game would have been nearly perfect.

It could have stood a minor expansion down the line though. 1 or 2 more full campaigns 6 months after release. Instead, we just got a what we should have had from the start.

That said... The game cost me $50. A lot of peopel got it cheaper on one of valve's low cost deals. I've put in well over 100 hours playing it. Probably closer to 250 hours. Yes, I'm a game-addict, but this game was a LOT of fun. Even if you assume 100 hours, it works out to 50 cents an hour. Not bad bang for my buck. And it's a long time until l4d2 is releas3ed, so I'll rack up a lot more time in l4d.

So, I'll buy l4d 2. I mean, based on it's predecessor, it's looking to be a solid value. I'd rather it was an expansion pack or something, but at the same time, I don't know what they're doing under the covers. They claim they've made major changes to the AI director, including the ability for it to alter the route by closing off paths to force the survivors down longer or shorter routes. They're also altering the size of the levels to be larger and more open. That may require an overhaul of the engine in order to process those changes and still be available on the fairly wide range of hardware that the original is supported on.

We'll see. They're claiming a November release date. Dunno how realistic that is. those of us with past experience with valve time know how fluid that date can be.

Either way, I hope most of the SDMB players will join me in the new game. Damn shame to break up the amount of fun we're having.

[mswas]

Has technology changed that much in this last year to warrant a sequel already?

It's interesting how people see sequel in terms of game engine rather than story.

[Captain_C]

It's interesting how people see sequel in terms of game engine rather than story.

I think the idea is that a new story could easily be done with an expansion pack to the current game, which is very lacking in the number of maps and content. An entirely new game generally has a graphics upgrade.

[Interconnected Series of Tubes]

I wonder if this is the end of Valve's perfect-game-with-infinite-replay-value business model; the contemplation saddens me. This continued trend of sequelphilia has really negatively impacted the quality of games, I think.

This leaves Blizzard the lone champion of the we-actually-beta-test golden oldies, how unfortunate.

[nikonikosuru]

I enjoyed L4D but I'm a bit saddened at the idea of L4D2 already coming out, almost exactly a year after the first one, when it seems like they barely gave us L4D in its entirety, holding out on the last two VS chapters until the last "update" and giving us "tons of new levels" which were just the same levels on Survivor Mode.
I'm intrigued by the new melee weapons but they'll need more than just that and a different environment to get me to buy the game at another $50.

[Uosdwis R. Dewoh]

Ok, first off, I love l4d. If it's current version had been the initial release, the game would have been nearly perfect.
<snip>
Either way, I hope most of the SDMB players will join me in the new game. Damn shame to break up the amount of fun we're having.
You're absolutely right. I guess I can't complain. I more than got my monies worth from L4D. In fact, looking at my statistics, I've played L4D a disturbingly large amount.

That said, there really isn't much content in the game. It's the quality of the friends list that determine how enjoyable L4D is. If I were stuck to playing pub games, I'd be pissed off about the sequel.

[Roulette]

You're absolutely right. I guess I can't complain. I more than got my monies worth from L4D. In fact, looking at my statistics, I've played L4D a disturbingly large amount.

That said, there really isn't much content in the game. It's the quality of the friends list that determine how enjoyable L4D is. If I were stuck to playing pub games, I'd be pissed off about the sequel.

That's a very good point. I have some friends from Unreal Tournament who came along to l4d with me. Even that alone wouldn't have really been worth it. We play often, but not nearly often enough for my addiction. When I saw the thread here about it and joined the SDMB group on Steam, that really pushed me over the edge. It meant that I could find a game pretty much any night of the week between my UT friends, my co-workers, and the people here.

The list really helped. That said, I also met some great new players just in pubs too. If you play through co-op you're working with them for about an hour, and that's enough to decide that someone is worth marking on your friends list.

Either way, a crappy friends list, or inability to socialize would make the game have a lot less replay value.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I wonder if this is the end of Valve's perfect-game-with-infinite-replay-value business model; the contemplation saddens me. This continued trend of sequelphilia has really negatively impacted the quality of games, I think.

This leaves Blizzard the lone champion of the we-actually-beta-test golden oldies, how unfortunate.

I disagree. Also, other developers beta-test.


I kinda find it fun that people are realizing that multiplayer can be a better platform for a game than single player mode can.

[Roulette]

Can be. But, I caveat that with the nature of the game and it's playing population. For example, more competitive games tend to bring out the worst in the player population. L4D is good because the nature of the game is to work together with the survivors. Even in versus you have to work with the other infected as a team.

No matter what, single players games will always hold a different type of attraction for me. Sometimes I just like being anti-social, plugging in my music and being alone inside my own little gaming world for a few hours. Multi-player is great, but it's not always what I'm looking for.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Can be. But, I caveat that with the nature of the game and it's playing population. For example, more competitive games tend to bring out the worst in the player population. L4D is good because the nature of the game is to work together with the survivors. Even in versus you have to work with the other infected as a team.

No matter what, single players games will always hold a different type of attraction for me. Sometimes I just like being anti-social, plugging in my music and being alone inside my own little gaming world for a few hours. Multi-player is great, but it's not always what I'm looking for.

Certainly. Some folks might like a game, but aren't very good at it, so they might feel overwhelmed. Some people also might not care and want to play for fun. Either way, and even extreme and in-between cases, all have a place online and are having big fun doing so. I'm a big proponent in playing with groups of people you know, for going in alone can be a pain in the ass.

[Uosdwis R. Dewoh]

Here (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/51030) is some high quality direct-feed gameplay videos from the PC version. The game looks pretty good and not as cartoony as the low quality videos had me believe.

A versus strategy that immediately comes to mind is for one player, after taking the incendiary ammo, to switch to pistols. When the tank appears, the player switches to incendiary ammo and shoots the tank on fire. Easy as apple pie.

[Roulette]

the incendiary ammo is questionable to me. It may be ok for co-op, but for versus, it's going to present some serious effort to overcome, no matter how limited it's supply is. Only counter to it I've heard is the zombies in hazmat suits can't be ignited. That's something, but I can't imagine it's a big enough counter to offset the benefits of having said ammo.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I'm not a huge fan of the silenced UZI. Seriously, how many silencers are there laying around out there just in case there is a zombie uprising? Just seems out of place to me. Seems like they changed it just to change it. The only potential benefit the the silencer would be if they made zombies attracted to gunfire instead of just alarms and sirens.

[Uosdwis R. Dewoh]

The silencer is just a design choice, it has no real function in the game. The gun in question is a MAC-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac-10) and the silencer was apparently a selling point when it came out.

[Interconnected Series of Tubes]

Here (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/51030) is some high quality direct-feed gameplay videos from the PC version. The game looks pretty good and not as cartoony as the low quality videos had me believe.

Really? To me, the gameplay looked identical, the graphics marginally improved (player models and animations don't seem to have been upgraded?) but most disappointingly, a complete lack of atmosphere. Jaunting down daylit streets mowing down thin herds of mindless people does not a survival horror apocalypse make. I tend to be quick to judge though, so we'll see - maybe the darker interior settings gave it a little more fear. The incendiary ammo was retarded and I'm not sold on the reskinned uzi - er, MAC10.

Valve has always been fantastic at odd, subtle, unease-inducing creepiness. L4D captured this perfectly with the vague piano crescendos, the fake-you-out swarm music, the occasional zombie simply leaning against the wall oblivious or vomiting in agony. Even Portal made you squirm a little more each level.

Eh. Disappointing, really.

[Merijeek]

Here (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/50350?type=flv) is (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/50348?type=flv) some more gameplay videos. Lots of wide open spaces. The Boomer and the Tank are screwed.

Here's a wacky idea, and since I'm not a massive FPS player like a lot of folks, maybe someone can explain it to me...

I, as a human being, can run. Sure I choose not to a lot of the time, but that's laziness.

Anyways, I can run. I can walk. Forward. Want to see me walk backwards? I can do it. Want to see me walk very quickly backwards? I can do that too. Want to watch me run backwards? I might manage it for a bit, but I'll probably end up on my ass. Want me to run backwards under attack and firing 10 shotgun rounds in a few seconds? I'm sure I'll be on my ass even faster.

So, regarding this and every other FPS game I've ever seen...why can't they just make the FPS where you can WALK backwards and not run? Doesn't that make a hell of a lot of sense?

(this rant inspired by full-health tanks not being able to catch people backpedaling while firing an M-16 full-auto)

-Joe

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Here's a wacky idea, and since I'm not a massive FPS player like a lot of folks, maybe someone can explain it to me...

I, as a human being, can run. Sure I choose not to a lot of the time, but that's laziness.

Anyways, I can run. I can walk. Forward. Want to see me walk backwards? I can do it. Want to see me walk very quickly backwards? I can do that too. Want to watch me run backwards? I might manage it for a bit, but I'll probably end up on my ass. Want me to run backwards under attack and firing 10 shotgun rounds in a few seconds? I'm sure I'll be on my ass even faster.

So, regarding this and every other FPS game I've ever seen...why can't they just make the FPS where you can WALK backwards and not run? Doesn't that make a hell of a lot of sense?

(this rant inspired by full-health tanks not being able to catch people backpedaling while firing an M-16 full-auto)

-Joe


Don't push the thumbstick back as far.

[Merijeek]

Don't push the thumbstick back as far.

I play on the PC so I don't use the thumbstick.

Either way, you totally missed my point. The ability of the human players to backpedal as quickly as they can move forward is stupid and it has a huge negative effect on the game. I would like to know the reason that the games implement things like this in that way.

-Joe

[SenorBeef]

I agree that it would be more interesting if you had to make a decision between turning around and running forward quickly or backing away slowly. Running back full speed while unloading an autoshotty is very gamey.

[Gukumatz]

The silencer is just a design choice, it has no real function in the game. The gun in question is a MAC-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac-10) and the silencer was apparently a selling point when it came out.

The Mac-10 is also a terrible gun, both in and of itself, and also as a design decision.

The gun itself can discharge it's entire (32 round .380/.45ACP) magazine in about 1.5 seconds at full auto. It's wildly uncontrollable during full auto. It had very short range - even short bursts were only accurate up to maybe 25 metres. It had insufficient stopping power, it was heavy (2.8 kg empty, aproximately the same as a fully fledged MP5) and the parts were among the least durable in production. It's a gun fitted to a very, very specialized niche - task force urban combat where low levels of penetration and relative silence were important. As a battlefield mainstay, it would be utter shite.

If the game reflects reality, it'll only be decent for point-blank rush denial, but with the low penetration and the high rate of fire, you're probably just going to fill the front ranks and then run out.

[Palooka]

So, regarding this and every other FPS game I've ever seen...why can't they just make the FPS where you can WALK backwards and not run? Doesn't that make a hell of a lot of sense? They can, but gameplay is better this was because it discourages the survivors from camping and slowing things down. Survivor runs are too long as it is on some maps and 5 maps is too many, especially with finales.

They need to get down from one hour matches to 15 - 25 minutes.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I play on the PC so I don't use the thumbstick.

Either way, you totally missed my point. The ability of the human players to backpedal as quickly as they can move forward is stupid and it has a huge negative effect on the game. I would like to know the reason that the games implement things like this in that way.

-Joe

Balance. Also, if you've average, then almost 50% of people could conceivably run backwards faster and in a more adept manner than you could.

[Merijeek]

They can, but gameplay is better this was because it discourages the survivors from camping and slowing things down. Survivor runs are too long as it is on some maps and 5 maps is too many, especially with finales.

They need to get down from one hour matches to 15 - 25 minutes.

Being able to run backwards at full speed helps reduce camping? I don't see how that follows at all.

Balance. Also, if you've average, then almost 50% of people could conceivably run backwards faster and in a more adept manner than you could.

Balance? What balance is that? How does it balance anything?

It doesn't matter if I'm the worst in the world at it, someone running backwards at full speed is going to trip and fall over something in a zombie-infested post-apocalypse wasteland. How good I, personally, am at it has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

-Joe

[Palooka]

If you can't kite a tank, you'd need to camp some area that'd let you kill it.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Being able to run backwards at full speed helps reduce camping? I don't see how that follows at all.



Balance? What balance is that? How does it balance anything?

It doesn't matter if I'm the worst in the world at it, someone running backwards at full speed is going to trip and fall over something in a zombie-infested post-apocalypse wasteland. How good I, personally, am at it has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

-Joe

If a Tank could easily overcome you, the Tank would be overpowered.

[SenorBeef]

You could still run forward to outrun the tanks, and then your teammates would be the ones attacking it. You'd have to coordinate and communicate better rather than just holding down the move back key and the fire button. It'd feel more real and be better for the game.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

You could still run forward to outrun the tanks, and then your teammates would be the ones attacking it. You'd have to coordinate and communicate better rather than just holding down the move back key and the fire button. It'd feel more real and be better for the game.

Dude. There are zombies. Claims of something being more real or not are jettisoned after that.

Although, I would bet that this is going to be one of the changes in the sequel.

[SenorBeef]

I know, so let's make the players be able to jump 30 feet high, right? That wouldn't ruin the illusion of some degree of reality, because there are already zombies!

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I know, so let's make the players be able to jump 30 feet high, right? That wouldn't ruin the illusion of some degree of reality, because there are already zombies!

If it's balanced, why not?

[SenorBeef]

Because it ruins the illusion that you're in a horror flick, which is what they seem to be going for. Sure, you could give everyone super powers and let them shoot magical fireballs out their dicks but then it's a different game.

Clearly the designers are going for a feeling of some degree of realism, even with zombies. Good speculative fiction usually requires the reader to accept one major unusual or impossible premise and run with it. There's no reason everything else has to go out the window because you're asked to accept one improbable premise.

Besides that, it'd be good game design. The game is about cooperation and communication, right? Forcing you turn away from a tank to escape it forces your teammates to have your back and communicate to you about what the tank is doing. It's a more satisfying game experience than hitting runback+fire.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Because it ruins the illusion that you're in a horror flick, which is what they seem to be going for. Sure, you could give everyone super powers and let them shoot magical fireballs out their dicks but then it's a different game.

Clearly the designers are going for a feeling of some degree of realism, even with zombies. Good speculative fiction usually requires the reader to accept one major unusual or impossible premise and run with it. There's no reason everything else has to go out the window because you're asked to accept one improbable premise.

Besides that, it'd be good game design. The game is about cooperation and communication, right? Forcing you turn away from a tank to escape it forces your teammates to have your back and communicate to you about what the tank is doing. It's a more satisfying game experience than hitting runback+fire.

I think you're right with what they should do, but not for your reasons.

[SenorBeef]

Ok, so you don't think the change should be made for aesthetic, realism, or gameplay reasons - are you attempting to satisfy the complaints of the people who have a fetish for walking backwards and think that the game doesn't do enough to model it properly?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Ok, so you don't think the change should be made for aesthetic, realism, or gameplay reasons - are you attempting to satisfy the complaints of the people who have a fetish for walking backwards and think that the game doesn't do enough to model it properly?



You got it, tiger. The Walking-Backwards lobby is a powerful one. Perhaps you should watch what you say...

[Palooka]

L4D shouldn't be realistic or like a horror movie. It should be entertaining to watch and to play competitive esport-capable game.

Nothing indicates that they're going in that direction with L4D2, but I haven't seen any versus information so maybe they are. More stats tracking would be cool.