News screenshots, new infected Making all those boycott members look just that bit sillier, Valve's unveiled another Left 4 Dead 2 campaign including a brand new special infected, new common infected and items.... read more
I'll stick to the original left 4 dead thanks, all these new special infected will ruin versus mode imo, only thing that looks good in l4d2 to me is the limb dismemberment, and i'm not paying £30 for that.
Looks a bit like the swamp section from House of the Dead: Overkill on Wii. Perhaps they could put some funky grindhouse music on this and give us a HOTD off-the-rails experience! Looking good so far.
i think its effing stupid that people are still doubting and boycotting this game, like above. I give them a week after release before all those nay sayers cave at the awesomeness that will be L4D-2!
"I'll stick to the original left 4 dead thanks, all these new special infected will ruin versus mode imo"
How can you possibly think that without even playing it? If Valve have included them, it is probably because of extensive play and research into it. They had some other enemy instead of the Tank orginally planned for the 1st but cut it as the Tank was better. Seriously, writing off games before playing them or reading a review is something of a mystery to me, especially from a developer such as Valve.
Can't wait for this, especially as I am not going to pay £55 for MW2.
Well I'll be buying Fifa10, which isn't remarkably different to Fifa09.
What Valve are doing is no different with L4D2 so I think people need to grow up a bit.
I certainly wouldn't cut off my nose to spite my face.
I'm personally not a fan of L4D, but this boycott business is ridiculous. _________________ PSN ID: MarkyUK 360 ID: MarkyUK35
I laughed when Aeris died.
The silly cow should have got out of the way.
Looks a bit like the swamp section from House of the Dead: Overkill on Wii. Perhaps they could put some funky grindhouse music on this and give us a HOTD off-the-rails experience! Looking good so far.
Beat me to it there. I was thinking exactly the same thing. Very atmospheric, this looks.
I'm lovin' the look of those screenshots. Enjoyed, and still do, the first game, and I have no problem paying for L4D2. But, I won't go higher than £20 for it - I paid about £14 for the original. _________________ "My fists bleed death!"
Hmm i dunno about this, everyone ive spoke to so far says theyre not going to get this because they paid enough for the first and they think its just the same
I don't care what the other fanboys have got to say. As Mark above mentioned, sequels rarely change much but in this instance it appears they are adding enough to the game to warrant a look. HL and HL2 were very similar... the only difference was the newer engine and the environments, oh and the addition of the Gravity Gun which did very little for me. Play mechanics and most enemies were the same. Overall it was still an EXCELLENT game though.
I guess I'll be having the best of both worlds whilst the naysayers sit with the original L4D.
I have the original (I still see this in plenty of places for £35 second hand - nearly as bad as CoD4!), and if I was going to buy one game for the next year, I'm 90% sure it would be L4D2 (providing they don't completely balls it up).
I've only really just started playing versus instead of campaign, it's like playing a new game - although it's taking a while to get a profecient with the special infected as I am with the survivors.
Not since dynablaster on the amiga have I put so much time into such a 'small' game.
That's a joke, right? HL2 was such a massive leap in every aspect from the first. The physics were completely different, the charaters and models behaved in a totally different manner, and the goals for Gordon to complete were a radical departue from the first.
I'm not starting or anything, but I honestly can't think of any game so far advanced and removed from its predecessor than Half Life 2.
LMAO! The Pistols are like frigging machine guns, they fire so fast.
Also I just have to say this...I only bought the first one because it was on a massive sale on steam, and thats the only way i'm going to buy this one.
I also agree with you Monty, HL2 was one of the biggest leaps I have ever seen in any sequel and thats why its listed as one of the greatest games of all time. _________________ PSN ID: CrippledHooba
360 Gamertag: CrippledHooba
I think the swamp level is going to prove incredibly challenging for most L4D gamers (at least on the toughest difficulty). It always amazed me how difficult people found spotting zombies in the woody/tree sections of the first game. In this swamp map the infected generally appear completely covered in mud and extremely well camouflaged. Maybe people will learn to stay in tighter groups and be more vigilant than running blindly towards the end of the map. Or maybe players will scan areas and be more observant before rushing forward. Personally I'm convinced that because the enemy isn't shooting at us in L4D, people are far more cavalier about running into open areas. The images I've seen of other chapter have looked really poor, but this swamp area could actually make me reconsider purchasing this game (albeit second-hand though as L4D is little more than an overpriced mod for me).
I don't care what the other fanboys have got to say. As Mark above mentioned, sequels rarely change much but in this instance it appears they are adding enough to the game to warrant a look. HL and HL2 were very similar... the only difference was the newer engine and the environments, oh and the addition of the Gravity Gun which did very little for me. Play mechanics and most enemies were the same. Overall it was still an EXCELLENT game though.
I guess I'll be having the best of both worlds whilst the naysayers sit with the original L4D.
First of all, the naysayers aren't even "sitting with the original L4D", most of them got bored of it months ago, hence all of the fuss about servers disappearing rapidly.
Secondly, with the sequels thing: That's the weakest argument I've ever seen. Reverse what you just said about Half-Life, apply it to L4D, and then consider the fact that it's still using exactly the same engine as the first title.
Left 4 Dead 2 may improve on the original in a number of small ways, but there's nothing in that game that couldn't have worked as a mod for the first one, which is a complete world away from the real differences you found between the two full Half-Life titles.
In fact, I'm convinced that we won't have to wait very long at all until somebody rips the maps, sounds, textures and models from Left 4 Dead 2 and releases it as an easily downloadable mod for the first game, just to prove a point. _________________ But Master, does not the fire need water too? (Heh-heh)
Does not the mountain need the storm?
Does not your scrotum need kicking?
LMAO! The Pistols are like frigging machine guns, they fire so fast.
Also I just have to say this...I only bought the first one because it was on a massive sale on steam, and thats the only way i'm going to buy this one.
I also agree with you Monty, HL2 was one of the biggest leaps I have ever seen in any sequel and thats why its listed as one of the greatest games of all time.
Ditto to everything you typed except for the bit about L4D since I didn't buy the first one, and don't plan on doing so now that L4D 2 is being released. I'm not willing to pay more than 20-25 quid for this at most. _________________ "Unfounded optimism is no worse than relentless pessimism."
Last edited by The_KFD_Case on 23 Jul 09 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
The L4D/L4D2 argument always comes down to PC vx 360. Not which is best, just that PC gamers expect something different (especially from valve), whereas 360 owners (all console owners really) expect to pay for this stuff.
How much would 360 owners pay for single new campaign on L4D? Even if you said 800 points, that's five campaigns at 4,000 points, plus new weapons and new characters at 800 or so. You're already up to close to 5,000MS.
Isn't it £17.50 for 2,100 points? 4,500 - 5,000MS points will set you back about £40, so as a 360 owner that sounds about right to me. I can understand that PC gamers feel differently I suppose.
The L4D/L4D2 argument always comes down to PC vx 360. Not which is best, just that PC gamers expect something different (especially from valve), whereas 360 owners (all console owners really) expect to pay for this stuff.
How much would 360 owners pay for single new campaign on L4D? Even if you said 800 points, that's five campaigns at 4,000 points, plus new weapons and new characters at 800 or so. You're already up to close to 5,000MS.
Isn't it £17.50 for 2,100 points? 4,500 - 5,000MS points will set you back about £40, so as a 360 owner that sounds about right to me. I can understand that PC gamers feel differently I suppose.
A salient point and especially so considering that PC games in general are 10-15 quid cheaper than their console counterparts. _________________ "Unfounded optimism is no worse than relentless pessimism."
I think the swamp level is going to prove incredibly challenging for most L4D gamers (at least on the toughest difficulty). It always amazed me how difficult people found spotting zombies in the woody/tree sections of the first game. In this swamp map the infected generally appear completely covered in mud and extremely well camouflaged. Maybe people will learn to stay in tighter groups and be more vigilant than running blindly towards the end of the map. Or maybe players will scan areas and be more observant before rushing forward. Personally I'm convinced that because the enemy isn't shooting at us in L4D, people are far more cavalier about running into open areas. The images I've seen of other chapter have looked really poor, but this swamp area could actually make me reconsider purchasing this game (albeit second-hand though as L4D is little more than an overpriced mod for me).
I presume you would be purchasing it second-hand for the console then? I doubt very much Valve would allow a PC copy to be registered twice. Hm. Wouldn't it be the same for the console version? If so you'd be advised to steer well clear of any second hand copies of this game (much like any second-hand Valve games). _________________ "Unfounded optimism is no worse than relentless pessimism."
The L4D/L4D2 argument always comes down to PC vx 360. Not which is best, just that PC gamers expect something different (especially from valve), whereas 360 owners (all console owners really) expect to pay for this stuff.
How much would 360 owners pay for single new campaign on L4D? Even if you said 800 points, that's five campaigns at 4,000 points, plus new weapons and new characters at 800 or so. You're already up to close to 5,000MS.
Isn't it £17.50 for 2,100 points? 4,500 - 5,000MS points will set you back about £40, so as a 360 owner that sounds about right to me. I can understand that PC gamers feel differently I suppose.
A salient point and especially so considering that PC games in general are 10-15 quid cheaper than their console counterparts.
So yeah, your £25 limit would be about right on PC. That's still £25 more than some people think they should have to spend.
It's a shame people feel down on L4D, I'm not sure if I've mentioned it before, but I f**king love it!! If you ever find the first one cheap on PC, buy it KFD. Not worth it on the 360 if you don't have xbl.
I've been thinking about getting it on my pc cheap, not that it will look any better than the 360 on my PC, but then I can play my mates who dont have xbl.
The_KFD_Case, yes I'm on an Xbox. I wouldn't even consider this game if I were gaming on a PC. There are far better first person shooters I'd be playing than this! I only purchased the original because 1. I love co-op and didn't have any co-op games at the time, 2. It was second-hand and cheap (although if I'd known how small it was and that it's just a jumped up mod, I'd have waited for the cost to drop even further!). I will say this for it though, it's a handy way of keeping up the skills for future shooters I'm looking forward to. I see it as no more than an improve speed-aiming skills games... there's certainly nothing to gain from the co-op side, other than learning that the majority of Xbox players really aren't particularly good at co-op games!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all 360 games exactly the same in terms of what is on the disc? They have no way of knowing if I played my copy, or mates or another second hand one.
I thought it was the same on PC, that way they just have to copy the disc on a massive scale as opposed to writing seperate little serial numbers in each game.
As jenson said, it's not a 'deep' FPS, but that doesn't take away any of the sheer fun involved, in fact it makes it better for me as it's an alternative to the same old same old that normally passes for an FPS.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all 360 games exactly the same in terms of what is on the disc? They have no way of knowing if I played my copy, or mates or another second hand one.
I thought it was the same on PC, that way they just have to copy the disc on a massive scale as opposed to writing seperate little serial numbers in each game.
As jenson said, it's not a 'deep' FPS, but that doesn't take away any of the sheer fun involved, in fact it makes it better for me as it's an alternative to the same old same old that normally passes for an FPS.
I'm not sure about Valve games for the Xbox 360, however PC games on Steam are tied to a unique account ID so say, for example, that I wanted to sell my copy of "Empire: Total War" which you have to activate through Steam even though it's developed by Creative Assembly and published by SEGA, then no one else can use that copy even if I sell them the retail copy that I own. The only way anyone else could play the game registered to my unique Steam account ID is if I gave them access to my account (i.e. hand over my ID and password). This is why I consider Steam just another form of DRM and I'm not pleased with it.
Speaking of such things, I just bought S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky at a discount price this evening; turns out it comes with TAGES (which I can live with since I haven't had any problems with that setup in the past,) and a 5 activations limit. I'm glad I haven't unwrapped the game because I'm returning it either tomorrow or on Saturday. A shame. It was a good deal and I'd like to play the game, as well as pay for it legally, but now no one wins. Well done developers/publishers. Oh, and to make things even better the pirates still succeeded in cracking the game. If there ever was a true incarnation of cutting off your nose to spite your face, DRM on behalf of companies is it. May it burn in hell along with all those who encourage its use!
Back on topic: So why would I consider buying L4D 2 then? Well, because it is primarily intended to be a multi-player game, and if it comes at the right price then I may be willing to accept Steam's version of DRM just as I have with CS:Source because it doesn't install hidden files on to my system as far as I can tell. _________________ "Unfounded optimism is no worse than relentless pessimism."
OK, now I'm even more glad I don't use a PC for gaming. So although you pay less than we do on the console, because you can't ever sell a game it effectively works out more expensive! At least on consoles we own the games, and they're ours to sell if we choose. I would likely buy even fewer games if that were the case on consoles. And knowing how they're making honest game purchasers pay, the PC gaming industry, more than ever deserves the piracy! Can you imagine any other industry telling you that when you buy their product you have to keep it or throw it away, but cannot ever sell it! F*cking cheeky bastards!
I have never much cared for Valve's games, I think this Gabe fella suggesting gamers should finance their own games is a money grabbing git, and now I find out Steam is effectively a way of punising honest gamers! I love owning original music, movies and games, but if I had a PC I would certainly make a point of obtaining their games for free (and I'm not suggesting I'd ask for them for my birthday!!!)
OK, now I'm even more glad I don't use a PC for gaming. So although you pay less than we do on the console, because you can't ever sell a game it effectively works out more expensive! At least on consoles we own the games, and they're ours to sell if we choose. I would likely buy even fewer games if that were the case on consoles. And knowing how they're making honest game purchasers pay, the PC gaming industry, more than ever deserves the piracy! Can you imagine any other industry telling you that when you buy their product you have to keep it or throw it away, but cannot ever sell it! F*cking cheeky bastards!
I have never much cared for Valve's games, I think this Gabe fella suggesting gamers should finance their own games is a money grabbing git, and now I find out Steam is effectively a way of punising honest gamers! I love owning original music, movies and games, but if I had a PC I would certainly make a point of obtaining their games for free (and I'm not suggesting I'd ask for them for my birthday!!!)
No doubt. The good news is that after the massive public outrage and mass protest downloading of "Spore" (which was cracked *before* it was released despite having some of the strictest DRM released to date - talk about adding insult to injury ), along with the increasing awareness of DRM that "Mass Effect" brought about, it now appears that a number of publishers such as EA and Ubisoft are experimenting with new, apparently less ham-fisted anti-piracy methods. I'm more willing to give Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt than EA, however these days I research just about every PC game I buy before installing it. I no longer trust publishers nor developers and they have to work harder than previously to prove themselves every time they release a new game if they want me to part with my money. I play games as a form of entertainment and relaxation, not to be afraid about what malware may just have been installed on my PC from a supposedly legitimate company. Sad that it's come to this.
In my personal view DRM is the first true "PC killer" to come along in a long time which has only served to strengthen my resolve to resist at all costs. There are developers that release DRM-free games because they are hoping to lure in more customers that way and it has met with some success (Starforge and Ubisoft have both tried this). I don't mind paying for a game (how many of us would work for free, truth be told?) but I'll quit gaming before I let some monkey in a suit behind closed business doors dictate to me what software programs I'm allowed to have on my PC to play a game, the amount of times I can install it on a different system configuration (having a game only function on one PC at a time seems fair, but there should be no restriction on how many PCs I can install it/activate it without needing "customer support" from the publisher), what sort of secret files may be installed to the core kernel of my system while actively hiding from the user, etc.
I'm not in the habit of selling my games second-hand so it hasn't been an issue for me yet, but if I wanted to I would p**s on Valve's rules and create multiple user accounts on Steam. One for each game, so that if I were to sell a game it wouldn't give away my entire games library.
*Note: It's not all PC games that need to be registered on Steam in order to run at present time. _________________ "Unfounded optimism is no worse than relentless pessimism."
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
), along with the increasing awareness of DRM that "Mass Effect" brought about, it now appears that a number of publishers such as EA and Ubisoft are experimenting with new, apparently less ham-fisted anti-piracy methods. I'm more willing to give Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt than EA, however these days I research just about every PC game I buy before installing it. I no longer trust publishers nor developers and they have to work harder than previously to prove themselves every time they release a new game if they want me to part with my money. I play games as a form of entertainment and relaxation, not to be afraid about what malware may just have been installed on my PC from a supposedly legitimate company. Sad that it's come to this.
