Left 4 Dead 2: Final Two Campaigns Revealed

Am I missing one?  There's Swamp Fever and Dark Carnival and these two, but that leaves one more.

Either way, Hard Rain sounds awesome in concept.  If they do zombies hiding underwater that would be particularly sweet.

 

I;m not sure of the exact campaign name, but it takes place in the town before you reach the swamps and the carnival. Its a city campaign

 

Yeah, it's called The Parish.

 

the other campaign is called "The Parish"

 

I loved how each campaign in the original L4D had 2 puns in it: one in the title and one in the sub title. L4D2 isn't getting the same creativity treatment apparently.

 

wat

There are 2 puns in both of those posters o.O

 

Except there aren't. The titles are pretty generic descriptions of the setting.
The titles in the original also contained some sort of joke or reference, which formed a pun. Think No Mercy, about Mercy hospital. Dead Center? Generic

 

You can't complain that because you don't get the puns they aren't there!

They're in a shopping center.

Dead center is a reference both to the middle of something (he hit the target dead center) and a reference to the fact it's in a shopping center full of the dead, eg "dead shopping center".

 

Dead Center could as well refer to the city center, where many shops are too, which would make it generic. Also Hard Rain feels unoriginal.

 

You mean if you pick between two possible interpretations and pick the most generic one it looks as though they're not being as creative?

I'm really not trying to be snide, but your complaint is just baffling. It's almost as though you have an a priori belief that l4d2 is some kind of rush job with no effort being put into it...

 

You shouldn't be picking between creative and generic, there's either creative or generic. Which makes Dead Center automatically generic.
Oh and L4D2 IS a rush job with no effort being put into it.

 

OK, let's recap.

First assertion; there are no puns in l4d2 posters.

I point out there are, you acknowledge, and then immediately say that given that there is a pun there, it is a generic one.

To anybody who knows anything about confirmation bias and confabulation, this is comical. And your little coda merely confirms it. Please try actually thinking rather than just trying to reinforce your own prejudices.

 

 

Indeed.

Dark Carnival and The Parish aren't exactly that clever. Dead Center, however, is probably the only one that does actually have multiple puns within it. You chose the wrong one to argue about Helion heh.

Hard Rain and Swamp Fever are aaalllllrriiigghttt I spose. Nothing amazing. I'm sure with a little effort, they could have come up with something better.

 

Dead Center is a pretty good pun. Like, "it's located in the dead center of..." and it refers to the shopping center. The Parish is a nice vocal pun, as perish means "die", The Parish could refer to "The Dead". Swamp Fever refers to the infection, and it's also located in the swamp.  Hard Rain is what happens when bullets start flying.

But hey, it's not as great as the ones in the original game. You know what I'd like to see? Last Resort. It'd take place at a tourist resort.

Speaking of clever puns, Dead Space is a pun, too. I love puns.

 

I have to admit, after a certain point I started trolling. Opet's responses were priceless, sorry.
But yes, Dead Center is just about the only creative pun they managed to come up with.

 

Yes, they are the best! And so am I. Nyah.

 

So we are looking at a zombie game and everyone chooses to badmouth the wordplay?

 

There shouldn't BE a L4D2 only a year after the first.  Many people expected more and will find any excuse to complain.

Personally, I'm not thrilled that there wasn't proper support for the first, but will still probably buy the sequel/expansion.

My form of protest?  I'm waiting a month after release to buy it.

 

LOL! best protest ever

 

*golf clap* GO YOU!

 

gives me a head start

 

So it will be:

TP
SF
DC
HR
DC again? people wont be able to use acronyms for the campaigns anymore.

 

i dont see why people are complaining about L4D2 being released just 1 year about L4D.
i mean EA have been doing it for years with fifa and co and i dont hear anyone complaining.
activision is doing the same thing with GH except theres a new GH every 3 months or so.
activision is doing the same thing with call of duty, yea different devs but still same style of game.
i dont see anyone creating partitions and whining like 10 year old girls about these, in fact i dont see EA or activision shiping ordinary people to their dev studio to play the game.
if anything you should be thanking valve for creating such a good game.
where i agree it is a cheap cash in just so they can make a quick buck, i think there doing it because there planning on making half life 3 and its going to have a ginormous budget!
there even hireing ps3 programmers for this "unnannounced title" if there bothering to spend the cash and bring it to the ps3 it must be big.

 

Well, crazy sports fans will continue buying new sports games for updated rosters and so forth (important to the demographic) while Rockband and Guitar Hero are sought after for improvements and new songs (essentially the entire game, though they also sell cheaper expansions).  If you are not part of those demographics, these constant updated releases wont really appeal to you.

What people don't like is how Valve handled L4D, made WAY to many promises of content and improvement support that they have been unable to fulfill.  In no way, is one micro-map and two very-mediocre small maps (half-baked with bugs) over the course of a year redeeming (considering  their manpower and pre-existing tools this should have been an absolute cakewalk).

In every video of L4D2 thus far, I'm seeing the exact same weird infected behavior issues in regards to terrain navigation that can be easily exploited.  The new melee weapons are really non-interesting to me, as they just one-hit kill anything that gets in melee range and expect game play problems from them.  By far, most of the new content is just a new paint job so it can look and be claimed as new (the guns, etc.).  Even the new infected are just more-interesting retakes (though probably the ONLY redeeming factor of L4D2), for example the jockey is just a more interesting hunter, etc.

Not to mention some of the new features they are claiming are ALREADY IN L4D though disabled by the developers, which are sometimes enabled again by third-party maps and mods, i.e. incendiary (and other) ammo types, laser sights, perks, etc.

So my question is this.  Does that clarify the reason behind consumer and fan complaints of this franchise or do you need more?  As it seems people, even the more defensive L4D2 fans are starting to see what the sequel for what it is.  An over glorified and hyped repaint of the game to hide problems (that they didn't truly resolve) and attempt to sell at full-price to different consumers and the remaining L4D fans.

 

meh.
i still cant see the problem.
halo 3 ODST is another perfect example i dont see anyone complaining about that.

anyway as i said L4D2 is a cheap quick cash in so they can build enough cash because i really think there next game is going to be half life related and its going to have a massive budget and be for PC ps3 and 360.
PC wise this will really push the PC to the limits.
thats what im hoping, this to do what crysis did, thats why i think valve are doing this and thats why i could not care less.
if me buying L4D2 results in me having the oppertunity to buy a brand new half life game so be it.
ive been begging for a new PC game which pushes PCs to the limit for ages.

 

There's always a completely unaware, unsuspecting, unquestioning player base for each game, who always buys the game new and is always happy about anything, which makes your comparison to Halo 3: ODST completely void.

 

And there'll always be people around who feel that their consumer-choice suddenly makes them superior.

 

So, a game that wasn't finished, had little content, and is being remade with not much change that even you say is "cheap cash in", which you also say you cannot see as a problem due to the fact a better different game might come out as a result.  Okay, that's an odd way of overlooking it, and hoping for greener grass on the other side of the hill. 

Also, never really played Halo games, but as far as I know they completed a cinematic campaign and improved the multiplayer experience though there was reception that said it wasn't really worth the $60 price tag and had others trying to prove it's worth (so there was some complaining).  I guess you can say this is how some people feel about L4D2, and if it was cheaper most wouldn't be complaining at all.

About games pushing the limits, well, not sure if that is going to happen there are to many reasons presently against them that make them very discouraging for companies.

 

So, a game that wasn't finished

How long is a piece of string again?

had little content

You're using the old 'what was created for the game' content definition.  Generally, this is a bygone way of looking at things.  What designers often mean by content now is content that can be consumed; often, a game is a framework for content delivery.  Simple arcade games are the first example of this: Tetris or Snake have very minimal content.  However, it is enjoyable to consume that content again and again.

The same is true of more complex FPS games like Counter-Strike, Halo or indeed L4D.  Although their content is fairly limited (if you ignore Halo's singleplayer), there is a desire among players to consume the content of the game despite the fact that there's an element of repetition to the framework.

I mean, a straightforward example is de_dust2, probably the most popular CS map.  This is a single map that has easily delived over a million player-hours of content.  The way you're looking at it, dust2 is 'minimal content', but the actual content as I see it (and game designers see it) is the gameplay, and dust2 is an excellent framework for that.

is being remade

Do you think all sequels are remakes?  I mean, I don't see much that distinguishes L4D2 as a sequel from many other sequels.  It has the same basic game design (FPS against zombies) in new settings with a few gameplay tweaks intended to improve on the old game.  This statement basically describes most sequels; are they then all remakes?

 

Bethryn, this in response to your attempt to omni-slash me, but even going by your responses you didn't know the game was widely found tedious and lacking content (even mentioned by reviewers, some generally pass over the problems of the game due to prior Valve content statements).  We can even go by the statistics provided by the services for Left 4 Dead.  This tells us half the players never even completed one-campaign and the vast-majority didn't even bother going for two.  At this point, they found the game boring and moved on, while the game continues to loose players.

Even the ultra-short and easy Crash Course, which was originally released with issues and so many items being spawned that it made even far easier then it should have been was only completed by roughly a tenth of the players.  I am sure before Left 4 Dead 2 this will be a bit closer to 20%, and not move much from then on.

And, one last thing, your own final statement is true most are remakes (sequels/expansions/DLC), but a good deal of those remakes change or add to the game-play greatly, different and new content (not just a paint job), improved functionality, different game modes (not just slight re-iterations of existing content to say it's a new mode), and so on.  A good deal of those that do not meet a certain level of difference to warrant the usual full retail price are marked below it. 

Right now, the extreme-majority of Left 4 Dead 2 from my experience is the same game with very-little deviation other then new backdrops, remastered special infected (some where still glitch prone in recent observations), replacement graphics for weapons/characters (either type of replacement didn't actually improve on anything), new lukewarm game modes (bleh), and melee weapons with no real difference between them (that will likely harm the game).  

So why is this game marked up at full retail price, again?  So I can hit zombies with baseball bats instead of shooting them this time around?  In the end, if you find it worth the price, it's not my job to tell you otherwise, though attempt to figure out why people are trying to support this lukewarm iteration.  I am simply stating evidence, observations, and my opinion.

 

20,00 regular players a day isn't that bad, even if it's not the 100k+ of CS or Halo (some of whose percentage are playing the SP).  I'm not sure where you're getting, "continues to lose players from," seeing as its been fairly stable for the last few months.

The widely tedious thing always amuses.  A couple of reviews fielded this criticism and the L4D boycott crew have cherrypicked them to try and give the impression that a lot of reviewers thought this.

That roughly a tenth of original purchasers remain?  That's over standard for multiplayer games; what I've gleaned talking to devs is that most (excluding MMOs) generally go to around 5% and stabilise or fall from there.  To get somewhere between 10 and 20% still playing really isn't a criticism.  Heck, L4D and TF2 both have roughly the same number of players a day, and you rarely see these, "TF2 was widely found tedious and people stopped playing," supposals about it/

The fourth paragraph suggests you might want to actually read up on L4D2 (and now's the perfect time as the Achievements released on the 360 site have given a few new details about gameplay differences), although I don't think you'll be particularly interested in making distinctions given the comments, but that's up to you.

 

"So, a game that wasn't finished, had little content, and is being
remade with not much change that even you say is "cheap cash in", which
you also say you cannot see as a problem due to the fact a better
different game might come out as a result."

This is an argument that always irritates me for the sole reason that people seem to think that L4D wasn't a finished game. From all accounts that I can see from a player stand point the game has provided me with 100s of hours a gameplay. It was by all means a finished game. An unfinished game would be full of bugs, content holes and a whole world of balance issues in multiplayer. L4D is not this.

I've seen all the reviews that say something on the line of "we're giving this game a high score hoping that Valve will add content to the thin amount they already had" blah blah blah. I believe that when people reviewed this game they really really overlooked one key part that makes this game "worth 60$" It has extremely high replay valve. Higher than any game I have played in a decade.

There is this ridiculous entitlement notion that because the game doesn't have X amounts of maps that they're entitled to free content. Quality is 100x more important than quantity when it comes to a game like this. This game is designed to be played with and against people, and designed to be played, over and over again. If you bought L4D with the hopes that it would be a grand single player experience like HL, then you bought the wrong game. Look at any Multiplayer game, and you'll see that out of numerous maps that can be played, players tend to stick to a very small hand full of maps and this just reinforces my argument of quality over quantity.

When you bought L4D you bought a high quality, highly re-playable co-op and multiplayer experience. It's straight forward and challenging and doesn't need to have bloated unnecessary content to make certain people feel like they got their money's worth with false content.

 

Dizko, it obviously didn't have high-replay value as even the official statistics of the game show most players didn't even bother with the game for more then a few hours, and the game has been loosing players at a decent rate with various plummets in player count in less then one-year.  In addition, it is your opinion that you find the game has extreme replay value and your love of the game is not in question. 

Also, my statement was true, and if it irritates you then be irritated with the L4D developers as they even said the first-game was left unfinished.  This statement was even more true earlier in the game's life when there was many things left disabled and massive-oversights, even now there are still things left unresolved and things left disabled (they are in no way broken).

If there is a sense of entitlement, the L4D developers instilled it in their players long-ago with grand-promises of content everywhere they went all the way up to the first game's release.  We can probably even say they kept the grand-content promise rolling with vague statements on downloadable content up until L4D2's reveal announcement.  Even the more recent "Crash Course" DLC was another developer blunder in over-hyping mediocrity (many felt this way, surely not all) and was released without proper Q&A.

However, I would be in agreement with you on the entitlement, if the developers kept their mouths shut and just said there will be free content (that's all) and people started complaining. 

Ultimately, should you blame or be irritated with players for believing in what the developers repeatedly tells them as said developers perform actions that contradict themselves that result in negative feedback?  That is the reality of negative feedback and criticism of video games, they made mistakes, and it's up to them from this point on to make it right or learn from it.

I could also point to another recent FPS game that made way to many promises and unlike L4D they didn't have Valve's reputation to save them in reviews.  But, I think it's best to leave it end here.

 

I'm not sure what official statistics you're talking about but L4D is and has been #4 on the most played Steam chart. I nor anyone would expect it to be played more often than CS and TF2, two of the most popular competitive MP shooters ever. #4 isn't a bad place with thousands of people playing the game everyday, not to mention those who play it on 360. By nature it's not a competitive game, and there is little or no benefit to play it constantly. It's a PUG friend game, pick up and go. Either way, I'm not seeing whatever statistics you're looking at.

Perhaps unfinished is the wrong adjective to use. Unfinished suggests the game is somehow broken, L4D is certainly not broken. Perhaps saying it is thin on content (subjective) would be better. I would find it hard to believe that any developer would call their game unfinished.

"official statistics of the game show most players didn't even bother with the game for more then a few hours" Do you want them to play 8 hours of the day? If you're referring to the people who played it in total of a few hours, those are the people who assumed it was a single player game, and discovered it wasn't HL2 in a zombie form. I'm having a hard time finding those statistic you're referring to, but my guess is that these people are in the minority and more than likely won't buy L4D2 regardless of the circumstances.

And to my next point. If you played L4D and legitimately thought to yourself "That's it? Snore." Then the game must not be for you. By legitmately, I mean before you had notions of entitlement to more content or had your brain wired by the hoopla of the L4D2 protest. If that is the case, then it's simple, L4D is not a game for you.

 

I have been sick for weeks and didn't really bother to write a reply till now.  You can find the statistics provided by Valve at their official sources while all other data can be obtained via the combined efforts of various companies (some you have to pay for, sorry).  I also know Xfire, GamerDNA, and a few others had some other stats around about it, but don't feel like sifting through their article library to find them.

I understand you want to find some reason to avoid the idea the developers admitted to an unfinished product or there are large groups of gamers dissatisfied, but don't make excuses or belittle me.  The game just did not have the content, while the major technical issues where eventually remedied, but the overall repetitiveness was the game's Achilles' heel.  In spite of that, they withheld content to recycle them as new for the sequel, and if they decide to release it after they are satisfied with L4D2's sales.  At least then it will make the remaining L4D players a bit happier.

However, after playing the sequel, got to comment on that they have slightly remedied the repetitive feeling, but thus far not really impressed by the new level gimmicks -- just lacks any real creativity.  My friends that where once optimistic about L4D2, are now recoiling from the game, and only three (of about one-hundred) have actually purchased the game. When even the offer of a discounted four-pack wasn't even enough to make the rest even consider it, that is a telling sign considering most of them bought the original.

I hope for the best in regards to the franchise, but doubt it'll live up to my (and seemingly the majority of my friends') standards.  Till then, it's just a waiting game to see how it all turns out this time.

(Now back to being sick)

 

Thanks for the reply, and I wouldn't say I was belittling you. I just don't agree with your position.

If I had to gauge it talking to my friends, we would have the exact opposite opinion that you do. Just because you and your friends have one view doesn't mean it's the ground truth.

 

"halo 3 ODST is another perfect example i dont see anyone complaining about that."

You obviously don't work in a gaming store. ODST took years to come out, was sold as a full priced game, and had a total of 3 hours gameplay. We've got a stack of returned/traded in ODST games out the back of our Gamestop/EB Games store so high, we're going to have to send some to other stores just to get some space back. Other stores seem to be in the same boat though.
Sure the multiplayer might last longer, but anyone who was interested in that bought the maps over XBOX Live. I don't know why people still worship Halo. Such a celebration of mediocrity.

 

thats with any game though.
do you really want to know how many copies of killzone 2 were traded in at my local EB in the first 2 weeks of launch?
and its still, now, has the most preowned copies on the shelf.
at my local EB they normally have 1 or 2 of most titles but killzone 2 i went in yesterday and they had like 15

 

True. Killzone probably does on PS3. Cause it's also a god awful shooter that last all of 6 hours and controls like a truck. Frankly I'm glad that people have taste and trade it in.
It's still got nothing on ODST or Halo Wars. The dissappoint over those games was palpable. If Halo Reach doesn't bring back the Halo Faith, I don't see how fanboys can continue their worshipping of it.

 

great now theres two black ppl who are going to die first...

 

i hope there are black zombies eveywhere.. I want to use this as an excuse to exercise my racist tendancies