From videogamer.com Chet Faliszek said, "It was just like, OK, this is big enough that this isn’t DLC, we’re not going to be able to leak it out. It’s a cohesive, single thing. It’s Left 4 Dead 2."
From Joystiq's hands-on, "As we said during E3, the game plays identically to original. There isn't even a particularly noticeable graphics upgrade, if you ignore the dismemberment improvements. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. A bad game is a bad thing. This is just a good game, made again. With new characters, levels and some new features -- such as melee weapons and special infected."
So Chet's and Valve's idea of something too big for DLC is comprised of an engine tweak for zombie dismemberment, some new characters, and a few game play updates. Wow, that really sounds like it's worth my $60. Actually, no, it does not. I've seen $20-$30 updates that have more content than this. Unless something much bigger, and pretty quickly, is revealed, this looks like nothing more than a cash in. Left 4 Dead, the new Madden?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
MegaMan games, fighting games, etc.. L4D2 is pretty much a sequel. Its just that they're using the old ideals of what a sequel was back in the day. The gaming public's view of what a sequel should be has changed a bit in the past few years with the advent of DLC.
ReplyDeleteThe older sequels at least did not push out new versions every year that segmented online players. Some things were passed on, modifying the existing game engine and such, but just pushing out a few new resources? That's exactly what DLC is supposed to be, not full priced game releases.
ReplyDeleteMegaMan 2 came out a year later after the first Megaman game dude. Same basic idea, same graphics, and new character bosses. Sound familiar? Like I said before, its pretty much just what DLC has done to change the views of the public. Let's just say that DLC never came into being. I definately think there wouldn't be such an uproar about L4D2 right about now.
ReplyDeleteI agree somewhat with Phil here...
ReplyDeleteIf you think about it, if we were to believe that Left 4 Dead 2 was just a cheap way for them to make money, then that SHOULD mean that the first game was a cheap way to make money too, because the first game uses the same source engine as Half-Life 2 with practically no enhancements, and it only has four campaigns and practically only lasts four to six hours the first time around, which is short even for a first-person shooter. It's practically just a Half-Life 2 mod with multiplayer modifications.
But as we all well know, Valve fans were crazy about Left 4 Dead. My sister went goo-goo for ga-ga for it and couldn't stop raving about it, and her boyfriend at the time, who loved Half-Life 2, loved Left 4 Dead so much he is a national champion for the console version of the game.
For whatever reason people perceive Left 4 Dead 2 as a betrayal towards fans, and Valve as this authoritarian corporation taking over the world. Pretty ironic thinking considering their Half-Life games are anti-authoritarian.
Applying a little bit of psychology, if you ask me, I'd venture a guess Valve games tend to attract anti-authoritarian types, because they are boycotting Valve as if they are some kind of authoritarian organization. That's not really called reason, that's called mass neurosis.
All this being said, it did shock me when I found out that Left 4 Dead 2 was coming out just a year after the first one.