---Left 4 Dead 2 Thread---

George Bush had God drown them in 2005... plus you took my post so painfully serious that serious face man is going to come and stare at you.

Your post was serious. There was not a hint of sarcasm anywhere within. I'll take serious face man, and send "show me the joke" man round to interrogate you. So there.
 
Your post was serious. There was not a hint of sarcasm anywhere within. I'll take serious face man, and send "show me the joke" man round to interrogate you.

Things have to have a punchline to not be qualified deadly serious by you? and me talking talking about a lesbian with tourettes as being a L4D character and even quoting a sitcom didn't ring alarm bells that I wasn't exactly being earnest?

I think your odd crusade to defend valve is picking up collateral posts.
 
Things have to have a punchline to not be qualified deadly serious by you? and me talking talking about a lesbian with tourettes as being a L4D character and even quoting a sitcom didn't ring alarm bells that I wasn't exactly being earnest?

I think your odd crusade to defend valve is picking up collateral posts.

Woah there. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Perhaps I'm mistaken, perhaps you're rubbish at sarcasm - lets agree to disagree. :)

I don't want to fall out with an Internet member.

(Fancy a game of L4D whilst we've still got time?)
 
It's unbelievable that so many people are annoyed at the fact that they're trying to 'cash in' on a franchise. If the games good, and you get 20+ hours of gameplay out of it - is it not worth £30? If you feel so strongly about it, here's an idea - don't buy it, and quit whinging. Jeebus.

What is the alternative? How long should they wait? I really fail to see the logic behind complaining about the fact that a sequel to a great game has come out early. If it were six months later would you all be complaining that you've waited too long? :confused:

If they could release an improvement on a great game every six months, I would be more than happy to pay £30 for the privelege of playing it.

You are paying £30 to play for an improved game, for a minimum of six months. What is the problem? If you can't afford it, don't pay for it. You're all making it sound as if L4D isn't going to be playable once L4D2 has been released.

I demand to see your logic.

Your's was the post that contains most "whinging" tbh.

Speaking for myself, I'm annoyed not because there is a sequel coming, but rather because it probably means that L4D will be abandoned now - no more major tweaks, no more DLC. For a game where much was promised in terms of additional content, it just smacks of being a bit cheeky on Valve's part.
 
Woah there. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Perhaps I'm mistaken, perhaps you're rubbish at sarcasm - lets agree to disagree. :)

I don't want to fall out with an Internet member.

(Fancy a game of L4D whilst we've still got time?)

What is the point of the internet if not to have random arguments with strangers about absolutely nothing of importance?

Plus no, I hate L4D1, not enough black people to appease my white sensibilities.
 
It's unbelievable that so many people are annoyed at the fact that they're trying to 'cash in' on a franchise. If the games good, and you get 20+ hours of gameplay out of it - is it not worth £30? If you feel so strongly about it, here's an idea - don't buy it, and quit whinging. Jeebus.

What is the alternative? How long should they wait? I really fail to see the logic behind complaining about the fact that a sequel to a great game has come out early. If it were six months later would you all be complaining that you've waited too long? :confused:

If they could release an improvement on a great game every six months, I would be more than happy to pay £30 for the privelege of playing it.

You are paying £30 to play for an improved game, for a minimum of six months. What is the problem? If you can't afford it, don't pay for it. You're all making it sound as if L4D isn't going to be playable once L4D2 has been released.

I demand to see your logic.
I think it's more that people don't want a sequel to the excellent L4D, we want L4D to be expanded.

Pay for DLC might have shut everyone up, perhaps they could market L4D2 as an episode, much like the HL series, with episodic pricing and time frames (unlike the HL team, time doesn't seem to be an issue for the Turtle Rock team, so that could work).

The L4D playerbase being divided by a game that is fundamentally the same as the last isn't a totally unreasonable reason to get angry.

Personally, I'm getting a bit hyped.
 
Last edited:
Your's was the post that contains most "whinging" tbh.

Speaking for myself, I'm annoyed not because there is a sequel coming, but rather because it probably means that L4D will be abandoned now - no more major tweaks, no more DLC. For a game where much was promised in terms of additional content, it just smacks of being a bit cheeky on Valve's part.

True enough I was probably guilty of whinging more than other individual posters, but at least I was whinging at the people who had no reason to whinge :p

I really fail to see your point of view. Valve are a business - they do not owe 'us' (we, the consumer) anything. If they didn't produce great games, we wouldn't play them. Brand loyalty is a nothing in this context. If another developing house started churning out classics, I wouldn't carry on playing L4D out of loyalty to Valve. If anything, I'd be dissapointed in Valve for giving up the 'game' (as if in, the eternal stuggle to please pinickity gamers, rather than a particular franchise) and not improving on an already excellent catalogue of games.

If they can consistently release a game that is a good improvement on its predecessor, I will happily pay £30 for six months of play time till the next 'improvement' is released. Sure, if they release a crap game and I buy it, then I'd me verging on 'miffed' - but I'd consider it a lesson learnt. But nobody is arguing that this doesn't look good, they're arguing that there is no need for improvement. :confused:
 
I think it's more that people don't want a sequel to the excellent L4D, we want L4D to be expanded.

Pay for DLC might have shut everyone up, perhaps they could market L4D2 as an episode, much like the HL series, with episodic pricing and time frames.

The L4D playerbase being divided by a game that is fundamentally the same as the last isn't a totally unreasonable reason to get angry.

Personally, I'm getting a bit hyped.

Okay - your argument is a much more sound one to me (not that that counts for anything). But sometimes it's not possible to do as you say and release a game episodically (there's no way that's spelt right) - as changes to the graphics engine or play scenarios would still leave the playerbase segmented.

If this was a one player game, then you'd be entirely right. And don't get me wrong, they should definitely release DLC that contains new maps/campaigns for L4D, I'm gagging at the bit for such (well, not quite) - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't work on a much wider improvement scale and bundle it into a new game.
 
It's unbelievable that so many people are annoyed at the fact that they're trying to 'cash in' on a franchise. If the games good, and you get 20+ hours of gameplay out of it - is it not worth £30? If you feel so strongly about it, here's an idea - don't buy it, and quit whinging. Jeebus.

The thing is, people expect to get a bit more longevity out of multiplayer-orientated games.
 
I really do not understand Valve's move there. Why are they releasing the sequel so fast instead of releasing DLC with new maps weapons, even characters for the first game.
Now I understand why updates for L4D were so slow and no new real maps were released, everyone is working on the sequel!
 
Chainsaws? more gorier limbs and heads blown off animations? FRYING PANS? Profit????

November could not come sooner :D
 
Back
Top Bottom