i really don't get how people can beat the game like that! it seems so hard for me. Did you have to reload your old saves alot?

makoreactors

It is a pain in the rear, that's for sure. Not a fun play through. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat as TC, in that my old PS3 save file had my Big Boss run through, and it over-heated. It was the only real reason I got upset over it happening. 

>2012

>People still argueing which system is better

>People not just having fun playing games

It's like 2007 never ends...

It did not test your ability to block and attack, or how to roll, or when to use a flask. I learned to master that in the first hour. So it was not hard based on skill, but hard because of the stupid things programmed in it with the sole purpose to annoy and piss you off instead of challenging you. In other words, its not hard its cheap. Demons souls did not have any cheap moment, everything was always skill based, especially the awesome fights against the sword wielding bosses. Dark Soul cheapness - Getting cursed the first time around, and curses stacking. - You cant interrupt enemies attack. - First time Capra demon (game breaker for most ppl) - Toxic in blightown What else pissed you off?Second_Hokage

Getting Cursed: Sitting in a giant grey cloak of smoke emitted from an enemy, and the game gives you a solid 6 seconds to get out (Somehow cheap?)

Can't interrupt enemy attacks: Yes you can. L2Time parry.

First Capra Demon: Roll? You get 1 solid second of invulnerability when you do so... Not to mention the fight is SOOOO easy to cheeze...

Toxic in Blighttown: Blighttown was 2x easier than the bog in Dark Souls.

And for the record, Dark Souls is EASIER than Demon's Souls. Dark Souls doesn't punish you for dying, where Demon's Souls will make the world tendency darker, making enemies harder to kill.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that dying is PART OF THE GAME. It's not the end of your character's adventure, but a literal game MECHANIC players need to keep in mind. Sorry the concept went over your head, OP.

[QUOTE="Michael0134567"] It sucks because it lacks a story?Okay then.senses_fail_06

^^ This right here. I play games to have fun, not to hear NPC's shoot the !@#$ for a half hour and hear the same lame story that's been told a millions time before. Obviously, it's okay for games from time to time to have a well developed plot, but it should never be at the risk of ruining gameplay.

RE4 was one of the best console games ever made. RE5 is one of the worst games I've ever payed for. RE should have died with RE4.

fireballonfire

Implying that RE5 isn't a carbon copy of RE4 that plays better...

The only thing RE4 had on 5 was a better atmosphere and boss fights. Other than that, RE5 was better in every way.

Forget the screen tearing, the game looks terrible...

Thanks for ruining the franchise, RE4. If only Capcom could have given you a different title...

[QUOTE="speedfreak48t5p"]

[QUOTE="darkdude2k12"]

No. I'm just sick of idiots like yourself who think multiplayer has anything to do with what a game's about. Multiplayer's simply a perk; not the game. Therefore, your opinion's comparable to that of a complete imbecile. (This doesn't apply to fighting games)

With that said, I've thoroughly enjoyed Gears of War because of it's epic storyline and way of drawing the player into the protagonist's perspective; effectively. You couldn't say the same about L4D.

And if you're going to say L4D's anything less than a giant MP add-on...then you, sir...are a double idiot.

How do you feel about my badass PC now?

darkdude2k12

In Left 4 Dead, Battlefield, COD, Gears of War, Team Fortress 2, Multiplayer IS THE GAME.

Let me Guess, You want Dice to drop the multiplayer component of Battlefield and focus on the Single Player Campaign, right? :lol:

Battlefield and Gears also have an outstanding campaign. Where was the campaign in L4D? Where was the story?

Obviously, you'd enjoy the Quake series.

Also, I NEVER said I wasn't a fan of Multiplayer. But it's an additional and expanisve mode to add longevity after a campaign. Use your pea-sized brain for once. Realistically, you couldn't compare L4D with the BF series or TF2; and especially not Gears.

Sincerely,

My badass PC.

I would like to point out, the first video game ever made had no story, and was purely a competitive game for two players. Please don't preach to us like there is a pre-written structure on how a video game needs to be made, otherwise we'll end up with NOTHING new ever again...

Its good, the 2nd one was extremely improved (except for the cast :P) but like these people have said it doesn't really last long, gets boring real quick, it still needs more weapons, enemy variety and such, great co op tho.lightleggy

I hear this and have to wonder if people finding the game boring played Versus mode. Might just be me and a few others, but Left 4 Dead Versus is one of the most dynamic competitive team games I've ever played, and I've played my fair share.

[QUOTE="Michael0134567"][QUOTE="darkdude2k12"]

If there's no point to shooting continuously- YES!

Abso-f'n-lutely.

darkdude2k12

Maybe L4D should've been more than a bot war!!!

Imitating L4D is easy as saying "look at me shooting everyone derp derp..now rinse and repeat...DERRRRRRRRRP".

Campaign's the same as multiplayer, so I suppose it was a given for all the idiots who couldn't afford Live or a badass PC with actual gameplay experience alongside a polished MP. Ugh!

My PC can play Battlefield 3 on High settings at 40+ FPS. I still CHOOSE to play Left 4 Dead over it because it's more fun and an actual team-based experiences instead of the ham-fisted "teamwork" you get in other shooters were players are still running lone-wolf in a similar direction.

Try making as many excuses against Left 4 Dead as you want, but it's a great game, and one of the best multiplayer games to be released this gen.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Definitely the best zombie game ever.ChubbyGuy40

Only other game that could have that shot would be REmake. Other than that

YES