"Wwfl Posted Oct 18, 2009 8:38 am PT can someone tell me the new speical zombies" The Charger, the Spitter and the Jockey...
looks great. @Jawehawk-DK maybe its NOT supposed to be that kinda game. and anaylzing a game like that just proves u don't know what a games all about... HAVING FUN and if u didn't have fun with the first and think its overpriced. and if ur not planning on buying this one...guess what? NO ONE CARES
omg we get ONE more campaign than 4. WOW Valve really outdid them self (sarcasm) Ohh and new they have all the campaigns in VS at the start, which they should have had in the origional. putting something in the game that should be there doesn't make it superior. New charicters? there were no friggin charicter development in L4D1, so why should I care if the survivors have new skins, and new voices. Sequel? my idea of a real sequel is to contenue a story, but the origional had no story. weapon models, and sounds still aren't very good either. Don't get me wrong, L4D2 does look like a great game. But it doesn't justify the FULL PRICE BETA last year. I payed full price for something that at the start had nowhere near enough content to support that price. And today is still lagging behind with content.
its a good game people//////why are u complaining i cant understand,,,,,a new level new characters new weapons new environments what else do we need....???? can anyone say i wrote wrong?????
Not bad at all and the art looks a bit better too. I may have to preorder from Steam when it's available on Steam. :D
I will spend a lot of money in November, with the release of Left 4 Dead 2, Mordern Warfare 2, Assasins Creed 2. Darn, there are some excellent games, but with them all being released during the same month, there is a that bill probably won't get paid, because I will buy them all.
@lavaar-i agree i just dont like the fact that its daylight for the WHOLE game. kinda takes away the feel of it. like less scary or somethin ya know
personaly if i were a zombie and they ran out of bullets i would be glad cause now we are even they got a chainsaw i have claws and we can mob so with guns 3 of us reach them if they have melee weapons 20 of us reach them
@joke_man Yes, I play L4D on my lan with friends and with other players online, but rarely because the game has SO little content and it doesn't offer much replay value. The gameplay stagnates quick. L4D really should have been 20-30 bucks instead of $40 for the pc. I don't know what Xbox players paid. The content of L4D1 and 2 combined really should retail for the price of a single game.
@ Joke_man Well, it may not be my best stuff but if it's all you can attack out of everything I have written then im feeling quite good about myself :)
@DavidRI Have you played L4D. It's all about multiplayer and replayability. It's not one of those games where you play alone through all 4 missions and call it quits. Valve said this before the game was released and even stated that there were 4 missions all about 1 hour each. Now if this game didn't have the replayability and multiplayer, you could proceed to complain; however, the game is basically for MP only and serves its purpose.
Just got left 4 dead and it's a great game I like killing zombies never seen zombies move so fast they attack in mobs I like the bosses in left 4 dead there not only one big hard to kill boss they are not hard to kill but there are many of them that's what I like it's some thing different.Capcom takes the horror and the zombies out of resident evil 5 so move over resident evil left 4 dead is here.Can't wait for left 4 dead 2 it looks awesome. Now does anybody know where I can get the Zoey n... oh never mind Now if can get steam to run the game with no steam-error. Steam you suck I hate you.
"So even Gamespot agrees that this is L4D 1.5" It's L4D .9 Most action shooter give you a standard 8-10 hours of gameplay these days. L4D 1 was only 4-5 hours.
"I swear some of you people are so stupid... Moaning and debating about Iron-sights and how ineffective they are to 'zombies' if it was realistic... " OMG, here we are again. Before calling others stupid why don't you just learn how to read? It would be a great step forward. The thing about realism came from iron-sights and the gameplay. If you don't get it maybe you should start studyng a little bit what a metaphore means instead thinking you are intelligent, a thing you obviously are not. "Firing at the shoulder = What the military teaches you and it doesn't take 30 damn seconds to do it, It takes 3! 3 Damn seconds to 'properly' set your position." Really? Let's see. You run then you stop and aim with the tip of the barrel. 3 seconds? What a wonderful sensation is hitting the air! Really efficient. If you are running and you stop it will take about 20 seconds (if not more) to be sure to hit anything more than 50 meters away, and if the enemy is closer what's the purpose of aiming? To waste time? Oh, yes, I forgot... headshots. Should we start talking about reality instead of fantasy? "A: you'll run out of ammo, B: You'll miss a lot, and C: Can't aim worth crap." Difficult to miss if you are surrrounded, and if you have either minimal training, firing aiming is the first thing you learn. Then if you aren't trained then I challenge you to hit something at more than 50 meters, "iron-sighting" how much you want. As for the ammo, it depends on how you fire. "Accuracy is only good because Head-shots" Yes, how not. This is not a game child. If you aim for headshots you will be already dead before hitting anything constantly. Why instead of talking of things you don't know you don't start reading about metaphores and their meanings on discussions? It's better, believe me.
The military does not teach you to fire at the shoulder. The police teach you to fire at the head and the heart, the same as the military does. Also the entire point of marksman qualification in the armed forces it to teach you to both aim properly and fire quickly. You don't hit targets by aiming sloppily unless you are using a shotgun or explosives.
no way in hell i am i going to pay 65 for something that could be dlc and it not really a big step up from part 1 which it not all that old .
I swear some of you people are so stupid... Moaning and debating about Iron-sights and how ineffective they are to 'zombies' if it was realistic... 1: Firing at the shoulder = What the military teaches you and it doesn't take 30 damn seconds to do it, It takes 3! 3 Damn seconds to 'properly' set your position. But they do not teach you to 'Take your time aiming', it's Aim, Shoot, Move. Now let's say Zombies are real, you gotta kill them... At the hip firing = Quick, 20% Accuracy, 95% Death to You since A: you'll run out of ammo, B: You'll miss a lot, and C: Can't aim worth crap. Shoulder Firing: Quick, 78% Accuracy, 32% Death to You since A: When most people shoot like this, they forget to move. Line of Sight is blocked via looking down the gun's barrel. B: Accuracy is only good because Head-shots = One shot kill rather then Ten shots to the chest. C: It's just F'ing BETTER!
Does it matter if Iron sights is in exsistance? I for one can tell you now that Zombies are not real... sure sure you have seen them in movies and that Thriller video but they just can't come over for a cup of tea or defend themselfs on the matter of being cannon fodder with or without the Iron sights. Another thing about FPS games, who cares about realism... I dont want to be missing every time I press the fire button... if any game adopted that kind of realism then where would the fun be? Simple, there wouldnt be any.
I really don't like the iron sights nor he melee weapons. I agree with amioran on the iron sights. And about the melee weapons...How would someone carying an axe, 2 pistols, a molotov, a medkit, some pills and an assault rifle run from zombies as fast as he can? Plus it takes away of the little realism the game had. A survivor desperately shoving zombies away is cooler and more realistic. Also I think the crosshair goes to a tiny state (accurate) waaaay to fast. After being assaulted by zombies I don't think u can be as accurate as a sniper within 2 seconds...you may say what I wrote is stupid but think about it. Chainsawing zombies = cool. But the shove system was really good...shove away and then shoot. Now people will just sit in corners and use the meele weapon. That is too easy. SUPPORT SHOVING THEM AWAY!!! I WANT IT TO BE HARDER THAN L4D. Also in versus mode infected should be granted the ability to spawn a witch at the beginning and another one after 15 minutes. After they spawn it becomes an NPC and the player that spawned it goes to a normal special infected (boomer, hunter etc.) I really hope this game will be as good as the first...I doubt that though. Also I dislike it because it's daylight. Not scary. And why when they go in a room it suddenly goes really dark that you don't see a thing without the flashlight even when the sun-light could come in from the wide open door....nope I think I'm sticking to zoey,francis, louis and ol' bill. Got attached to them.
"Iron sights DO in fact exist" Again, reread my post. Aiming in reality is completely different from aiming with a gaming iron-sights. You can align the noth/circle with the tip of the barrel how much you want but it wil never be 100% accurate. It is a matter of experience. Either if you have red dots I challenge you to be accurate at 100-200 meters as you are in games, a thing that is very difficult either for veterans and having time to prepare. "Oh, have you ever noticed that the most accurate way to aim is to fire a weapon in a raised position" Yes, if you have TIME. Think about i. You are surrounded by zombies everywhere, do you aim? Aiming stabilizes the recoil but it's SLOW in real life. It is not as in game that it's almost automatic. To put in position will take almost 30 seconds (if you are accustomed to it). Imagine yourself the scene. While you take aim zombies are already biting on you. "most of the guns have little to no recoil when firing, and I doubt Zoey, who had probably never fired a weapon before the infection, can maintain the stability of an M-16 assault rifle while she's firing it full auto from the hip." I never implied that L4D guns are realistic, in fact I said just the opposite if you read well my first post. I only said that using "iron-sights" in a game as L4D will ruin the gameplay as it is now. Using them as they are today used in games will just make the game a lot more easier, since you could just scope with a rifle and use a shotgun like a semi-automatic rifle without any of the difficulties you encounter in doing so in real life. Either if they will put semi-realistic recoil to compensate, it would be really difficult to simulate real aiming as in life mantaining the same gameplay. In a game as L4D, imo (and not only mine), iron-sights as they are now will only spoil the experience.
@amioran Iron sights DO in fact exist the way is to align the notch/circle on the end of the gun with the column on the tip of the barrel, and place the tip of that column on the target, ensuring maximum hit potential. It's just that with some rifles, (I.E. AK47) the sight is adjustable, and while some guns do have it when a scope is not mounted on them (IE M-4 Carbine), they usually use a red dot sight or ACOG scope, as it makes it much easier to aim. "so for reality sake it's much better to just don't use them" Oh, have you ever noticed that the most accurate way to aim is to fire a weapon in a raised position, because it stabilizes the weapon and therefore has less recoil, and when your aiming from the shoulder there is pretty much no way to fire without aiming down the sights? Firing form the hip, which is pretty much the only other way to fire a weapon, is completely inefficient, because you have no control of the weapon, ergo no accuracy. I have no clue what position you'd fire a gun from, but I'm sure that your not going to hit anything anytime soon... but I do agree with you that aiming down the sight makes guns way too accurate, but most are equally as unrealistic when firing from the hip, ESPECIALLY Left 4 Dead... most of the guns have little to no recoil when firing, and I doubt Zoey, who had probably never fired a weapon before the infection, can maintain the stability of an M-16 assault rifle while she's firing it full auto from the hip.
So left 4 dead 1 is bascily gunna be useless and a waste of money by the time this comes out? great less than a year later my 40 quid was wasted
"I stopped reading right there. How stupid are you?! Do they put those little dots and holes for aiming on the top of a gun to make it look pretty?!" And then you have the audacity of calling me stupid. Did you ever once in your life taken a rifle and tried it? Before posting things that pertains to reality please have the decency to know what you are talking about before arguing on what others says. A rifle (or gun) doesn't zoom on the target if you take aim, a rifle doesn't give you perfect sights on an target if you aim, a rifle isn't accurate perfectly at 100-200 meters if you aim. "Iron-sights" (whatever that means) in games are totally different on aiming on a real gun or rifle, COMPLETELY, so for reality sake it's much better to just don't use them. If you aren't convinced why don't you just try and test it yourself? Go to a polygon and try to aim with a pistol at 100 meters and tell me how many centers you do (since in games it's so easy with "iron-sights"), and please note that aiming with a pistol is much easier than with a rifle. If you then tell me that in FPS they are used for gameplay reasons that's currently all another story and I can agree with you, but it has nothing to do with reality. And then, if you had read the rest of the post, maybe you would have understood that what I was more concerned about is just the part of gameplay. The pace of L4D is completely different from others FPS. If you include the ability to use iron-sights you will completely had to modify it to support it.
"In real life you don't have any 'iron-sights' " I stopped reading right there. How stupid are you?! Do they put those little dots and holes for aiming on the top of a gun to make it look pretty?! NO. Valve has a tradition of no iron sights, IDC really but i guess it would be cool.
When there is a zombie running frantically at you, ready to chop on your face, I seriously doubt you'll be lining your shots up through the iron-sight. You'd be blazing from the damn hips. Also the L4D characters your are average Joes. Not military trained soldiers like in CoD. People want "immersion" and yet they're not be realistic. Contradicting isn't it. People these days...
"Someone at Valve should take note of how many requests for "iron-sights" there are in these comments." What people like you and others that whine about not "iron-sights" should understand is that this is not CoD or Crysis. In real life you don't have any "iron-sights" and it will make the game too easy, even on expert. You could snipe with a rifle, you could use a shotgun as a rifle. I understand that many little kids that don't either win the first map on normal because they sucks could cry about it, but, really, for anybody else that likes a challenge it will simply spoil all the fun of the game, i.e. being more "realistic" than other games, at last on this thing. Hell, I even completely disabled the crosshair from the game just for this, having "iron-sight" would dramatically change the dynamics of the game, they should overhaul completely the pace and "craziness" of what makes this title interesting. But it's always like this: if you have A, you want B and if you have B, you want A. Childish behaviour as this is easily recognizable because it doesn't bear any true connection with the reality of a given situation. "I did not need new guns" Really? It seems to me that the whiners that you called in your help just before as a proof of what community wants are mad about the poor weapon choices of L4D. I don't see how having more weapons (and a bit more realistic since we are there) couldn't help or spoil the game. Or maybe you HAD to whine on something and you were at loss on what to say of negative? I wil leave alone the comment on characters becasue that can be personal taste.
I'm not buying. The first was one was nothing special IMO. Just my opinion, but something is missing! It doesn't feel like a fun zombie killing game. I think this is becuase of 2 reasons; 1) Too many zombies, althought this could have been a good thing if reason 2 weren't true; 2) Too fast pace.
If I'm not mistaken but most well designed games take at least 1 to 2 years for a game to be made. If Left 4 Dead came out in Fall of 2008 that means they were most likely already working on this game at the same time? I really can't see Valve's reasoning for this outside of making more money. I'm sure the game will be great and probably better than the first. But I'm not paying 60 more bucks for a game who's prequel is just a little over one year old.
It hurts my feelings for you to call me such a thing. Besides, saying that you don't want to argue anymore directly translates to "I have no other initiative but to give up this argument, but I will do it as smugly as humanely possible". ;)
I don't want to argue with you anymore, it's boring and your a troll. your first post was to get an emotional response in which you did, your 2nd will not get such a thing.. with the SDK release for left 4 dead out Im going to get alot more out of this title with the user created content... left 4 dead 2 is still early days as much as I am angry about the recent announcement of this sequel I am as much as excited to see if valve can pull the bunny out of the hat and offer something that all parties would consider reasonable. "I doubt the boycott will directly dent sales, though I am quite sure it will not sell as well as the original game. What it will do is dent Valve's usually impeccable rep, though the announcement of the game already has -- a decade's history of substantial support for released titles, only to prematurely announce a sequel to a game that never got what was promised and expected"