L4D2 get's random map pathway maker
ks...@4email.net
get A.I. random pathways in certain maps , that change each time you
play them.
"It wouldn't be a proper horror game without a spooky cemetery, but
the one implemented in the New Orleans L4D2 is unique , in fact , it
changes every time you play it. The layout of the crypts and
headstones reconfigures randomly every time run through it; there are
a different bunch of puzzle pieces but they can go together in several
ways,and you simply can't predict how the director will put them
together."
"There are so many combinations of the cemetery , that I never know."
says- Denton
"Best of all you'll see this device on other maps too."
I like one of the new features too is you can't alert a horde and just
stand in one spot and defend an area, you HAVE TOO move to the end of
the map to end the horde and press the switch. You can't wait out the
horde as they'll infinitely spawn now , so no more mêlée camping for
the most part.
This new feature to the game and the A.I. director is called "The
Gauntlet", one of the new elements of the A.I. director 2.0
The Gauntlet which previously the A.I. director was technically unable
to perform is similar to the original games finale scenarios , but
instead of defending a 'hot zone" you have to keep moving.
If you remember the 1st game you could camp in a closet or on a rock
and keep killing incoming hordes until the plane arrived or the boat
came. Only have to run out of the hot spot to kill a tank or run back
from being smoked out of position.
But instead the newly designed 'Gaunlet' element to the upgraded
director forces players to keep moving .
Say for example you have to start from one end of the bridge and make
to the other to finish the act or scenario ,you can't simply camp out
the horde and tanks and make a dash for the APC , boat, or plain when
they arrive, you have to move to win and keep moving.
The Gauntlet isGauntlet designed to force movement. This was actually
created watching most of us play , they noticed allot of people
alerting hordes and camping one defense spot, which tended to get
stale after doing this every other crescendo or finale.
Also introduced are bombing runs by the director, yes the director
will procedurally do bombing runs from fighter jets , so that bridge
you just crossed? well now that bridge is gone from a directors
bombing , so no backtracking to a good cover camp spot. The bombing
planes are part of the plot as the military is now involved in
eliminating the horde, story wise. It's also a great excuse to prevent
back-trackers.
So unlike the farm house finale where you defend the barn or the house
itself , now your faced with defending while on the run across a
bridge , and only reaching the other side will end it.
Either way sound like an awesome game is getting even more awesome.
The alMIGHTY N
Indeed.
It also sounds like a legitimate *sequel.*
This revelation already makes the earlier argument that Left 4 Dead 2
should just be an update to the existing game look very weak at best.
Should Valve reveal another upgrade, that earlier argument would be
all but worthless.
Eman
>
> - Show quoted text -
There never was an argument that L4D2 should be an update. The
argument was that L4D1 had no content updates and future content
updates, post L4D2, are questionable. Nobody said L4D2 wouldn't be
awesome. The usual lifespan of a game is to add more maps before
moving along to a sequel (and asking for another $60). The potential
of L4D1 is gravely untapped. The protest is just from gamers that
hoped that their $60 investment would have gone further. If you're a
bargin shopper and bought the game for $30 or lower, of course you
could care less.
The alMIGHTY N
Actually, there was such an argument made. I was not referring to
anyone in particular here when I made that comment.
> The
> argument was that L4D1 had no content updates and future content
> updates, post L4D2, are questionable. Nobody said L4D2 wouldn't be
> awesome.
I didn't claim that anyone did say that. Simply put, one argument I
read was that Left 4 Dead 2 should not be a sequel gamers had to pay
money for but a free update to the existing Left 4 Dead game. I
thought it was preposterous for said person to not even consider that
at the very least the update would have a price attached.
> The usual lifespan of a game is to add more maps before
> moving along to a sequel (and asking for another $60). The potential
> of L4D1 is gravely untapped. The protest is just from gamers that
> hoped that their $60 investment would have gone further. If you're a
> bargin shopper and bought the game for $30 or lower, of course you
> could care less.
I think I have to become a bargain shopper right now with a second
child on the way, but when I purchased Left 4 Dead, I was not one to
deliberately wait on every game to drop in price. It just so happened
that I was busy playing another game at the time and jumped on a sale
in which the game cost me only $40 at Amazon.com.
The price I paid is not why I'm less stressed by the situation than
you. Rather, my relative lack of interest in online multiplayer gaming
is the culprit.
My concern about the attitudes of the more outspoken protesters is
that said attitudes were too reactionary. Rather than giving Valve the
benefit of the doubt and waiting to see what else they announce for
the first game, they immediately went on the attack because they
assumed that Valve would no longer release meaningful updates for the
game.
Eman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh ok, I thought you were referring to the 42,000 player signed
petition to boycott the game, that objected to the quick release of a
sequel without much support and no sign of continued support for the
original.
I have the PC version and only payed $40 through Steam pre-order and
there are a ton of user created maps. I'm pissed from the standpoint
that now my favorite user maps have to be re-created in L4D2 and with
this new random passage generator its questionable if user maps will
be easily created. The benefits of random maps vs. a large number of
maps is a toss up.
The alMIGHTY N
I was, in part, referring to them, not because of the reason behind
their objection but because of the nature of their reaction.
Regardless of why they want to boycott the game, the very idea of
boycotting the game is reactionary to an alarming degree.
> I have the PC version and only payed $40 through Steam pre-order and
> there are a ton of user created maps. I'm pissed from the standpoint
> that now my favorite user maps have to be re-created in L4D2 and with
> this new random passage generator its questionable if user maps will
> be easily created. The benefits of random maps vs. a large number of
> maps is a toss up.
You *could* continue playing your favorite user maps with the first
game...
ks...@4email.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think the maps are completely randomized, I think from reading
the OXM interview that there are certain areas in the map which
reconfigure , I'm guessing maybe 80% fixed map and 20% of it is
reorganized each time you play it.
Like the run in the cemetery can be a simple straight line and you can
see the other side , or other times its reconfigured like a puzzle. It
won't be a labyrinth where you have to back track but it will
randomize.
From what I read its not a full blown randomizer. I still think user
created PC maps will trump the various random pathways in L4D2.
The alMIGHTY N
That sounds quite right. The developers used a comparison to a puzzle
where certain pieces can be switched around at the Director's
discretion.
> From what I read its not a full blown randomizer. I still think user
> created PC maps will trump the various random pathways in L4D2.
There are a lot of talented "amateur" level designers out there so I
would not be surprised. It's not rare that user-created maps are even
better than the ones created by the developers for any given game.
The alMIGHTY N
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> that the A.I. is relatively the same as online,
>
> But in my experience I don't even consider L4D as an offline game, I
> don't even put it in my offline category.
>
> For me I feel like the offline portion is just a training mission for
> online play.
>
> L4D through and through is a multiplayer experience for me.
It most certainly is. The design screams "multiplayer" through and
through. It's the opposite of most games, which are single-player
games with a "multiplayer mode," in that it's a multiplayer game with
a "single-player mode."
Hell, the fact that the very first mode listed is the campaign mode
played with other people online says droves.
Very few games are like this. The Unreal Tournament games fall into
this category. Quake III Arena also qualifies.
Eman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Saying you're not going to buy a game is reactionary to an alarming
degree? How else do you tell a corporation that you don't like what
they are doing? Regardless of how awesome the sequel may sound, fans
of the original can say they don't like the direction the game is
going and say they're not going to buy it. The customer should have a
voice. I wish more game players would be outspoken about game
developments that they don't like.
I *could* keep playing my favorite user maps, but when L4D2 is
released the online community will be split. I don't play L4D offline.
ks...@4email.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah that's a very good point , and allot of the people doing the
boycott aren't your garden variety Halo hoppers. The valve community
of gamers is a mod heavy community and its great strength is user
content and their voice is not one of just bitchin about a sequel but
rather , where the hell is the DLC content for part 1?
COD :WAW already has (2) map packs and extra maps for zombie mode.
Hell WAW has more updates for its zombie mode than L4D . It it isn't
packaged as COD:WAW2.
Even Gears2 is getting more single player campaign DLC , and bunch
of new maps for MP as well as co-op Horde. They didn't package it as
Gears3.
It poses a good question " will this split the L4D community? bewteen
the 2 versions? I doubt it but still I think its a valid question and
one worth looking at.
But if we get some new campaigns bewteen now and Nov for L4D1 then the
point is mute, still I think the damage is done regardless.
Is the newer A.I. director 2.0 to advanced to simply be part of a DLC
for L4D1 and incorporated into the games old maps as well as the new
ones?
The alMIGHTY N
No, but rallying people into a mob mentality to do so based on very
little information is.
> How else do you tell a corporation that you don't like what
> they are doing?
I don't have a problem with boycotting. I have a problem with
immediately organizing a boycott when it's very possible you don't
have the full story.
> Regardless of how awesome the sequel may sound, fans
> of the original can say they don't like the direction the game is
> going and say they're not going to buy it. The customer should have a
> voice. I wish more game players would be outspoken about game
> developments that they don't like.
The problem isn't that they don't like that there's a sequel but that
they feel there weren't enough updates to make the first game feel
worthwhile.
*MY* problem with the situation is that without giving the company any
time to announce anything else in the way of support for the current
game, they automatically assumed the worse and immediately started
down this boycott path.
People don't have any freakin' patience anymore and are willing to
jump the gun on anything without so much as an ounce of good judgment.
This is Bush league (and yes, I meant to capitalize the B) behavior.
If, after a month or two down the line, Valve doesn't announce
anything worthwhile for the current game, *then* go apeshit with the
boycotting.
> I *could* keep playing my favorite user maps, but when L4D2 is
> released the online community will be split. I don't play L4D offline.
The people who play Call of Duty games seem to manage and they get a
new game every year, also.
BTW - I wasn't *actually* suggesting you stick with Left 4 Dead. It
was more of a wry comment than anything else.
Eman
>
> No, but rallying people into a mob mentality to do so based on very
> little information is.
>
A "mob mentality" for a group of gamers that say they're not going to
buy a game? A mob would want to go lynch the president of Valve.
That would be reactionary to an alarming degree. A group of concerned
consumers that sign a petition to boycott a game is hardly a mob.
> *MY* problem with the situation is that without giving the company any
> time to announce anything else in the way of support for the current
> game, they automatically assumed the worse and immediately started
> down this boycott path.
In other words "trust" Mr. Corporate America, because he truly has
your best interests at heart. He wouldn't do you wrong. No never.
We will see more content for L4D1, but I'd bet my RRODed 360 that if
it weren't for the boycott, we wouldn't have gotten squat before the
release of L4D2. Otherwise why wasn't more content for L4D1 mentioned
during the E3 press conference? Because they thought we would all be
saying "oooh shiny, new new buy buy", but we can't ask "why?" Nobody
asked for a sequel. All the new stuff is nice, but why? There's tons
of untapped potential in the current title.
> People don't have any freakin' patience anymore and are willing to
> jump the gun on anything without so much as an ounce of good judgment.
> This is Bush league (and yes, I meant to capitalize the B) behavior.
Making a judgement on whether you're going to buy a game is a far cry
from anything that Bush was responsible for. In case you haven't
noticed, money is kind of tight right now and people are a little
concerned about their jobs. Now more than ever consumers need to be
reactionary and let companies know that shit won't fly. That $60 they
spent on L4D1 won't stretch as far as they would like.
> The people who play Call of Duty games seem to manage and they get a
> new game every year, also.
Yeah, people are still playing Halo2 also. The point is that the
community is not what it was before the sequel is released. It
happens with every game series. Are you telling me that COD4 online
play was unaffected by the release of COD5?
COD is a bad comparison as every game is developed by an alternating
development house. Each game takes about two years of development.
COD5 is the true sequel to COD3 and COD6 will be the true sequel to
COD4.
The alMIGHTY N
> On Jun 19, 10:15 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No, but rallying people into a mob mentality to do so based on very
> > little information is.
>
> A "mob mentality" for a group of gamers that say they're not going to
> buy a game? A mob would want to go lynch the president of Valve.
> That would be reactionary to an alarming degree. A group of concerned
> consumers that sign a petition to boycott a game is hardly a mob.
LOL
A "mob mentality" has nothing to do with the degree of actions
typically associated with a "mob." "Mob mentality" is simply the
phenomenon in which people, when banded together in a group with
similar goals or needs, are more prone to take actions that are both
irrational (seemingly or actually) and not necessarily what the
individual would do when left to their own devices based on influence
of their peers.
Had nobody rallied likeminded Left 4 Dead fans to sign an online
petition to boycott the game, chances are most of the people who
signed that petition would not actually have boycotted the game on
their own. Chances are even now with the existence of this boycott
petition that many of the people who signed it will end up buying the
game despite what they said in the relatively anonymous world of the
Internet.
> > *MY* problem with the situation is that without giving the company any
> > time to announce anything else in the way of support for the current
> > game, they automatically assumed the worse and immediately started
> > down this boycott path.
>
> In other words "trust" Mr. Corporate America, because he truly has
> your best interests at heart. He wouldn't do you wrong. No never.
We're not talking about corporate America here. We're talking about a
developer who all these bitching and moaning fans stated in their
bitching and moaning had in the past supported their games. You either
trust them now like you did before or you don't trust them and then
stop whining about how they *should* have released more content since,
by not ever trusting them, you shouldn't have expected anything in the
first place.
You can't have it both ways.
> We will see more content for L4D1, but I'd bet my RRODed 360 that if
> it weren't for the boycott, we wouldn't have gotten squat before the
> release of L4D2. Otherwise why wasn't more content for L4D1 mentioned
> during the E3 press conference?
An announcement of a sequel is generally bigger news than the
announcement of downloadable content. Perhaps they didn't want one to
take away from the other. Perhaps they didn't want to just announce
content without showing anything (you can get away with just talking
about new features in a sequel). And, yes, perhaps they didn't have
anything at the time. The point is - you and everyone else making a
big stink about it didn't and still don't know.
> Because they thought we would all be
> saying "oooh shiny, new new buy buy", but we can't ask "why?" Nobody
> asked for a sequel. All the new stuff is nice, but why? There's tons
> of untapped potential in the current title.
Valve is not simply releasing new maps. Valve has already announced a
significant improvement to the engine that is fit for a sequel and you
can be sure there will be more improvements announced over the next
few months.
> > People don't have any freakin' patience anymore and are willing to
> > jump the gun on anything without so much as an ounce of good judgment.
> > This is Bush league (and yes, I meant to capitalize the B) behavior.
>
> Making a judgement on whether you're going to buy a game is a far cry
> from anything that Bush was responsible for.
I wasn't comparing the actual action - just the behavior/mentality of
an immediate gut reaction with very little actual information.
> In case you haven't
> noticed, money is kind of tight right now and people are a little
> concerned about their jobs.
No, really?
> Now more than ever consumers need to be
> reactionary and let companies know that shit won't fly. That $60 they
> spent on L4D1 won't stretch as far as they would like.
This isn't inherently about the release of a sequel but a fear that
there will be no more support for the original game. The uproar
occurred - what - a day or two after the announcement of the sequel,
if even that long? There was *nothing* on which to base this reaction.
Considering how many fans cited Valve's long history of supporting
their games, it was asinine of them to make the assumption that Valve
wouldn't do so this time just because they didn't announce something
new for Left 4 Dead right alongside the sequel announcement.
> > The people who play Call of Duty games seem to manage and they get a
> > new game every year, also.
>
> Yeah, people are still playing Halo2 also. The point is that the
> community is not what it was before the sequel is released. It
> happens with every game series. Are you telling me that COD4 online
> play was unaffected by the release of COD5?
There's obviously an effect. However, there were still tons of people
playing Call of Duty 4 well after Call of Duty: World at War was
released. There were some distinct differences and the people went
with whichever one they thought was better.
In fact, COD4 regularly places higher than CODWAW on the Xbox Live
list.
> COD is a bad comparison as every game is developed by an alternating
> development house. Each game takes about two years of development.
> COD5 is the true sequel to COD3 and COD6 will be the true sequel to
> COD4.
From the typical user's perspective, they're all one big series of
games. Further, COD5 is much more similar to COD4 than COD3 - it uses
the same engine Infinity Ward developed for COD4.
Eman
> Had nobody rallied likeminded Left 4 Dead fans to sign an online
> petition to boycott the game, chances are most of the people who
> signed that petition would not actually have boycotted the game on
> their own. Chances are even now with the existence of this boycott
> petition that many of the people who signed it will end up buying the
> game despite what they said in the relatively anonymous world of the
> Internet.
...and alot of people who didn't sign the petition won't be buying the
game either. Organized boycotts get alot more attention than some
random people complaining. Answer this question, what will be the end
effect of the boycott? Valve is going to either release more content
for L4D1 and/or pack as much as they can into L4D2 to justify its
existence. How is this a bad thing for anybody?
> We're not talking about corporate America here. We're talking about a
> developer who all these bitching and moaning fans stated in their
> bitching and moaning had in the past supported their games. You either
> trust them now like you did before or you don't trust them and then
> stop whining about how they *should* have released more content since,
> by not ever trusting them, you shouldn't have expected anything in the
> first place.
>
> You can't have it both ways.
Valve is not a huge developer. They have a limited number of
resources. Based on what we have seen of L4D2, where do you think
their focus has been since the release of L4D1? Providing content for
customers that already spent $60 on L4D1 or on new stuff for L4D2?
> Considering how many fans cited Valve's long history of supporting
> their games, it was asinine of them to make the assumption that Valve
> wouldn't do so this time just because they didn't announce something
> new for Left 4 Dead right alongside the sequel announcement.
The quick announcement of a sequel departs from what Valve has been
known for, quality over quantity. They don't release a ton of games.
Fans of Valve look at the longeviety and constant tweaking of Half
Life / Counterstrike and expect that of all their products. The
announcement of L4D2 marks a change in direction for the company.
> From the typical user's perspective, they're all one big series of
> games. Further, COD5 is much more similar to COD4 than COD3 - it uses
> the same engine Infinity Ward developed for COD4.
A "typical player" knows the difference between modern warfare and
WWII. WWII has been played to death. Many players prefer the modern
weapons in COD4 over COD5. Now when COD6 gets released, we'll see
what game tops the Xbox Live list.
The alMIGHTY N
> On Jun 22, 10:24 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Had nobody rallied likeminded Left 4 Dead fans to sign an online
> > petition to boycott the game, chances are most of the people who
> > signed that petition would not actually have boycotted the game on
> > their own. Chances are even now with the existence of this boycott
> > petition that many of the people who signed it will end up buying the
> > game despite what they said in the relatively anonymous world of the
> > Internet.
>
> ...and alot of people who didn't sign the petition won't be buying the
> game either. Organized boycotts get alot more attention than some
> random people complaining.
Of course they do. I don't have a problem with boycotts. I have a
problem with people rallying them without even taking the time to find
out whether their complaint is even legitimate. The boycott was
organized only a few days after the announcement without any
confirmation of Valve's plans regarding the original game.
*THAT* is my problem.
> Answer this question, what will be the end
> effect of the boycott? Valve is going to either release more content
> for L4D1 and/or pack as much as they can into L4D2 to justify its
> existence. How is this a bad thing for anybody?
That's not a bad thing but you have no basis on which to say that said
result was due to the boycott. You don't seem to understand the main
problem here which is that none of those people participating in that
boycott knew whether Valve was going to release more content for Left
4 Dead.
There is absolutely *no* reason to assume that Valve was not going to
do this. There was no basis for that conclusion. That was a simple
reactionary assumption made by people who didn't have the patience or
good faith to wait a week or even a month to find out!
*Because* of Valve's track record, which these vocal "fans" kept going
on about, any level-headed person would be more inclined to give them
the benefit of the doubt and believe that they *were* intending to
release more content for Left 4 Dead prior to the release of Left 4
Dead 2.
Considering the statements I've heard from you and the "protesters,"
I'm unfortunately also inclined to believe that it wouldn't have
mattered, anyway, because even another update would not have been
enough for you.
> > We're not talking about corporate America here. We're talking about a
> > developer who all these bitching and moaning fans stated in their
> > bitching and moaning had in the past supported their games. You either
> > trust them now like you did before or you don't trust them and then
> > stop whining about how they *should* have released more content since,
> > by not ever trusting them, you shouldn't have expected anything in the
> > first place.
>
> > You can't have it both ways.
>
> Valve is not a huge developer. They have a limited number of
> resources. Based on what we have seen of L4D2, where do you think
> their focus has been since the release of L4D1? Providing content for
> customers that already spent $60 on L4D1 or on new stuff for L4D2?
There aren't really any "huge" developers out there. Even when you
look at a company like Electronic Arts, they have development *teams,*
each of which are assigned to different franchises.
Epic isn't a huge developer, either, but they managed to juggle two
major franchises *and* create content. Further, Valve isn't just the
developer we knew from Half-Life and Half-Life 2. They acquired the
actual team responsible for Left 4 Dead in the first place.
So we have both the people who actually made Left 4 Dead *and* the
people who worked on releases like Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Counter-
strike, Team Fortress, and Portal.
So to respond to your question in a way... I don't think they needed
nearly all of those resources to work on Left 4 Dead 2.
> > Considering how many fans cited Valve's long history of supporting
> > their games, it was asinine of them to make the assumption that Valve
> > wouldn't do so this time just because they didn't announce something
> > new for Left 4 Dead right alongside the sequel announcement.
>
> The quick announcement of a sequel departs from what Valve has been
> known for, quality over quantity. They don't release a ton of games.
> Fans of Valve look at the longeviety and constant tweaking of Half
> Life / Counterstrike and expect that of all their products. The
> announcement of L4D2 marks a change in direction for the company.
The key difference is that Left 4 Dead 2 isn't "a whole new game." The
justification for another "iteration" in the franchise is there but
it's not like they completely scrapped the original game engine and
started from scratch.
Half-Life to Half-Life 2 was a MUCH bigger endeavor.
Also, keep in mind that they're now truly part of the console
community. Prior, they could sustain themselves and maintain interest
in their company and products by simply putting out updates for the
droves of people who pay them subscription fees to Steam to play
online. Valve doesn't get jack shit from Xbox Live, though, and they
don't have the ability to go 5 years between games anymore.
However, making a sequel does not mean that they're going to stop
supporting the old one, at least not before the release of the sequel.
> > From the typical user's perspective, they're all one big series of
> > games. Further, COD5 is much more similar to COD4 than COD3 - it uses
> > the same engine Infinity Ward developed for COD4.
>
> A "typical player" knows the difference between modern warfare and
> WWII. WWII has been played to death. Many players prefer the modern
> weapons in COD4 over COD5. Now when COD6 gets released, we'll see
> what game tops the Xbox Live list.
Even more apparent to that player is that Call of Duty World at War
looks, plays and feels like Modern Warfare and not Call of Duty 3.
Hell, they even changed the major setting of the game to one that has
never been used in the previous Call of Duty World War II based games.
Same gameplay. Same graphical quality. Same multiplayer.
Eman
> There is absolutely *no* reason to assume that Valve was not going to
> do this. There was no basis for that conclusion. That was a simple
> reactionary assumption made by people who didn't have the patience or
> good faith to wait a week or even a month to find out!
Here we are, what 3 weeks after the E3 announcement.... I've seen
alot of L4D2 footage, that's for sure. So it is ok to scream and
shout now? Or should I wait for one good month? Or two months? How
about I wait until November, then shout bloody murder? Are the cries
from the early alarmist still unfounded? Personally, I don't think
there needs to be a reason to scream at software developers. Nobody
screamed when Valve said before Christmas, "more content is coming
real soon". Nobody screamed when it wasn't until April when a
sizeable content pack arrived and it was the lame Survivor mode. This
wasn't an instant reaction. There was a build up.
> Considering the statements I've heard from you and the "protesters,"
> I'm unfortunately also inclined to believe that it wouldn't have
> mattered, anyway, because even another update would not have been
> enough for you.
I really can care less. I just like playing devil's advocate. These
statements calling the protesters "assinine" and "irrational" prompts
me to look at things from their perspective and try to rationalize
with their complaints rather than just dismissing the outburst was
unneccessary. Even if they didn't show any content for L4D1 surely
when they came back and said "Trust us" they could have given us a
teaser of what's to come for L4D1.
> There aren't really any "huge" developers out there. Even when you
> look at a company like Electronic Arts, they have development *teams,*
> each of which are assigned to different franchises.
>
> Epic isn't a huge developer, either, but they managed to juggle two
> major franchises *and* create content.
People who bought UT3 probably don't agree with you. The UT3 ball was
definately dropped.
>Further, Valve isn't just the
> developer we knew from Half-Life and Half-Life 2. They acquired the
> actual team responsible for Left 4 Dead in the first place.
>
> So we have both the people who actually made Left 4 Dead *and* the
> people who worked on releases like Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Counter-
> strike, Team Fortress, and Portal.
>
> So to respond to your question in a way... I don't think they needed
> nearly all of those resources to work on Left 4 Dead 2.
Ok, that didn't answer my question, at all. Are you saying more
resources are being put on L4D1 content, since the improvements in
L4D2 are minimal?
> The key difference is that Left 4 Dead 2 isn't "a whole new game." The
> justification for another "iteration" in the franchise is there but
> it's not like they completely scrapped the original game engine and
> started from scratch.
>
> Half-Life to Half-Life 2 was a MUCH bigger endeavor.
>
I completely understand the key differences. Thanks for explaining
why L4D2 isn't a sequel along the same lines as Valve's previous
sequels.
> Also, keep in mind that they're now truly part of the console
> community. Prior, they could sustain themselves and maintain interest
> in their company and products by simply putting out updates for the
> droves of people who pay them subscription fees to Steam to play
> online. Valve doesn't get jack shit from Xbox Live, though, and they
> don't have the ability to go 5 years between games anymore.
I'm glad you agree with me. They got fat and now they need to pump
out more product. That's the American way. I'm fine with that, just
call it what it is.
BTW sub fees for Steam? There's no sub fees for Steam.
> Same gameplay. Same graphical quality. Same multiplayer.
Damn, I got duped. I bought the same game twice!
The alMIGHTY N
> On Jun 23, 11:53 am, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely *no* reason to assume that Valve was not going to
> > do this. There was no basis for that conclusion. That was a simple
> > reactionary assumption made by people who didn't have the patience or
> > good faith to wait a week or even a month to find out!
>
> Here we are, what 3 weeks after the E3 announcement.... I've seen
> alot of L4D2 footage, that's for sure. So it is ok to scream and
> shout now?
I wouldn't have a problem if people now were getting antsy about the
situation.
> Or should I wait for one good month? Or two months? How
> about I wait until November, then shout bloody murder?
Personally, I would wait for a month or two after the announcement
before really starting to question Valve. On the other hand, people
getting concerned now at least would have given Valve some time and
patience.
> Are the cries
> from the early alarmist still unfounded?
You still don't seem to understand the issue at hand, which is that
the mentality that immediate reaction without fair evaluation of a
situation is not good. This isn't a matter of life or death. This
isn't a case where a split second could determine whether someone
survives a fire.
Regardless of whether Valve was full of crap when they said they were
going to release DLC before the sequel, the mentality is still flawed.
> Personally, I don't think
> there needs to be a reason to scream at software developers. Nobody
> screamed when Valve said before Christmas, "more content is coming
> real soon". Nobody screamed when it wasn't until April when a
> sizeable content pack arrived and it was the lame Survivor mode. This
> wasn't an instant reaction. There was a build up.
Whether a gamer liked "Survivor" mode or not, it was still a new mode
and it was still DLC for the game. As far as how "soon" content shows
up, I'm inclined to agree with developers who lamented that consumers
have begun to expect content very soon after the release of a game
even while getting ticked off in situations like with Resident Evil
5's DLC where they think that a "too soon" DLC release amounts to the
developers cheating them at retail.
> > Considering the statements I've heard from you and the "protesters,"
> > I'm unfortunately also inclined to believe that it wouldn't have
> > mattered, anyway, because even another update would not have been
> > enough for you.
>
> I really can care less. I just like playing devil's advocate.
As do I at times.
> These
> statements calling the protesters "assinine" and "irrational" prompts
> me to look at things from their perspective and try to rationalize
> with their complaints rather than just dismissing the outburst was
> unneccessary.
I tried to as well but could not justify their behavior. "Rationalize"
is actually a good term to describe what they were doing when
explaining why they did what they did.
> Even if they didn't show any content for L4D1 surely
> when they came back and said "Trust us" they could have given us a
> teaser of what's to come for L4D1.
Perhaps they could have. On the flipside, perhaps they weren't quite
ready to show anything and didn't feel it prudent to cobble together a
subpar teaser video file in a rush just to appease a few outspoken
gamers.
> > There aren't really any "huge" developers out there. Even when you
> > look at a company like Electronic Arts, they have development *teams,*
> > each of which are assigned to different franchises.
>
> > Epic isn't a huge developer, either, but they managed to juggle two
> > major franchises *and* create content.
>
> People who bought UT3 probably don't agree with you. The UT3 ball was
> definately dropped.
That's a tough comparison to reasonably make. The development team had
to deal with a lot more than most studios did with their games because
of the user community-focused nature of the series and the issues with
the Xbox 360 platform not accepting user-created content.
Epic seems to have given up trying to convince Microsoft to allow them
to bring user mods in probably because it came to a point where it was
no longer worth it to try.
If I remember correctly, the best they could do was release an
expansion for the PS3 version to match the exclusive content the 360
retail version had right off the bat. Plus, at the very least, the PS3
version allows for user mods created in the PC community, alleviating
the need for Epic-created maps to a degree.
> >Further, Valve isn't just the
> > developer we knew from Half-Life and Half-Life 2. They acquired the
> > actual team responsible for Left 4 Dead in the first place.
>
> > So we have both the people who actually made Left 4 Dead *and* the
> > people who worked on releases like Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Counter-
> > strike, Team Fortress, and Portal.
>
> > So to respond to your question in a way... I don't think they needed
> > nearly all of those resources to work on Left 4 Dead 2.
>
> Ok, that didn't answer my question, at all. Are you saying more
> resources are being put on L4D1 content, since the improvements in
> L4D2 are minimal?
Actually, it directly addressed your contention that Valve was a
developer too small to be able to handle Left 4 Dead 2 *and* DLC for
Left 4 Dead. One could reasonably assume that the entirety of the
Turtle Rock Studios staff, who created Left 4 Dead in the first place,
was focused on the sequel. One could also reasonably assume that the
entirety of the Valve staff that predated the acquired studio would
*not* be needed to work on Left 4 Dead 2.
In fact, one could very reasonably assume that there would be plenty
of the "original" Valve resources available to work on things other
than Left 4 Dead 2 since they were able to port Half-Life 2, finish
off Team Fortress, port Episode 1, create Episode 2, and create Portal
concurrently.
When you looked at the improvements being made to Left 4 Dead 2, did
you really think for one second that all or even *most* of Valve's
staff had to be dedicated to that project? Let's not kid ourselves
here. Left 4 Dead 2 is no Half-Life 2. It's not even an Episode 2.
> > The key difference is that Left 4 Dead 2 isn't "a whole new game." The
> > justification for another "iteration" in the franchise is there but
> > it's not like they completely scrapped the original game engine and
> > started from scratch.
>
> > Half-Life to Half-Life 2 was a MUCH bigger endeavor.
>
> I completely understand the key differences. Thanks for explaining
> why L4D2 isn't a sequel along the same lines as Valve's previous
> sequels.
Did anybody ever say that it was? Left 4 Dead 2 is more akin to Call
of Duty 3 (although probably a bit more involved since there really
weren't significant upgrades to the game engine in COD3 like there are
in L4D2).
> > Also, keep in mind that they're now truly part of the console
> > community. Prior, they could sustain themselves and maintain interest
> > in their company and products by simply putting out updates for the
> > droves of people who pay them subscription fees to Steam to play
> > online. Valve doesn't get jack shit from Xbox Live, though, and they
> > don't have the ability to go 5 years between games anymore.
>
> I'm glad you agree with me. They got fat
They got fat? I would think the analogy is they got emaciated.
> and now they need to pump
> out more product. That's the American way. I'm fine with that, just
> call it what it is.
I would think that working when you need money isn't just the
"American" way. I'm happy for you that you're in such a financially
sound position that you could afford to not get paid for all your
work.
> BTW sub fees for Steam? There's no sub fees for Steam.
My bad. I was thinking of the cut they got from selling other people's
games digitally.
> > Same gameplay. Same graphical quality. Same multiplayer.
>
> Damn, I got duped. I bought the same game twice!
If that's the conclusion at which you arrived, I'd have to same I'm
not surprised that you did.
The alMIGHTY N
> Almight you really don't have a clue do you? You ASSUME to much and
> even say so in your posts. You conclude by saying ---
>
> " When you looked at the improvements being made to Left 4 Dead 2,
> did
> you really think for one second that all or even *most* of Valve's
> staff had to be dedicated to that project? Let's not kid ourselves
> Almighty
>
> I'm sorry Almighty but your assumptions are wrong.
>
> Now Let me state the FACTS from Valve and not assumptions from
> Almighty.
>
> "We have a giant team now," -says Faliszek, ( writer /creator L4D)
>
> "From Day one of working on L4D2, the team, was as big as the team
> that shipped L4D1." Faliszek
>
> Page 42 OXM interview with Faliszek
>
> I assume if Faliszek had read your comment Almigty he might of
> boycotted your posts.
The quotes you referenced do not contradict anything I stated:
"We have a giant team now." Okay. What does this mean? Are you trying
to claim that by "team," Mr. Faliszek means "most or all of the
development staff employed by Valve?"
"From day one of working on L4D2, the team was as big as the team that
shipped L4D1." Again, what do you think Mr. Faliszek is saying here?
I presume that you know that Valve did not create Left 4 Dead. Rather,
they bought Turtle Rock Studios, the developer who created Left 4
Dead, in early 2008 and then took the reins for the finishing touches
on the game before shipping it in late 2008.
Do you honestly believe that after Valve acquired Turtle Rock Studios,
who already had a mostly complete game, they dedicated anywhere near
100% of their own resources just for finishing touches?
Again, Left 4 Dead 2 is *not* on the scale of Half-Life 2 in any way,
shape or form. Valve has plenty of resources with which to create DLC
for the original game even as they finalize the sequel. The only
question is whether Valve will dedicate those resources to doing this
as the protesters fear they will not.
The alMIGHTY N
> All kidding aside, let's look at the reply from Faliszek-
>
> .Valve has responded to the wave of negative feedback surrounding Left
> 4 Dead 2, asking gamers to "give us a fair shake" before writing the
> sequel off.
>
> A Steam 'boycott' group has managed to amass almost 20,000 members,
> claiming that "the announced content of Left 4 Dead 2 does not warrant
> a stand-alone, full-priced sequel and should instead become updates
> (free or otherwise) for Left 4 Dead".
>
> "We want to wait and weed through the comments, I'm already getting e-
> mails, and I'm responding to them," Valve's Chet Faliszek said.
>
> "Looking back, was the Orange Box a ripoff?" He said, on initial
> complaints at having to "buy" Half-Life 2 again in the compilation.
> "Give us a fair shake on this, read more about it, find out about it,
> we've already let people play it [at E3]... After that, if you want to
> vent, post to the forums. We do read them, we read all the forums."
>
> Apparently the developer was expecting backlash from the sequel before
> it was even announced, deciding to text prominent map makers minutes
> after its reveal to let them know that their work would not be
> affected negatively by the sequel.
>
> But according to Faliszek, Left 4 Dead 2's five new campaigns, new
> weapons, special infected and zombie dismemberment are simply too huge
> to put in an update.
>
> We had some meetings about it, and we all talked about our ideas, and
> everyone was pretty focused and thoughtful, a lot of the same ideas
> were happening," Faliszek . "We wanted the Director to be smarter, but
> to be smarter it needed more special infected in its stable. For
> example, the Charger that we see today.
>
> "It just became very clear that this was a cohesive, singular
> statement we wanted to make, not a more slow update thing... too much
> stuff was tied together with too many other things.
>
> "The Common Infected-now there is destruction in different parts of
> their body, to ship all the new Common Infected, even with an update,
> would be a huge thing."
>
> According to Faliszek, even Valve boss Gabe Newell expressed doubts
> initially. "To Gabe's credit, and he's a great guy to work for, he
> said if this is what you want to do, if this is what you're excited
> about, go do it."
>
> The SDK for the first Left 4 Dead will be coming out of beta in the
> next week or so, and Faliszek points to that as proof that Valve will
> be supporting the original game.
>
> As for playing old maps with the new Left 4 Dead 2 features, he said:
> "We have some additional work to do there, we're talking about how to
> do that. That's what we want to do."
>
> KSDJ1- so I'll just shut the hell up and patiently wait for L4D2 and
> enjoy the hell out of it,fair shake and all:-)
Fair enough. I don't even expect everyone to just shut up and accept
Left 4 Dead 2. I'm not against a boycott of the game. I'm just against
such reactionary behavior without actually giving the company a little
bit of time to state their position.
That being said, I agree with the many journalistic criticisms that
the boycotters have some exaggerated sense of entitlement and that the
irony of criticizing Valve for releasing a sequel too soon after so
many ridiculed the company for taking too long to release games is
suffocating in its thickness.
There really is no comparison when you then read such choice boycotter
quotes as:
"I will no longer purchase any games from steam ever again, i will go
to gamestop for all gaming needs i don't care if i have to walk or
drive, if it is released, nor will i play any of valves future games
even if they make a half life 3."
and
"20,000 here we come say good bye to 1 million $ valve hope your
happy."
In all seriousness, even the more civil and eloquent boycotters said
things that clearly show a naivity in how game development works and a
lack of ability to make valid comparisons.
The alMIGHTY N
> I just don't get you ALmighty , you flip flop so much its hard to keep
> track. I certainly hope they make 'more maps' and they did , we just
> have to buy them in the L4D2 map pack..JK
My position has always been the same. If you've concluded that I've
flip flopped, take the time to actually go back and read everything
I've said to find examples of this behavior and perhaps then you'll
actually understand.
> Turtle Rock and Valve had long been working together , its not so cut
> and dry as you say , Valve didn't just say hey look Turtle Rock made
> L4D lets just put some finishing touches on it, they actually helped
> in L4D's creation, long before Valve officially brought over the team
> at Turtle Rock.
>
> Valve's acquisition of Turtle Rock Studios, now known as Valve South,
> aquired Left 4 Dead and changed the development team from a small,
> ten-man game into a full, sixty-member Valve project.
>
> 60 member Valve project . hardly 100% Valve supported game , but it
> certainly isn't as you state "these guys Turtle Rock made L4D and
> Valve just did finishing touches.
If I gave the impression that "finishing touches" meant "just helped
with the skins," that's my fault for miscommunicating what I meant.
Turtle Rock did the heavy work for the game. Valve helped but the crux
of the design and development was done by Turtle Rock. Valve's
involvement became heavier only after the company acquired Turtle Rock
Studios, at which point Valve contributed artists (for improvements to
the aesthetic design and level layouts), playtesters and Steam's
online multiplayer development team (to improve matchmaking,
networking code, etc.).
The core of the game, which was the concept, the actual game design,
the development of the Director and the artificial intelligence code -
basically most of the actual game programming - was done by the small
Turtle Rock team who based their game off the most recent version of
the Source Engine.
> Valve has had a long standing relationship with Mike Booth at Turtle
> Rock , its just now its official 'on paper' kinda like you meet a girl
> fuck her for 5 years and finally marry her in year 6 . In a way that
> best describes the relations ship between Valve and Turtle Dick or I
> mean Turtle Rock.
That's an interesting way to put it.
Booth and his team have worked much like contractors for Valve for the
better part of the decade. They were responsible for the Xbox port of
Counter-Strike as well as upgrades and expansions to the original
game.
> Valve by its very creation is a user mod development team ,all the
> more reason there's a boycott.
"Valve by its very creation is a user mod development team"
What exactly is this supposed to mean and how is it a greater
validation for a boycott?
> its not just a bunch of nitwits as you
> say.
When did I say they were "just a bunch of nitwits?"
> It's a valid boycott,
What exactly would be an invalid boycott?
> and not just a bunch of usenet whiners who
> don't game live and post while they're at work.( snicker ,snickercough
> youcough)
a) What does not "gaming live" have to do with anything?
b) You need to learn the definition of whining. All those "what about
my free stuff" complaints from the boycotters? *THAT'S* whining. I'm
merely criticizing how fast they went into "whine" mode.
c) An insult from someone who talks about nipples all the time and
often posts strange nonsensical responses to threads is hardly an
insult at all, especially when it involves someone actually typing
"snicker," previously exclusive to Jonah and Blig.
> Sure 99% of the people will still get L4D2 , its just that Valve has a
> mod friendly rep and it stings more than normal when we get a sequel
> before the 1st one isn't even out of the oven.
How does the release of a sequel reduce "mod friendliness?" People in
the community are still going to be able to create mods for the
original game and Valve has stated they're trying to figure out an
easy way for mods that work with the first game to be ported to the
second game.
Further, Valve is releasing the SDK for Left 4 Dead to the community -
that's "mod friendly."
> Valve has only come up Half-Life themselves. If you think about it,
> Counter-Strike was somebody else, Day of Defeat was somebody else,
> Left 4 Dead was somebody else, Portal was somebody else. Team Fortress
> - technically, Robin and John were Quake modders that Gabe [Newell]
> hired back in the day.
This looks like this interview by Gamasutra almost word-for-word...
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19643
> Mike Booth
> wanted to make a co-op game that was heavy on AI, and he loves
> zombies. But before that, he helped Valve make the [Counter-Strike]
> bot which powered [Condition Zero] and Counter-Strike for the Xbox.
> And then, by then, he had built up a team of about six to eight
> people, I guess, down here in Irvine, and had grown to become Turtle
> Rock Studios.
> (remember the 10 people then turned to 60 by Valve)
>
> Mike Booth aka Turtle rock helped Valve do Counter-Strike: Source,
> and as soon as they wrapped that, and did an update for that in 2005,
> he started prototyping early versions of Left 4 Dead. He went through
> about three iterations of that, and then folks at Valve started
> working on it, officially and unofficially. It was very close
> relationship. Only now its on PAPER.
>
> All of this gets very confusing , I suspect Turtle Rock even may
> separate again from Valve , but the relationship is not just simply ,
> well he made L4D and we just helped with the skins. Its more invloved
> than that and not as cut and dry.
Why would Turtle Rock separate from Valve? Some members of the team
are working on Left 4 Dead 2. Mike himself took some of his original
Turtle Rock team and started working on a new unannounced project.
> You almigty also say Half-Life is not the scale of L4D? what do you
> mean size scale enemy AI scale?
You really need to learn to read more carefully. You've already
misquoted and misinterpreted what I've said a few times now.
I said that Left 4 Dead 2 is not only the scale of Half-Life 2. Valve
certainly did not need to put nearly as many resources into Left 4
Dead 2 as it put into Half-Life 2 so fears that Valve has nobody to
work on Left 4 Dead DLC are unfounded.
> Half-life was one of the 1st games to use squad based A.I. , where
> human grunts share information to coorodinate their attacks and make
> things tougher on you the player.
>
> Left 4 Dead, however, has a very complex example of cooperation and
> interaction between enemies, compressed into just six types of
> Infected units. These units, through the interplay between their
> unique abilities, have more than additive group strength. The power of
> a group of these enemies is greater than the sum of its members,
> because of this interaction.
>
> Even further adding a director to monitor the players experience and
> adjust accordingly.
>
> The player characters, or Survivors, are threatened by six types of
> Infected in L4D's zombie apocalypse: Common, Hunters, Boomers,
> Smokers, Tanks, and Witches. These remain the same in all gameplay
> modes, although other players can control Hunters, Boomers, Smokers,
> and Tanks in Versus mode. These six can be separated into three
> categories: Common, Special, and Boss Infected.
>
> Common Infected are in their own group. They are fragile zombies who
> go down in just a few shots, but they are great in number. Common
> appear in two forms: as "wandering zombies," who begin scattered
> around the world and provide little more than target practice, and
> "horde zombies," who rush in groups of 10-30 and mob the Survivor
> players, causing much more danger. All Common Infected are attracted
> by beeping pipe bombs and car alarms.
>
> At most difficulty levels, the Common Infected are environmental
> hazards; they obscure vision, block movement, and require the players
> to take time to thin their numbers. The other enemy types take
> advantage of the Common Infected to become more dangerous themselves.
>
> The Special Infected aren't much stronger than Common Infected, but
> they have special abilities. The Hunter can leap great distances and
> tackle a Survivor, immobilizing and damaging her until the other
> Survivors come to the rescue. He is also the hardest to distinguish
> from Common Infected, making him stealthy despite his loud screams.
>
> The Boomer is large and easily-spotted, but he can attract horde
> zombies by vomiting on the Survivors, or simply by being close enough
> to them when he explodes on death. The Smoker is the easiest to spot
> due to his cloud of smoke and spores, but he is able to pull Survivors
> with his tongue.
>
> These three combine in powerful ways. The ability of the Hunter to
> instantly incapacitate makes it a bad idea for the Survivors to split
> up, while the Boomer's bile attacks are more effective if the
> Survivors are in a tight group.
>
> The Smoker can pull a Survivor away from the group, which makes the
> Hunter's pounce more deadly and the horde summoned from the Boomer's
> bile more dangerous. The Hunter can more easily go unnoticed when the
> Survivors' vision is obscured by the Boomer's bile. Individually, the
> Special Infected are fragile enough that they pose only a minor
> threat, but when more than one attacks at once, they become
> considerably more dangerous.
>
> The Boss Infected are even more exceptional threats. The Witch can be
> killed quickly with concentrated, coordinated fire, but if she
> survives the initial attack she is guaranteed to at least incapacitate
> a Survivor. The Tank, on the other hand, is simply huge, sturdy, and
> strong, which makes battles with him last longer than with any other
> Infected.
>
> These Boss Infected are powerful enough to present significant threats
> on their own, but when combined with the Special Infected, they become
> even worse. The distraction of a Special can cause the Survivors to
> inadvertently set off the Witch, while the Tank is sufficiently
> distracting in his own right to allow the Specials to be much more
> effective.
>
> By creating enemies that can combine their abilities to become even
> more powerful, Valve significantly increased the complexity of L4D
> gameplay. Instead of simply worrying about six kinds of enemies, the
> players must worry about 36 combinations. This increases the game's
> challenge without making any single threat more dangerous. Players
> enjoy this interplay because it creates memorable situations with
> interesting solutions.
Uh... I knew all this already.
I agree with you as far as the variety of gameplay experiences.
However, I wasn't talking about that. Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 as
games aren't nearly as complex to develop as a beast like Half-Life 2.
Further, as a sequel, Left 4 Dead 2 is not nearly at the same scale as
Half-Life 2 was. Valve created the Source Engine and heavily modified
the Havok physics engine just for Half-Life 2.
The improvements to the Director are certainly not small beans but the
scope of the changes is still exponentially smaller than those made
for Half-Life 2 (from Half-Life 1).
Ultimately, Valve does not need to pour all of its resources into this
project so they certainly are capable of creating content for Left 4
Dead, whether they choose to or not.
> Anyways before I babble on, this is a great article , mentioning the
> team behind L4D has actually grown .
>
> "Besides, why inch along with an update or content pack every now and
> again? Everyone on the team was excited about working on more Left 4
> Dead, and in fact, the team behind the game has increased slightly in
> size since launch"
I agree completely with those sentiments. I'll go a step further and
point out that Valve went on the record to say that in fact providing
all the updates that we'll see in the sequel as small updates and
content packs would be impossible because of how intertwined all the
changes are.
It's too big to be "just an update" - free or not - and it can't be
broken up until smaller pieces (except, I suppose, for the actual maps
themselves).
> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/06/before-its-time-valve-expl...
The alMIGHTY N
> wanna tout they are more simular, they are not, yes they used the COD4
> ENGINE but so did that lukewarm Bond game Quantam Of Solace. Plus
> COD3 has allot of extra maps.
What do zombies have to do with anything? You're talking about *one*
mode of Call of Duty: World at War - a mode, might I add, that is also
not present in Call of Duty 3.
As far as "WW2 weapons" are concerned, those are just an example of
minute details that don't factor into the gameplay itself. When you
compare the multiplayer gameplay of Call of Duty: World at War with
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty 3, it is much more
similar to Modern Warfare than it is to 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_5#Multiplayer
"World at War includes a similar multiplayer experience to Call of
Duty 4. All versions of the game use a similar perk and ranking system
[4] and feature six different multiplayer modes, including team
deathmatch and capture-the-flag."
"When the player reaches level 65 on multiplayer, they unlock the
option to 'prestige'. If they choose to do so they will return to
level 1 and will gain an extra weapon slot and a new symbol. It is
possible to prestige up to ten times, each time the player gains a
different symbol unique to that level of prestige."
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/927/927055p2.html
"Modern Warfare had arguably one of the greatest multiplayer suites in
recent history, and World at War builds on it. There remains the
create-a-class and rank system that lets you unlock perks, weapons,
and upgrades that you can then mix-and-match to create different load
outs. Many of Modern Warfare's perks are here, adjusted for the
earlier age."
I know you play a lot of online multiplayer and I can only assume that
the Call of Duty series' various multiplayer modes have graced your
screen. If that's the case, it would be foolish of you to claim that
World at War is more similar to Call of Duty 3 than to Modern Warfare
simply because they take place in the same time setting.
> I know you don't play LIVE and you have said that you don't play L4D
> live. So why you keep defending your opinions is annoying and not
> based in the LIVE gamer reality. (Almighty please keep reading don't
> reply yet)
I read your post all the way through.
I am not defending my opinions nor do I have a need to. Whether the
expression of my point of view annoys you is of no concern to me when
your "attacks" on my position are directed at statements that I did
not even make. If you're inclined to feel annoyed when I respond to
your challenges to my point of view or what you perceive to be my
point of view, that's your choice.
> As far as the Valve community, "WE ARE talking about a very different
> community then the one you describe or the one you THINK they are.
> They are not just a bunch of quick to judge babies, they are a modders
> community, heavliy intertwined into Valve's community.
I'm not even sure if you're intentionally setting up a straw man here.
It seems more to me like you, not unlike the boycotters around whom
this entire discussion started, reacted before fully grasping the
situation.
You seem to think that I stated that "the Valve community" was "just a
bunch of quick to judge babies" whereas in reality I said nothing of
the sort. I attribute the reactionary behavior solely to the gamers,
members of "the Valve community" or not, who rallied together to
organize an online boycott only days after the announcement of a
sequel based solely on the absence rather than the presence of
evidence that the original Left 4 Dead would no longer be supported by
Valve.
In another post, you accused me of flip flopping when in fact my
stance has always been the same. While I disagree with the reasoning
behind the boycott, I do not have a problem with the boycott itself,
just the immediacy of it. Boycotting can be a very effective way of
communicating your displeasure to the target. However, it's simply
asinine to boycott based on some potential future behavior when you
don't even have any evidence that such behavior will occur.
> Valve is or was
> a holy grail for the LIVE gamers community.
How did you come to that conclusion?
> Let's looks a Team Fortress, do you know how that came came about? It
> was a Quake mod , yes read that again a Quake mod on PC . Let me say
> it again Team Fortress is a Quake MOD made by gamers like you and me .
> Did I mention Team Fortess is a Quake mod from PC?
Is this not common knowledge? Since we're stating the obvious here,
I'll add that Counter Strike was also a user-created mod.
> Valve 'HIRED' those modders who eventaully made the the game Team
> Fortress 2. These are the same type of players involved in the
> boycott.
Statistically, *some* of the people who are involved in the boycott
*should* be people like those responsible for Team Fortress.
Statistically, the overwhelming majority of the people who are
involved in the boycott *cannot* be like those people. Only a small
percentage of the millions of people who enjoy Valve's products will
ever have enough time when they're *not* playing games and/or going to
school or working, enough interest and enough dedication to create any
sort of content for a Valve game.
Most of the people who signed the petition are just people who play
Left 4 Dead.
> The Multiplayer game (yes alMIGHT SEE LIVE) i know its a place you
> don't visit often or even anymore, multiplayer means people get
> together and play the extra dlc maps and modes,something of which L4D
> has nothing but a fucking timer!!! COD4 shipped with an arcade
> timer !! Don't even say the lighthouse is a map or I will turn into a
> Tank and mow you down. JK :-) Lighthouse is an area .at best
I don't disagree with anything you said in the paragraph above.
> So quit responding like you have a clue , you don't ,sorry , but you
> don't have a LIVE point of view. You don't even play Xbox live. is
> that even sinking in ???? AT alll....no? Just a little?
I don't need to spend every waking hour playing online multiplayer
games to be able to speak to facts and common sense. You speak as if
"you have a clue" when in reality you're in no better position to make
any judgement than I am. The difference is that while I continue to
debate the actual points with, say, Eman, all you seem to do is
reference tangential information and offer non-arguments in the vein
of "you don't have a clue" and "you don't play online."
Further, the very idea that I must play this game online to understand
why people are upset that there haven't been more maps is ludicrous.
The single-player game *is* the same as the online game except that
you're playing with and against the AI instead of the other humans.
If I, like you and some other fans of the game, felt that there wasn't
enough DLC for the first entry in the series, that would apply to the
single-player game as well as the multiplayer game. Maps for the
multiplayer game are maps for the single-player game.
> If you had LIVE and played L4D live till your figers get calloused and
> your controller fried, you might ....or no you WOULD have a very
> different opinion on this matter.
You presume way too much about what I would or would not opine. I may
not play many online multiplayer games now but that doesn't mean I
never did. I played a *LOT* of Rainbow Six Vegas and I was not in the
least bit perturbed when the sequel came out a year and 4 months after
the original game. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was less of an upgrade than
Left 4 Dead 2 if you could even call it an upgrade (it was more like
an expansion pack).
> I see what your trying to say ..but your OP about this subject was OFF
> BASE , its not so much as being mad there's a sequel . It's where the
> hell is the rest of L4D1.
My original post was perhaps too vague. I thought that by saying they
were complaining that the sequel was coming too soon it was obvious
that the perceived lack of support was an issue. That's my fault.
Eman's response to my first post made it clear that I didn't elucidate
my position well enough so I've been trying to do that for the past
dozen posts.
> Eman is right and you are DEAD WRONG.
And if the great ksdj says it, it must be so. Whether you think that
I'm right, that Eman's right or that both of us are wrong is
inconsequential. I'm not looking for your support.
> I will send you a 48 free gold
> trial , if you want ? Hell at this point I'll buy you a GOLD
> membership so maybe you would have a LIVE point of view.
I have a Gold membership.
> The damage is done, its written in stone, Valve screwed over the L4D1
> fans on console.
Are you really still desperately clinging to this despite everything
that Valve has publicly stated (e.g. they will release more DLC prior
to the sequel and they will release the SDK so mods and maps can
continue to grace the Internet)?
> I know they gotta make money and I will pay for extra
> maps for L4D1 . Novemeber isn't very far away.
Who said you wouldn't have done so even if there was no Left 4 Dead 2
coming? The boycotters themselves even claimed that they would have
been willing to pay for DLC for the first game.
> (PROCEEDS TO BEND OVER) at least use butter or something to make it
> go in easier.
Eman
> You still don't seem to understand the issue at hand, which is that
> the mentality that immediate reaction without fair evaluation of a
> situation is not good. This isn't a matter of life or death. This
> isn't a case where a split second could determine whether someone
> survives a fire.
I guess we see the consumer / corporation relationship in a different
light. The customer are just saying they're not going to buy the
product. You're right, its not life or death, Fido didn't run into a
burning house to save a kid. Its a game and based on what some people
have seen so far, they're not going to buy the product. Its no
different than seeing an ad for the new Honey Nut Cherrios and they've
added cinnamom sprinkles and people say, I'm buying that. Boycott is
a strong word that evokes visions of sit-ins and marches. In the
internet age, its just a bunch of people saying they're not going to
buy a product. As irrational as that may sound, its their money, they
can do what they want with it. Valve could say, packaging for L4D2
will be pink. If 500 people said, they're not buying it. I'm ok with
that. I don't agree with it, but, I'm not going to call them stupid.
Its their money, not mine. If they dont' want to buy it, so be it.
Then these web journalist talk about the boycotters have an distorted
view of customer entitlement. YES, they do! Are we supposed to be
forced to buy something that we don't want? The reason is not
important. I don't live in their shoes, they don't need to justify
squat. Its like if Ocean spray came out with a different shaped
bottle that looks like it contains less juice, but in reality it
contains actually more. Some people won't buy it, regardless of what
the label says. It doesn't make sense, but i'm not going to call the
person assinine or irrational. They like the look of the old
packaging, let them spend their money somewhere else. Its a free
market.
> Whether a gamer liked "Survivor" mode or not, it was still a new mode
> and it was still DLC for the game. As far as how "soon" content shows
> up, I'm inclined to agree with developers who lamented that consumers
> have begun to expect content very soon after the release of a game
> even while getting ticked off in situations like with Resident Evil
> 5's DLC where they think that a "too soon" DLC release amounts to the
> developers cheating them at retail.
RE5 DLC was not only too soon, but also too small. The size of the
DLC showed that it was only an unlock key for content already on the
disc. Again, I wasn't up in arms about this, but I can understand why
some people might be. I'm not going to call their argument assinine.
If they feel cheated out of $60, let them jump up and down.
> Perhaps they could have. On the flipside, perhaps they weren't quite
> ready to show anything and didn't feel it prudent to cobble together a
> subpar teaser video file in a rush just to appease a few outspoken
> gamers.
Again, it sounds like more emphsis on L4D2. Sounds to me like they're
saying forget the old toy, look at this new toy. L4D2 stuff is primed
and ready to show, but the new L4D1 stuff is not ready for primetime
yet? Hmmm...
> Actually, it directly addressed your contention that Valve was a
> developer too small to be able to handle Left 4 Dead 2 *and* DLC for
> Left 4 Dead.
I never meant to imply Valve was too small. I have no idea how big
they are and it's irrevelant to this question. My contention was that
for any project, whether it be software development, landscaping,
architecture, a bank merger, you will have teams assigned to specific
tasks. I don't care about everything else that Valve has going on.
I'm just talking L4D. You have 50 people (or whatever) that are free,
available, and capable to work on L4D as their primary focus (I don't
care if they came from CS, HL, TF, Fraggle Rock, whatever). From what
we have seen so far (not just at E3 but ever since L4D1 was
released).on what product does it appear that the majority of those 50
bodies have spent their time? The answer is not "Well Valve is large
enough to juggle many tasks". This is not fill in the blank. Circle
one: L4D1 L4D2.
> > I completely understand the key differences. Thanks for explaining
> > why L4D2 isn't a sequel along the same lines as Valve's previous
> > sequels.
>
> Did anybody ever say that it was? Left 4 Dead 2 is more akin to Call
> of Duty 3 (although probably a bit more involved since there really
> weren't significant upgrades to the game engine in COD3 like there are
> in L4D2).
I'm just agreeing with you. Can't I agree with you without being
challenged? But when you say Valve has always supported their games
and why would that change, Valve never released a sequel back to back
in a year, either. Their business model has changed. How can buyers
trust that this is the old Valve in one respect, but in the other it
goes against their previous idea of a sequel. By this new reasoning,
Blue Shift whould have been HL2. And yes, I know they've said, its
just so much content, an add-on wouldn't do it justice and the
interactions between maps and AI Director 2.0 is inseparatable. Would
any miss all this stuff for another year? L4D players would be
perfectly happy for another year with just 1 full new campaign. Which
might still happen, but the clock is ticking. The longer they wait,
the less good its going to do since most players will jump to L4D2 in
5 months.
> > I'm glad you agree with me. They got fat
>
> They got fat? I would think the analogy is they got emaciated.
11 years ago Valve was a 105 lbs slim, firm, and sexy model, in 2009
they're a 250 lbs mother of 4 with tits resting on her pot belly,
trying to get back into her old swim suit. So if thats emaciated,
yeah you're right.
> > and now they need to pump
> > out more product. That's the American way. I'm fine with that, just
> > call it what it is.
>
> I would think that working when you need money isn't just the
> "American" way.
Valve will have released close to 3 times as many games in the last 5
years than they have in the previous 5. They took on this Steam
venture that is last on many people's list of sources to buy games
(unless its a Valve release). They've grown tremendously since even
the release of HL2 for PC. Then the credit crunch hits and the
economy falls into a recession. Like everyone else, they're strapped
for cash, and they have alot of mouths to feed, so unless Valve wants
to shed employees, maybe walk away from Steam, they need revenue and
they need it fast. Like I said, I'm cool with it, I understand. I
just say call it what it is. Not all this smoke about the size of the
content is so large and interlinked, it couldn't be an add-on.
>I'm happy for you that you're in such a financially
> sound position that you could afford to not get paid for all your
> work.
Why did you try to turn this into something personal? I'm not talking
about your finances so why imply mine?
> > > Same gameplay. Same graphical quality. Same multiplayer.
>
> > Damn, I got duped. I bought the same game twice!
>
> If that's the conclusion at which you arrived, I'd have to same I'm
> not surprised that you did.
I was being feciticous.
The alMIGHTY N
You're still focused on this idea that I'm saying the act of
boycotting is wrong. I'm not saying they're stupid for boycotting; I'm
saying they're stupid for boycotting right away without any evidence
that the company is going to engage in the "wrongful activities"
they're protesting in the first place!
It's like if a director who has only made serious, dramatic films
announced he was doing a comedy and someone organized a boycott of the
movie because that means the director will never make dramatic films
anymore.
> > Whether a gamer liked "Survivor" mode or not, it was still a new mode
> > and it was still DLC for the game. As far as how "soon" content shows
> > up, I'm inclined to agree with developers who lamented that consumers
> > have begun to expect content very soon after the release of a game
> > even while getting ticked off in situations like with Resident Evil
> > 5's DLC where they think that a "too soon" DLC release amounts to the
> > developers cheating them at retail.
>
> RE5 DLC was not only too soon, but also too small. The size of the
> DLC showed that it was only an unlock key for content already on the
> disc. Again, I wasn't up in arms about this, but I can understand why
> some people might be. I'm not going to call their argument assinine.
> If they feel cheated out of $60, let them jump up and down.
People were up in arms because of the perception that the company's
intent all along was to hide extras on the retail disc and charge
people money to reveal them. The immediate evidence does support this
perception (as opposed to the case with the Valve protest where the
boycotters proceeded with the absence of evidence - not an intelligent
or logical way to do things).
What people didn't realize was that delays in the release of the game
to "clean up" certain issues resulted in the release window of the
game being pushed back to near the timeframe when Capcom intended to
release the DLC all along. Including the modes on the disc at that
point was simply an efficient cost cutting move on their part - with
the releases that close together, why make the content a download?
> > Perhaps they could have. On the flipside, perhaps they weren't quite
> > ready to show anything and didn't feel it prudent to cobble together a
> > subpar teaser video file in a rush just to appease a few outspoken
> > gamers.
>
> Again, it sounds like more emphsis on L4D2. Sounds to me like they're
> saying forget the old toy, look at this new toy. L4D2 stuff is primed
> and ready to show, but the new L4D1 stuff is not ready for primetime
> yet? Hmmm...
The problem is that you don't know how the timelines for the two
separate projects are skewed. Who knows when they started working on
L4D DLC (assuming there even is any)? If they only started working on
that a month ago, how would they have *anything* worthwhile to show?
> > Actually, it directly addressed your contention that Valve was a
> > developer too small to be able to handle Left 4 Dead 2 *and* DLC for
> > Left 4 Dead.
>
> I never meant to imply Valve was too small. I have no idea how big
> they are and it's irrevelant to this question. My contention was that
> for any project, whether it be software development, landscaping,
> architecture, a bank merger, you will have teams assigned to specific
> tasks. I don't care about everything else that Valve has going on.
> I'm just talking L4D. You have 50 people (or whatever) that are free,
> available, and capable to work on L4D as their primary focus (I don't
> care if they came from CS, HL, TF, Fraggle Rock, whatever). From what
> we have seen so far (not just at E3 but ever since L4D1 was
> released).on what product does it appear that the majority of those 50
> bodies have spent their time? The answer is not "Well Valve is large
> enough to juggle many tasks". This is not fill in the blank. Circle
> one: L4D1 L4D2.
Who said that those 50 people had to choose between L4D DLC and L4D2?
L4D2 and L4D DLC would inherently be two separate projects with two
separate teams to work on them. While those 50 people are working hard
on L4D2, 10 other people are working on L4D DLC.
> > > I completely understand the key differences. Thanks for explaining
> > > why L4D2 isn't a sequel along the same lines as Valve's previous
> > > sequels.
>
> > Did anybody ever say that it was? Left 4 Dead 2 is more akin to Call
> > of Duty 3 (although probably a bit more involved since there really
> > weren't significant upgrades to the game engine in COD3 like there are
> > in L4D2).
>
> I'm just agreeing with you. Can't I agree with you without being
> challenged?
The problem with this sort of written communication is that there's no
way of reading change of tone or intent unless it's explicitly
communicated.
> But when you say Valve has always supported their games
> and why would that change, Valve never released a sequel back to back
> in a year, either. Their business model has changed.
You're making an assumption based on *one* event. *One* event doesn't
itself indicate a trend. The long-standing trend has been that Valve
takes a little bit more time between games and supports them with
extra content. The logical conclusion here is that this is just an
anomaly.
If one of your stocks has consistently increased in value for the past
year and today suddenly decreases in value a little bit, do you
automatically assume that it is now going to be on a downward trend
for the next year outside of any other information?
> How can buyers
> trust that this is the old Valve in one respect, but in the other it
> goes against their previous idea of a sequel. By this new reasoning,
> Blue Shift whould have been HL2. And yes, I know they've said, its
> just so much content, an add-on wouldn't do it justice and the
> interactions between maps and AI Director 2.0 is inseparatable. Would
> any miss all this stuff for another year? L4D players would be
> perfectly happy for another year with just 1 full new campaign. Which
> might still happen, but the clock is ticking. The longer they wait,
> the less good its going to do since most players will jump to L4D2 in
> 5 months.
>
> > > I'm glad you agree with me. They got fat
>
> > They got fat? I would think the analogy is they got emaciated.
>
> 11 years ago Valve was a 105 lbs slim, firm, and sexy model, in 2009
> they're a 250 lbs mother of 4 with tits resting on her pot belly,
> trying to get back into her old swim suit. So if thats emaciated,
> yeah you're right.
I'm still not sure to what your analogy refers. I was talking about
how much money they had coming in.
> > > and now they need to pump
> > > out more product. That's the American way. I'm fine with that, just
> > > call it what it is.
>
> > I would think that working when you need money isn't just the
> > "American" way.
>
> Valve will have released close to 3 times as many games in the last 5
> years than they have in the previous 5.
What do you consider "a game?"
There's Half-Life plus its two expansions on the PC. There was also a
PS2-only expansion. There was Team Fortress Classic, Day of Defeat and
Counter Strike. Are those games? What about Episode 1 and 2 of Half-
Life 2? Portal? Team Fortress 2?
First 5 years:
- Half-Life
- Half-Life: Opposing Force
- Half-Life: Blue Shift
- Half-Life: Decay
- Team Fortress Classic
- Counter Strike
- Day of Defeat
Second 5 years:
- Half-Life 2
- Half-Life 2: Episode 1
- Half-Life 2: Episode 2
- Team Fortress 2
- Portal
- Counter Strike: Source
- Day of Defeat: Source
- Left 4 Dead
- Left 4 Dead 2
> They took on this Steam
> venture that is last on many people's list of sources to buy games
> (unless its a Valve release). They've grown tremendously since even
> the release of HL2 for PC. Then the credit crunch hits and the
> economy falls into a recession. Like everyone else, they're strapped
> for cash, and they have alot of mouths to feed, so unless Valve wants
> to shed employees, maybe walk away from Steam, they need revenue and
> they need it fast. Like I said, I'm cool with it, I understand. I
> just say call it what it is. Not all this smoke about the size of the
> content is so large and interlinked, it couldn't be an add-on.
Except that there is no such smoke. The scope of the changes they made
to the AI Director alone would have been beyond the scope of a simple
update across Xbox Live. The comments from the company about
everything being "interlinked" were referring to the lack of
feasibility in trying to break the upgrade as a whole into small
"downloadable" chunks - you couldn't just release one part of the
feature without another and expect them to work properly. Again, this
isn't just a set of maps they're releasing - if it was, it would be
very easy to distribute them as an Xbox Live download.
> >I'm happy for you that you're in such a financially
> > sound position that you could afford to not get paid for all your
> > work.
>
> Why did you try to turn this into something personal? I'm not talking
> about your finances so why imply mine?
Your comments about "getting fat" and "the American way" implied a
negative connotation to the situation. I took that to mean that you
must be in such a position where you could legitimately criticize a
company for working when they needed money.
> > > > Same gameplay. Same graphical quality. Same multiplayer.
>
> > > Damn, I got duped. I bought the same game twice!
>
> > If that's the conclusion at which you arrived, I'd have to same I'm
> > not surprised that you did.
>
> I was being feciticous.
I was playing off your facetiousness.
Eman
> Your comments about "getting fat" and "the American way" implied a
> negative connotation to the situation. I took that to mean that you
> must be in such a position where you could legitimately criticize a
> company for working when they needed money.
My tax dollars are going to bailout banks that got greedy in the real
estate boom by offering loans to people who they knew couldn't afford
the houses and auto companies that got greedy on high profit SUVs and
trucks. That gives me enough of a position to legitmately criticize a
company. Besides all that, I can criticize a video game company all I
want. I can say I will boycott Valve from here to eternity. I can
boycott the entire video game industry. I can step away from video
games tomorrow and will be just fine (and probably more productive).
I don't NEED them to survive, but they (companies) NEED me (not me
specifically, but players in general) to survive. So any one of us
can bitch, complain, criticize, boycott for a reason or no reason at
all.
jillc...@gmail.com
TEXT/CALL Or WhatsApp me at. +1 858-352-7964
Wickr me...Billybud6
supply pure Pain Killers, Anti Anxiety, Weight loss, Steroids, Marijuana HGH, ADHD & ED , Research Chemicals + more that 1100 different medicines. in major international markets and we are trusted and dependable company to deal with because we render the best of services to our customers worldwide. We are a registered enterprise here in US and we operate with 100% return policy and delivery is 100% assured after you agree with our company dealing tools.
Hot offers-Best prices
PROMOTION IS CURRENTLY GOING ON OF ALL PRODUCTS.
Below is a list of some of our product
VERY DISCRETE AND RELIABLE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
BELOW IS A LIST OF OUR PRODUCTS
KETAMINE CRYSTALS,
KETAMINE VIALS
ACTAVIS POMETHAZINE COUGH SYRUP WITH CODIENE
OXYCOTIN,
ADDERALL,
ACTAVIS,
OPANA,
XANAX,NORCO,
DILUADID,
MATHADONE
PERCOCET
RITALIN
HYDROCODONE
fentanyl brand name: duragesic 5-12 12.5 mcg/hr patches box
Demerol ( Meperidine HCL) caps 8
EPHEDRINE
AMBIEN 10MG
morphine 30MG
WATSON 325 10MG
WATSON 853 10MG
VICODIN 5MG
VICODIN ES 7.5MG
EPHEDRINE 30MG
Celebrex 100mg
Codeine 15mg
Hydrocodone Watson 540 10/ 325
WATSON 540 10/ 500
OXYCOTIN 80MG
OXYCOTIN 20MG, 40MG
HYDROCODONE 10MG/500MG
HYDROCODONE 5MG/500MG
METHADONE 10MG, 40MG WAFERS
Lorcet - ( Hydrocodone Bitartrate/ Acetaminophen) 10 mg/ 650 mg
AMBIEN ( Zolpidem, Stilnox) 10 mg
seconal (chemical name-secobarbital)
LO LOESTRIN FE
ADIPEX-P 37.5MG
VIAGRA 100MG
Lorazepam 2.5 mg ( Ativan)
Clonazepam 2 mg ( Rivotril)
CIALIS 20MG
Percocet 10/ 325
Norco - ( Hydrocodone Bitartrate/ Acetaminophen ) 5 mg/ 325 mg
Percocet 5/ 325
endocet 10/ 325
hydrocodone-ibuprofen (brand name:vicoprofen)
suboxone
subutex
watson 540
Dilaudid 8mg
Soma 350mg
Adderall 30mg
Ritalin 10mg
Tramadol ( Ultram) 50mg
ibrpohen
advil pm
Atarax 25mg
viagra gold
FIORICET (BUTALBITOL 50MG) - MIKART
Hydrocodone 539
Roxicodone 15mg, 30mg
Opana 40mg
CRYSTAL METH
Mephedrone
MDMA
MDPV
Methylone
ephedrine powder
dmt
Phenazepam
Butylone
4MEC
5-IAI
4-ACO-DMT
Ephedrine HCL
Ethylphenidate HCL
Pentedrone
CB-13
Methoxetamine
GBR 12935
AM 2201
AM 2233
AM 1220
AM 1248
MDPV
Methiopropamine
Naphyrone
Mppp
4-MEC
4-FMA
URB-754 ,
URB-597
URB-602
RCS-4
JWH-210
JWH- , 122
JWH-203
Pentylone
Cocaine
OXYCOTIN,
ADDERALL,
ACTAVIS,
OPANA,
XANAX,NORCO,
DILUADID,
MATHADONE
PERCOCET
RITALIN
Cocaine hydrochloride
Black stuff
ADDERALL,
ACTAVIS,
OPANA,
XANAX,NORCO,
DILUADID,
MATHADONE
PERCOCET
RITALINa
HYDROCODONE
pure cocaine
Ketamine .
Heroin(white or brown
Mdma,
Heroin,
Weed,
Mephedrone,
Actavis,
Equipoise
Halotestin
Human Growth Hormone
Masteron
Primobolan
Primoteston
Sustanon 250
Testosterone Cypionate
Testosterone Enanthate
Testosterone Propionate
Testoviron
Trenbolone
Winstrol
Growth Hormones
Ansomone,
Hygetropin,
Kigtropin,
Igtropin IGF,
Jintropin ,
HGH Blue Top,
IGF-1LR3.
Anabolic Steroids
10 mg ANABOL
10 mg ANABOL
50 mg Anapolon
5 mg Azolol
5 mg Azolol
10 mg Dianabol
10 mg Dianabol
50 mg Oxymetholone(Anadrol
5 mg Gen-Shi Halotestin
5 mg GP Anavar
50mg Clomid.
http://majestichealthservice.simplesite.com
Wickr me...Billybud5
Contact now and get your medication without prescription at very good prices.
jillc...@gmail.com
Promethazine Codeine cough syrup (both red and purple color), and
other related products .
Call/text Or WhatsApp me at + 1 858-352-7964 or email me at jillc...@gmail.com
Specification for Actavis Promethazine Codeine cough syrup (Each 5 mL
contains)
Promethazine hydrochloride: 6.25mg
codeine phosphate: 10mg.
Alcohol: 7%.
Indication: Cough Suppressant
Dosage Form: Syrup
Validity: 2yrs
Strength: 200mg
Drug :1622-62-44
available in :16oz pint, 32oz pint, 8oz pint.
Colors: Purple and Red color available.
Other Products list :
– Hi-tech Prometh With Codeine Cough Syrup
– Phenergan with Promethazine Codeine.
– Alpharma Prometh with Codeine Cough Syrup
– Tussionex cough syrup,
– Guaifenesin with codeine cough syrup,
– MGP Promethazine with codeine cough syrup
– Correx cough syrup
– Hydrometh with codeine Cough Syrup
We offer free sample packages to all our clients so they can test and confirm our products quality and company legitimacy before placing their orders .
Delivery is 100% safe and secured .
We do discreet packaging and 100% safe,fast and reliable delivery via
UPS,DHL and TNT either overnight or by day (depending on your choice)
with valid tracking numbers and pictures for all packages .
Call/Text or WhatsApp me at +1 858-352-7964 Or Email Us At jpharm...@gmail.com. To Place Your Order .
Contact us now and place your order to get high quality meds and a free sample before placing your orders
http://majestichealthservice.simplesite.com
Text/Call Or WhatsApp me at +1 858-352-7964 for any inquiries.
Contact us now and get free samples before placing your orders