Short first impressions of L4D 2 (Single Player)
Spalls Hurgenson
release of the year. Well, neither were "most anticipated" by me but,
you know, by the general populace. I liked the original game -I
thought it a very high-quality product- hampered only by its lack of
content. But none of the previews for the sequel promised anything as
exciting.
But, not surprisingly, I ended up buying the damn game on release day
anyway (hey, I've resisted buying COD:MW2; I mean, $60? Really? But I
digress). My initial playthroughs of the first few campaigns more or
less confirmed my initial suspicions: this is basically an expansion
pack to the original where the goal was simply "lets give them more"
without any real attention to whether more was actually needed.
So, the first impression is the opening cinematic; remember that
terrific movie that Left 4 Dead started with? It gave you the setting,
the situation, the characters and the mood of the game all in four
exciting minutes of CGI battle. Left 4 Dead 2's opening cinematic,
however, has none of that. It plays out more like a movie trailer,
with snippets of the most exciting moments haphazardly stitched
together. If you're not familiar with the original game, L4D2's
cinematic is not going to set the stage for you at all.
But forget the opening movie; I mean, okay, how often do you really
watch that? What about the gameplay?
At its heart, its basically the original game with more... everything.
More zombies, more mini-bosses, more weapons. Unfortunately, the
levels lack the same intensity and quality of the first game. For one
thing, the level design is not quite up to par with other Valve
titles. The levels don't look as good, lacking many of those tiny
details that make the levels so appealing, and the flow is not as
instinctual (which is my clumsy way of saying I often got lost because
I couldn't tell which in direction I was supposed to go).
But the big difference is the game doesn't feel as balanced as the
first. Four players, four main weapons, four types of special zombie);
it all had a very simple balance. All the additions in L4D2 makes the
game feel too busy and complicated. It is starting to play more like
Counter Strike with all the different goals and weapon mixes. Now,
given Counter Strike's popularity, one might argue that is a good
thing but I miss L4D's unique style.
On the plus side, the game does ship with five campaigns as opposed to
the original's four; although they still only take about an hour each
to complete, at least now you're talking five hours instead of four. A
variety of additional game modes which provide some additional length.
Oh, and apparently there's a multiplayer mode too. ;-)
I'm not done with the game yet but I don't expect my opinion of the
game to change to much. This isn't a bad sequel but it doesn't match
the standards of the original. It definitely could have used another
six months or a year more of Valve's famous iterative level design to
polish off the rough edges and make the game shine.
rms
> More zombies, more mini-bosses, more weapons. Unfortunately, the
> levels lack the same intensity and quality of the first game.
I don't agree here, after playing the first campaign thru on advanced
with some friends. You talk of it being too busy and complicated, but my
feeling is this is very deliberate. The first game quickly became
comfortable, with fairly simple strategies working in all situations, with a
couple safe camping spots on every map, etc.
In this 2nd game, the action is generally less predictable and a bit more
chaotic, and with the new specials that can take out two or more players,
keeping in a loose formation, staying flexible, moving around a lot,
communicating, and watching each other's backs seems much more important
than in the first game. It's meant to engage the player more and hopefully
foster more teamplay, and so far I like it.
I like the new melee weapons; they are powerful in close quarters, have
their own small quirks, and provide some welcome variation in gameplay. The
other items are interesting, and I'm not put off by their being too many of
them, as they introduce small elements of strategy in choosing one over the
other.
Now I have yet to see a night level in L4D2, and how the designers handle
the usage of the new specials, in particular, when you get less warning of
their presence, I can't wait to see. But I liked the finale of the Dead
Center, which had you moving all around the map, either as a full team or
split into two pairs.
Good stuff so far, but the game is buggy, and crashed 3 or 4 times, and
updated once, in just this first session, so I'll probably wait a few days
to go farther. One good thing about steam is frequent small patches aren't
a problem.
rms
Spalls Hurgenson
<rsqui...@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>Good stuff so far, but the game is buggy, and crashed 3 or 4 times, and
>updated once, in just this first session, so I'll probably wait a few days
>to go farther. One good thing about steam is frequent small patches aren't
>a problem.
I haven't had any crashes yet, but the game does occassionally hang
for five to ten seconds on me. The sound stutters loudly, I can't
move, and the entire game freezes; on first impression, it looks like
a really nasty crash. Then, after a few seconds, it just picks right
up where it left off as if nothing went wrong. I've never seen any
game do that before; very odd.
Toby Newman
>> At its heart, its basically the original game with more... everything.
>> More zombies, more mini-bosses, more weapons. Unfortunately, the
>> levels lack the same intensity and quality of the first game.
>
> I don't agree here, after playing the first campaign thru on advanced
> with some friends. You talk of it being too busy and complicated, but my
> feeling is this is very deliberate. The first game quickly became
> comfortable, with fairly simple strategies working in all situations, with a
> couple safe camping spots on every map, etc.
>
> In this 2nd game, the action is generally less predictable and a bit more
> chaotic, and with the new specials that can take out two or more players,
> keeping in a loose formation, staying flexible, moving around a lot,
> communicating, and watching each other's backs seems much more important
> than in the first game. It's meant to engage the player more and hopefully
> foster more teamplay, and so far I like it.
>
> I like the new melee weapons; they are powerful in close quarters, have
> their own small quirks, and provide some welcome variation in gameplay. The
> other items are interesting, and I'm not put off by their being too many of
> them, as they introduce small elements of strategy in choosing one over the
I played the demo last night and at one point ran out of ammo. I was
suprised how long I was able to survive using only the frying pan!
I liked how the music goes into crazy freeform jazz during a horde
rush - fitting the gameplay and also the location.
Zombie dismemberments seemed to be improved over L4D 1, and are very
satisfying now. I mostly used the shotgun.
--
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.
Tim O
<spalls_h...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I haven't had any crashes yet, but the game does occassionally hang
>for five to ten seconds on me. The sound stutters loudly, I can't
>move, and the entire game freezes; on first impression, it looks like
>a really nasty crash. Then, after a few seconds, it just picks right
>up where it left off as if nothing went wrong. I've never seen any
>game do that before; very odd.
>
I think this may be a Source engine thing. I've had it happen a few
times in multiple Source engine games across a range of different
hardware.
I know Half Life 2 did it on my most recent computer, which has the
resources to pretty much run it with everything pegged at 1680x1050
and smooth as glass frame rates.
Sheldon England
>
> Four players, four main weapons, four types of special zombie);
Four 'players' or four 'characters'?
I didn't bother picking up Left4Dead because I will *never* be playing
with three other players in co-op mode and I will *never* hang out on a
server/lobby waiting to play with three strangers in a PUG.
I understood that this game (L4D1 or L4D2) is not really intended for a
single player. Did I misunderstand? Can it be played solo and be a fun
challenge?
- Sheldon
Andrew
<sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
>I understood that this game (L4D1 or L4D2) is not really intended for a
>single player. Did I misunderstand? Can it be played solo and be a fun
>challenge?
You can play it SP, which is co-op with bots, try the demos.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Schrodinger
"Spalls Hurgenson" <spalls_h...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6ou6g5pv8qbtq1o3v...@4ax.com...
> After Modern Warfare 2, I think Left 4 Dead 2 was the most anticipated
> release of the year. Well, neither were "most anticipated" by me but,
> you know, by the general populace. I liked the original game -I
> thought it a very high-quality product- hampered only by its lack of
> content. But none of the previews for the sequel promised anything as
> exciting.
>
> But, not surprisingly, I ended up buying the damn game on release day
> anyway (hey, I've resisted buying COD:MW2; I mean, $60? Really?
Good call. It's a $20 game despite the quality - it just isn't long enough
and the missions lack imagination.
I played through the first 3 campaigns last night and was pleasantly
surprised. Despite having a good team we had to restart a few of the
finales quite a few times (I think the Stock car ending 6 or 7 times).
It's good to see lots of new weapons; each one has distinctive style,
advantages and disadvantages. So far, I am thinking the powerful sniper
rifle and samurai sword is more or less the best combination.
I know what you mean about level design; getting lost seems a little too
easy, but perhaps after playing for 100 hours + we will appreciate this
more.
There are some niggles: hit detection is off in many cases, random lag seems
to be an issue, it is sometimes difficult to pick stuff up and the spitting
zombie makes no sense as to where the "spit" goes. It feels a little
unbalanced - one example is, after we were on the 3rd re try of the shopping
centre rally car level the Director 2 launched 2 tanks and hoard after
hoard was launched at us. Perhaps Valve have a sense of humour?
Overall, I think I'm impressed and I can see why they wanted to charge for
it again. Compared to the �30 I spent on COD:MW2 this game looks fantastic
value.
Sheldon England
> Sheldon England wrote:
>
>> I understood that this game (L4D1 or L4D2) is not really intended for a
>> single player. Did I misunderstand? Can it be played solo and be a fun
>> challenge?
>
> You can play it SP, which is co-op with bots, try the demos.
Okay, thanks! So I did misunderstand.
Gonna have to add this to my list, then. :)
Much obliged.
- Sheldon
PW
<sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
Yes, in SP you play with "bots" so you always have a 4 "player" co-op
going on (doesn't sound possible in Borderlands) and it's a blast.
They are very good (at least they were in the original).
I am like you - I don't play multiplayer (very often) but if 2 is
anything like 1 then I will probably play 100s of hours on-line also
with 2 as I don't think I ever played with a single jerk or with any
known cheats going on. And with Steam's friends list, it makes it
easy (if there is room in a game) to play with people you have had a
blast with and really trust.
It's not like UT, etc.. with people cheating left and right.
-pw/fragPUP
Alfie [UK]
<sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>> Four players, four main weapons, four types of special zombie);
>
>Four 'players' or four 'characters'?
4 characters (8 players in Versus mode). In any of the game modes
un-filled slots are controlled by the AI, and players joining a server
after a session has started can instantly take over a character slot
from the AI. The AI will take over again if a player leaves or goes
idle for a short time.
>I understood that this game (L4D1 or L4D2) is not really intended for a
>single player. Did I misunderstand? Can it be played solo and be a fun
>challenge?
L4D2 is not really single player, but it does have a single player
mode. Once you are used to the game style you should be able to play
through each campaign in around an hour at normal level, so 5 hours of
SP gameplay. There are 2 further difficulty levels, and a realism
mode, plus other game types such as Survival and Scavenge.
All in all single player only might net you 20-30 hours gameplay,
which is I suppose comparable with many SP only games nowadays.
--
Alfie [UK]
<http://www.delphia.co.uk/>
Everything should be built top-down, except the first time.
EMan
>
> All in all single player only might net you 20-30 hours gameplay,
> which is I suppose comparable with many SP only games nowadays.
How's replayability of L4D2 as compared to L4D1? I know about the day/
night and weather changes (are they cosmetic only or do special things
happen at night as compared to day?). Are the map variations dramatic
or just a few walls thats change location?
Werner Spahl
> Once you are used to the game style you should be able to play through
> each campaign in around an hour at normal level, so 5 hours of SP
> ...
> All in all single player only might net you 20-30 hours gameplay,
> which is I suppose comparable with many SP only games nowadays.
Let's keep it at 5 hours of SP gameplay. Replaying a game with another
difficulty doesn't really count and 5 hours is short even nowadays.
--
Dr. Werner Spahl (sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
Wesp5 @ Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Vorlonships
Sheldon England
>
> Yes, in SP you play with "bots" so you always have a 4 "player" co-op
> going on (doesn't sound possible in Borderlands) and it's a blast.
Sweet. Picking up L4D1 tonight.
> I am like you - I don't play multiplayer (very often) but if 2 is
> anything like 1 then I will probably play 100s of hours on-line also
> with 2 as I don't think I ever played with a single jerk or with any
> known cheats going on. And with Steam's friends list, it makes it
> easy (if there is room in a game) to play with people you have had a
> blast with and really trust.
>
> It's not like UT, etc.. with people cheating left and right.
Fair enough. Although there are jerks out there, that is not my concern.
When I am solo playing I can start and stop when I feel like it, redo
parts, etc. I don't have to schedule my gaming time and I don't have to
feel bad if I just suddenly feel like quitting or if I take an extended AFK.
Thanks all for the clarifications. I was really looking forward to L4D
until I misunderstood about the co-op play. Now I can give it a go.
- Sheldon
Alfie [UK]
I haven't played through enough to know yet, pretty much 8 hours to
get all the way through the campaigns, still got my rose-tinted new
game specs on :)
Weather effects seem to be map specific, Hard Rain has the gradually
worsening storm, and Swamp Fever has some sort of foggy haze going on.
The AI Director does seem to have the ability to influence these, I
noticed storm gusts seemed reduced on a retry of part of Hard Rain,
with less lightning. It also occasionally uses the lightning flashes
for shock effect, outlining a distant SI enemy before a crescendo
event.
The day/night levels seem to be map specific as well, I did notice one
map seemed brighter with more lens flare on a second play through,
simulating earlier morning, but not sure how much variance there will
be overall.
The route variations aren't that major, in the demo level for instance
there is sometimes an openable door at the back of the bar with the
jukebox, and sometimes the alley round the corner from there is
blocked in, forcing you to go a bit further down the road and over a
fence. It doesn't add much distance but it does lead you through a
slightly more exposed area if a horde rush happens to happen then. I'm
not sure how much of an impact this will have in the long run.
I haven't tried realism mode yet, or the Survivial/Scavenge game
types, and I've only played with a single friend on line so far as our
regualr group doesn't all have L4D2 yet due to the messed up UK retail
delivery dates.
--
Alfie [UK]
<http://www.delphia.co.uk/>
I'm not normally a sadistic person, but I've just been in that kind of mood lately.
PW
<sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
>PW wrote:
>>
>> Yes, in SP you play with "bots" so you always have a 4 "player" co-op
>> going on (doesn't sound possible in Borderlands) and it's a blast.
>
>Sweet. Picking up L4D1 tonight.
>
>
>> I am like you - I don't play multiplayer (very often) but if 2 is
>> anything like 1 then I will probably play 100s of hours on-line also
>> with 2 as I don't think I ever played with a single jerk or with any
>> known cheats going on. And with Steam's friends list, it makes it
>> easy (if there is room in a game) to play with people you have had a
>> blast with and really trust.
>>
>> It's not like UT, etc.. with people cheating left and right.
>
>Fair enough. Although there are jerks out there, that is not my concern.
>When I am solo playing I can start and stop when I feel like it, redo
>parts, etc. I don't have to schedule my gaming time and I don't have to
>feel bad if I just suddenly feel like quitting or if I take an extended AFK.
>
There is no save or quick save game feature by the way. Once you
start a map you have to finish it (getting achievements along the way
sometimes) but if you don't finish it, you have to start over from the
beginning. It would be nice if there were quicksaves at least at the
checkpoints/safehouses.
Just a heads up. Playing SP is like playing MP.
-pw
PW
microphone on your headset or a stand-alone one if need be. It is
frustrating playing with people that just use the chat feature. The
game is too fast for that and it really is a co-op game so you do need
to be on your toes.
PW
<sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Alfie [UK] wrote:
>
>> Once you are used to the game style you should be able to play through
>> each campaign in around an hour at normal level, so 5 hours of SP
>> ...
>> All in all single player only might net you 20-30 hours gameplay,
>> which is I suppose comparable with many SP only games nowadays.
>
>Let's keep it at 5 hours of SP gameplay. Replaying a game with another
>difficulty doesn't really count and 5 hours is short even nowadays.
Well, at least for the original (haven't played 2 enough yet to know)
the maps aren't exactly scripted although the goals are the same of
course. things do vary.
known12
some of those new weapons and the boomer bio bomb is a genuis idea
LOVE IT.
now.......might as well get this out of the way.....had they included
the option to play the game with the original left4dead
characters....OR mix and match the 8 old and new survivor to create
your perfect team .....this game would have been a solid knocked out
of the park home run.
PW
Agreed! Don't fire the artist in charge of the gal's backsides in
Valve games though! LOL!
The new gal does sound a lot like the 1st one though at times.
known12
zoey.but I would have rather they had someone a bit more sassy seing
as shes african american. it would have been funny playing the game
with a wanda sykes type female.
Scatter
> I am like you - I don't play multiplayer (very often) but if 2 is
> anything like 1 then I will probably play 100s of hours on-line also
> with 2 as I don't think I ever played with a single jerk or with any
> known cheats going on. And with Steam's friends list, it makes it
> easy (if there is room in a game) to play with people you have had a
> blast with and really trust.
Does L4D have an option to password protect a game so that only
friends can play together (basically a private server)?
I'm hoping for some of that kind of play in OfP Dragon Rising this
weekend with some mates.
Sheldon England
>
> There is no save or quick save game feature by the way. Once you
> start a map you have to finish it (getting achievements along the way
> sometimes) but if you don't finish it, you have to start over from the
> beginning. It would be nice if there were quicksaves at least at the
> checkpoints/safehouses.
>
> Just a heads up. Playing SP is like playing MP.
Okay. Thanks for the warning.
I did get L4D1 last night but got home too late to do much beyond
installing and a short burst of play. Made it to the first Safe House.
Initial response: Wheee! This is gonna be great fun.
- Sheldon
Sheldon England
No problem. I am accustomed to using Vent for my MMO so I have a headset
with a microphone.
Thanks again!
- Sheldon, zombie slayer
PW
I don't think I could put up with that for two long :-)
PW
I forget. I think you have to start a server with friends on your
friend list and hope for the best. You can invite friends to play.
Jonah Falcon
http://www.destructoid.com/think-l4d2-is-an-expansion-you-re-a-f-cking-idiot-155498.phtml
Antonio Huerta
"Left 4 Dead 2 contains way more original content than most
expansions, ..."
So, it is still an expansion, albeit a larger one -- by the confession
of the author of the article ?
Sleepy
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:DKGdnYPpJpZZP5XW...@earthlink.com...
> You're a fucking idiot.
>
> http://www.destructoid.com/think-l4d2-is-an-expansion-you-re-a-f-cking-idiot-155498.phtml
anyone who is paid to write - ie a journalist - even on a website - and uses
such language of people with an opposing point of view, loses all
credibility and is a disgrace to his profession.
he should be sacked out of hand - regardless of how you think about the
whole L4D2 debate - expressing his views in such terms will do nothing to
change the opinions of others and only serves to feed the enmity between L4D
and L4D2 devotees.
Morgan
He's not a journalist and he doesn't get paid for the prattle he spews
across the internet.
BTW Jonah, I've not played L4D 2 so I can't comment on he accuracy of
the OPs post. However if you want some tips on how to make your writing
engaging then you should probably take a leaf out of his book.
KCB
"Sheldon England" <sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:he1k34$dma$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Sheldon, Versus in L4D (and L4D2) is some of the most entertaining gameplay
around. Actually, you don't hang around very long in the lobby, sometimes
mere seconds. And Versus is 4 vs.4, so it would be seven strangers.
Quickplay can be used to go straight into the action. You get put into an
ongoing game, Versus or Campaign style.
KCB
"Scatter" <us...@eeepc-r.domain_not_set.invalid> wrote in message
news:gQsNm.56151$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On 2009-11-18, PW <emailad...@ifIremember.com> wrote:
>> I am like you - I don't play multiplayer (very often) but if 2 is
>> anything like 1 then I will probably play 100s of hours on-line also
>> with 2 as I don't think I ever played with a single jerk or with any
>> known cheats going on. And with Steam's friends list, it makes it
>> easy (if there is room in a game) to play with people you have had a
>> blast with and really trust.
>
> Does L4D have an option to password protect a game so that only
> friends can play together (basically a private server)?
You can start a "Friends Only" game. Only people in your Steam Friends list
can join it.
Unknown
Those're pretty awesome L4D2 screenshots at destructoid. They
reminded me of id/doom3 modelling/graphics more than anything.
But Jim Sterling's argument is for shit. I mean, he appeals directly
to Gabe Newell's rosy red arsering as vindication for his contention,
and that has to be prejudicial regarding anything he says before and
after.
I got as far as reading the para "Valve has spoiled you" and thought
that was to puke. Couldn't read further.
A person likes the game L4D, or not - or there might be new
customers/converts, however you may have it - and in neither case has
Sterling's argument addressed the actual value of L4D2.
Sheldon England
>
> Sheldon, Versus in L4D (and L4D2) is some of the most entertaining gameplay
> around. Actually, you don't hang around very long in the lobby, sometimes
> mere seconds. And Versus is 4 vs.4, so it would be seven strangers.
> Quickplay can be used to go straight into the action. You get put into an
> ongoing game, Versus or Campaign style.
Also good to know. Thanks!
- Sheldon
Sleepy
news:6ou6g5pv8qbtq1o3v...@4ax.com...
> After Modern Warfare 2, I think Left 4 Dead 2 was the most anticipated
> release of the year. Well, neither were "most anticipated" by me but,
> you know, by the general populace. I liked the original game -I
> thought it a very high-quality product- hampered only by its lack of
> content. But none of the previews for the sequel promised anything as
> exciting.
>
> But, not surprisingly, I ended up buying the damn game on release day
> anyway (hey, I've resisted buying COD:MW2; I mean, $60? Really? But I
> digress). My initial playthroughs of the first few campaigns more or
> less confirmed my initial suspicions: this is basically an expansion
> pack to the original where the goal was simply "lets give them more"
> without any real attention to whether more was actually needed.
>
> So, the first impression is the opening cinematic; remember that
> terrific movie that Left 4 Dead started with? It gave you the setting,
> the situation, the characters and the mood of the game all in four
> exciting minutes of CGI battle. Left 4 Dead 2's opening cinematic,
> however, has none of that. It plays out more like a movie trailer,
> with snippets of the most exciting moments haphazardly stitched
> together. If you're not familiar with the original game, L4D2's
> cinematic is not going to set the stage for you at all.
>
> But forget the opening movie; I mean, okay, how often do you really
> watch that? What about the gameplay?
>
> At its heart, its basically the original game with more... everything.
> More zombies, more mini-bosses, more weapons. Unfortunately, the
> levels lack the same intensity and quality of the first game. For one
> thing, the level design is not quite up to par with other Valve
> titles. The levels don't look as good, lacking many of those tiny
> details that make the levels so appealing, and the flow is not as
> instinctual (which is my clumsy way of saying I often got lost because
> I couldn't tell which in direction I was supposed to go).
>
> But the big difference is the game doesn't feel as balanced as the
> first. Four players, four main weapons, four types of special zombie);
> it all had a very simple balance. All the additions in L4D2 makes the
> game feel too busy and complicated. It is starting to play more like
> Counter Strike with all the different goals and weapon mixes. Now,
> given Counter Strike's popularity, one might argue that is a good
> thing but I miss L4D's unique style.
>
> On the plus side, the game does ship with five campaigns as opposed to
> the original's four; although they still only take about an hour each
> to complete, at least now you're talking five hours instead of four. A
> variety of additional game modes which provide some additional length.
> Oh, and apparently there's a multiplayer mode too. ;-)
>
> I'm not done with the game yet but I don't expect my opinion of the
> game to change to much. This isn't a bad sequel but it doesn't match
> the standards of the original. It definitely could have used another
> six months or a year more of Valve's famous iterative level design to
> polish off the rough edges and make the game shine.
I bought the game earlier this week (despite some reservations over the
fiasco of Valves support of the first game) mainly because all my friends
have it and I kept getting invites to a game I didn't own!
You're right Spalls about the lack of the first games simple balance -
something that makes it so easy to get into. Its all far too complicated now
with all the different weapons and health items. I never had any doubt which
way to go before but these levels are more like mazes.
The difficulty is really ramped up too. I can go through the first game on
Expert no problem - all it requires is concentration and quick thinking but
even on Normal I'm finding the finales on the new game to be frustrating.
I've played through the 5 campaigns and I'm replaying them to try and
improve - I'm loath to abandon a game I've just paid �25 for but the simple
truth is - I'm not having any fun with this game.
I really wish I hadn't wasted my money.
Spalls Hurgenson
>"Spalls Hurgenson" <spalls_h...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:6ou6g5pv8qbtq1o3v...@4ax.com...
>I bought the game earlier this week (despite some reservations over the
>fiasco of Valves support of the first game) mainly because all my friends
>have it and I kept getting invites to a game I didn't own!
>
>You're right Spalls about the lack of the first games simple balance -
>something that makes it so easy to get into. Its all far too complicated now
>with all the different weapons and health items. I never had any doubt which
>way to go before but these levels are more like mazes.
>
>The difficulty is really ramped up too. I can go through the first game on
>Expert no problem - all it requires is concentration and quick thinking but
>even on Normal I'm finding the finales on the new game to be frustrating.
>I've played through the 5 campaigns and I'm replaying them to try and
>improve - I'm loath to abandon a game I've just paid �25 for but the simple
>truth is - I'm not having any fun with this game.
>
>I really wish I hadn't wasted my money.
I don't know if I'd consider my purchase a "waste" - I did get some
entertainment out of the game- but L4D2 could have been so much better
than it was.
I'm glad somebody agrees with me about the elegant simplicity of the
first; many people are quite in favor of all the added weapons and
monsters. I can understand where they are coming from; in comparison
to games like Unreal Tournament or Counterstrike, the original L4D
looked a bit sparse. But my personal (and completely unsupported by
any facts) opinion is that the people who were clamoring for these
changes were the very vocal (but numerically small group) of hard-core
online gamers.
I think one reason the original game was such a success is that it
didn't cater entirely to this group, but worked very hard to make
itself appealing to the more casual FPS gamer. The new additions in
the sequel catered to the former at the expense of the latter.
However, I also firmly believe that, had Valve taken more time (six to
twelve months) to polish the sequel, they could have created a product
that better satisfied both groups.
Then again, I don't have access to Valve's marketing data, so who am I
to second guess their decisions? My opinion is admittedly based on
anecdotal evidence. All I can say with any surety is that I trend more
towards the more casual gamer and that I found the original to be the
more appealing of the two products.