I don't think they'll be able to, neither. I'm also worried that the gore will be very shitty.
I hated the marine campaign because it was just too damned hard. I found it extremely atmospheric, but I was younger at the time and felt more like applying my ownage, rather than cowering in fear.
I do like that it's atmospheric like that, however.
I just want to remind people that to satisfy my technical cravings for quality content is a hard thing to do.
And yet Valve Software has come through to a level of specification that involves champagne bottles opening and opiate-like disregard for any rough edges with Left For Dead 2.
A little thing or two was kind of crappy, but the overwhelming things that they have accomplished makes the lower res **blood** texture that I saw a few times seem like an insult to a fortune-giving relative who just gave you 5 million dollars.
Remember that L4D2's gore *IS* sub-par in some details (specifically resolution of blood textures at some points, the gut thing was weird but was *saved* by massive surprising variety around the collarbone region of ironically similar oddness, and the entire issue that Raven experienced the first time THEY did this thing involving too much de-limbing from lower-caliber weapons) , but that they managed AAA quality in general dismemberment (as in actually WAS BETTER THAN SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 2 RATHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO MIMIC THE GAME).
I try to avoid any negative commentary in regards to L4D2 because it's as if I was personally overseeing the development team to a major extent. I am dead serious.
I have sent them an email commending them on their ability to do the un-doable; to actually live up to standards already set by previous works and to actually attempt to do so with the specific goal in mind, clear as day.
L4D2's shortcomings are to be DISREGARDED and shoved to the back burner, only to be present for consideration in FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS.
They take the cake for their accomplishments and should not be insulted, as what they have done is a miracle and should not be criticized over smaller details.
I also like how they actually gave the M16 and AK47 distinct, unique properties that for the first time ever, actually leave you with a specific want for either one (depending on how you feel).
When I want a more accurate, higher rate of fire with possibly less potential of de-limbing, I turn to the M16 and fill 'em with lead.
When I want more stopping-power, penetration, and general "oomph", I pick the AK47, despite its lower firing rate and bigger bullet spread.
I love L4D2 and Valve Software.
EDIT: "No, it will NOT automatically work on all Windows OS's currently in use, because they sell it on Steam. There are plenty of games on Steam, not working (or not working properly) with the current Windows OS. "
"To really like Steam, you have to live in the States and use XP or Vista. Any other country or current Windows OS? Good luck! You'll need it ... "
OK, I wasn't aware that Valve unfortunately failed to implement a policy of checking software for ensured compatibility with current operating systems.
That surprises me, as I had expected otherwise with large amount of re-released old games made available again on Steam that WOULD NOT WORK WITH THEIR NORMAL SHIPPED CODE.
Multiple titles that would not work (AVP INCLUDED) are available on Steam in updated, working order for modern machines.
I'm sorry that there are regional blocks that affect you and that you've had such a bad experience with things.
You are right as far as the compatibility issues.
I'm also surprised (and this one's different) that Microsoft's virtualization programming is coming up short. They did so well with the WOW emulator in 64 bit versions of Windows, and Vista's compatibility was even better than XP's (I ran Fallout 2 1.0 for over 30 minutes without crashing AT ALL in XP X64!).
I would expect Windows 7's VMs for XP to be 90% compatible and with an input lag that still allows for 2x MSAA to work fairly well.
I've recently switched from XP Pro 64-bit to Win7 32-bit in order to take advantage of the Macrofusion feature of my processor (you may need 64 bit to get I7's to work with it due to the new full 64-bit Macrofusion... LOL).
I've found that Vista *and* Win7 run FASTER THAN XP with modern multicore processors!
It's just like the Crysis engine all over again (AS FAR AS MULTICORE RELATED PROCESSING), with people complaining that it's programming is extremely inefficient (we're talking Vista's processing efficiency likely with multicore processors, not anything else!) when in reality you are required to be running a MODERN MULTI-CORE PROCESSOR in order to comply with the ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.
That's right; all those people with dual graphics cards that were complaining about Cryengine 2 were a bunch of Pentium 4 NOOBS.
They should have went with AMD, as back then they offered faster chips for less money (with integrated memory controllers already!).
Also, a 2.6 GHz Core 2 Duo processor leaves something to be desired in XP where a 2.3 GHz Core 2 Quad TEARS THROUGH VISTA LIKE NOBODY'S BUSINESS.
And this is with all the reviewers complaining about the lack of difference between quad cores and dual cores in raw performance comparisons!
I think the 8000 line of Core 2 chips has been upgraded for performance, but that Microsoft actually got something right with Vista when it comes to processing data efficiently with multi-core processors (don't feel too bad, IE8 is still the polar opposite of this and is likely to never be fixed due to Win7/Vista masking the symptoms. Just like my 30% reduced performance video card <due to heating issues with EVGA and stream processors failing to produce artifacting before crashing> and DirectX 10.).
This comment was edited on Jan 15, 2010, 17:15.