Left 4 Dead 2 Interview

Opening The Valve: The Gabe Newell Interview on G4tv.com hears from the Valve boss as well as Doug Lombardi about the announcement of Left 4 Dead 2. Gabe describes the project management considerations in planning the sequel, talking about some smaller projects actually coming out on time, and their assumption fans would be "super excited" about a Left 4 Dead sequel. He also talks about continuing to develop for both games, how Xbox limitations are going to impact the PC version, and how they are trying not to screw PS3 customers "again." They go on to discuss the evolving games as a service business, but when asked about Half-Life 2: Episode 3, Gabe refuses to regret the decision to make a quick series of episodic expansions that has turned out to have taken years now. He says they can't talk about Episode 3 right now, but they are happy with how the decision to make the episodes has turned out:
I want to make sure that I don’t sound like I’m dismissing user’s issues, right? I get a ton of email everyday saying why aren’t you talking about Episode 3? And there are very good reasons why we’re not talking about Episode 3, which I can’t talk about yet, but I will. So, I think there’s frustration there and I’m not somehow going to say that that’s not legitimate or length isn’t a concern or regularity. The speed with which these updates are coming out, people say, “Hey, gee, these episodes are supposed to be shorter and you take 25 years to ship each one.” So, I don’t wanna somehow dismiss those, or sort of throw them under - but I think we’re in much better shape than would have been, in terms of our ability to move stuff, technology, products, uh, forward faster by changing how, ya know, being different than, ya know, there was Half-Life 2 and then there was post-Half-Life 2 in terms of how we were approaching these things and yea, I think that we’re overall pretty happy without somehow dismissing the legitimate complaints that people should have towards us. But, we’re happy with that choice that we made.
View : : :
78 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
78.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 16, 2009, 13:51
78.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 16, 2009, 13:51
Jun 16, 2009, 13:51
 
lol?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
77.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 15, 2009, 15:42
GT
77.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 15, 2009, 15:42
Jun 15, 2009, 15:42
GT
 
Valve games are never "unfinished"
That is a just a matter of semantics. With their large numbers of bugs and lack of content, I consider them unfinished, and a lot of L4D buyers apparently do as well. I doubt Valve would even disagree if it were being honest. Since it has Steam to deliver and force its updates, Valve doesn't even seem to bother testing its games much given how often it has to release a patch within days or hours to fix a previous patch.

Forced updates don't imply a subscription... recurring fees do, which simply aren't present in any Valve games.
Recurring fees do, but so do forced updates. The game you get at release can end up being quite different from the game you have a year or two later. It's true for an MMO like Star Wars Galaxies as well as for Valve's TF2. That's one reason why TF2 updates tend ot bring out a lot of complaints from those who don't like at least some of the changes. The game that they are now forced to play isn't the one they originally approved of when they paid their money. That's the nature of a subscription game versus one which just receives optional updates.

I talk about quality being important and you completely dismiss it and call quantity the only important measure.
No, I didn't. Learn to read. What I wrote was that in an objective comparison, quality is trivial because a reasonable level of quality is assumed. Yes, if there is an enormous gap in quality between two games being compared, then quality would be a factor in an objective comparison of value. But, that isn't the case here.
I talk about consistency being important and you praise UT3 for its lack of it.
I never wrote that UT3 lacks consistency, and it doesn't. Its content is consistently of high quality. What you call lack of consistency in UT3, I call diversity and variety. UT3 simply isn't as limited as games like TF2 and L4D in terms of gameplay variety. To me that is a strength because it gives a wider group of people a reason to play it. Trying to force people into more limited gameplay choice as TF2 and L4D do isn't an asset. It's a deficiency.

TF2 has better teamplay - people work together as a team in a much better way
I don't really agree, but it really depends on the UT3 game mode in question. In modes like plain deathmatch and CTF that is basically true. However, in UT3's warfare and VCTF modes, teamwork is practically required for success and it is greatly rewarded in the game design. While is it certainly possible to shun teamwork and still be successful against a poorly organized team, a lot of elements for those two modes are designed for teamplay. For example, UT3's vehicles especially the air ones allow players to be pulled along for the ride. That is extremely beneficial when the towed player is carrying the orb or the flag, and usually the team which does this or does this better than the opposing team wins the round. Repairing vehicles and nodes by teammates especially in tandem where the effect is magnified is also another teamplay design which is necessary to be successful against good competition. Many vehicles also have turrets which encourages teamplay as some vehicles need a good gunner to survive for long. While one can play as a lone wolf in warfare and vctf, the team with the most collaborators usually wins.

TF2's class system allows players the flexibility to play how they choose, whereas UT3 focuses nearly entirely on individual player reactions.
TF2's class system (and just about any class-based game for that matter) is more limiting because players can only don one role and set of weapons/items at a time. With a game like UT3, you have to be more proficient with a wider selection of weapons and vehicles to be successful because what you have and need during a game changes frequently. A class system does compensate players who lack certain skills or abilities by letting them stick to one role and weaponset. That makes games which use classes more accessible to these players than a game like UT3 where everyone must be a jack-of-all trades to be successful.

TF2 has been constantly supported
TF2 has seen more frequent support because it has needed it due to its lack of content, many bugs and shortcomings, and it lack of AI/offline play. If TF2 hadn't been updated, it would have died within six months of release at most. UT3 has also gotten more attention from Epic than you give it credit (see my posts below for specifics), but even if it hadn't, it was a much more complete game at release and is perfectly playable offline against bots which is how most players play it according to Epic.

I'm sure you just manipulate everything to make UT3 look amazing and TF2 look bland.
TF2 is a bland game in comparison to UT3 in that its choices are more limited. TF2 does have a lot of personality in comparison to UT3 with the emotes and the cartoonishness, but to me that is style over substance. I prefer substance.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 23:58.
76.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 15, 2009, 15:05
76.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 15, 2009, 15:05
Jun 15, 2009, 15:05
 
There is a tangible difference in Valve's case because its recent history with multiplayer games like CS:S, DOD:S, TF2, and L4D is to release an unfinished game with limited content and then gradually add content and fix bugs and shortcomings to the game over time.
That's called supporting a game. It in no way implies a subscription. Valve games are never "unfinished" and whether the content is limited or not is a subjective measure, though I agree that they're usually on the light side.

Valve also forces customers to use the changes to these games which fits a subscription model.
Forced updates don't imply a subscription... recurring fees do, which simply aren't present in any Valve games.

Having more popularity doesn't make something of better quality. Just look at anything in pop culture whether it be it music, television, movies, or even video games. The masses usually go for what is simpler and prettier, i.e. style over substance, so it's no wonder that Valve's games are more popular.
So UT3 is a better game because anything that sells better must obviously be rubbish because people are idiots and only like shiny things? Lovely logic there. Anyway, we're not getting anywhere here. I show you that critics and the public regard Valve games much more highly and you call everyone idiots and say they don't know what they're talking about. I talk about quality being important and you completely dismiss it and call quantity the only important measure. I talk about consistency being important and you praise UT3 for its lack of it.

Okay, I'll try a final time. TF2 has better teamplay - people work together as a team in a much better way but it also allows people to work as individuals when they want to... teamwork is only suggested, not required. In UT3 everyone acts as individuals and the maps are so large - and in some modes the spawn points are selectable - meaning players go about doing their own thing, with little awareness of other team members. TF2's class system allows players the flexibility to play how they choose, whereas UT3 focuses nearly entirely on individual player reactions. TF2 has been constantly supported and evolving whereas UT3 has been largely ignored and saw one large update, which wasn't enoughI could go on but I'm sure you just manipulate everything to make UT3 look amazing and TF2 look bland.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
75.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 15, 2009, 14:41
GT
75.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 15, 2009, 14:41
Jun 15, 2009, 14:41
GT
 
All software is sold under license rather than granting ownership, it's just that DRM like SecuROM and Steam enforce it. There is no tangible difference in the way it operates - you buy a game and you get permanent access to it.
There is a tangible difference in Valve's case because its recent history with multiplayer games like CS:S, DOD:S, TF2, and L4D is to release an unfinished game with limited content and then gradually add content and fix bugs and shortcomings to the game over time. Valve also forces customers to use the changes to these games which fits a subscription model. Therefore, it is certainly reasonable for customers of Valve's games to expect that the games will change and have content added to them over the life of the subscription to them. In contrast other games without this subscription model aren't required to be updated and/or don't usually require continued authorization to be played even if they contain DRM.

No, because that completely disregards quality.
Quality is irrelevant or at least trivial in an objective comparison because quality is subjective and a reasonable level of quality is assumed. As I wrote below, yes, if you hate UT3, then you won't play it and therefore all of the extra content is for naught. But, if you like the game, it is a better value due to its greater content for the price.

There's a reason UT3 got a Metacritic score of 83, while TF2 and L4D managed 92 and 89 respectively - there's also a reason why it only managed a user score of 81, versus the 95 for TF2 and 94 for L4D...but certainly I and the majority of other people prefer them.
Having more popularity doesn't make something of better quality. Just look at any entertainment media in pop culture whether it be it music, television, movies, or even video games. The masses usually go for what is simpler and prettier, i.e. style over substance, so it's no wonder that Valve's games are more popular. And, like a lot of other pop culture icons, Valve's continuing popularity is due more to its past offerings and the nostalgia factor than what it has done lately. That certainly certainly doesn't make Valve's games of higher quality, and they're not better than UT3 or the Unreal series to my more discriminating taste. The metacritic scores for the Halo series are even higher than those two Valve games. Would you say that the Halo games are better games or of better quality?

Your vitriolic dislike of Valve is clouding your objectivity.
I don't dislike Valve any more than most other game developers or publishers. Its games are just vastly overrated.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 15:01.
74.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 15, 2009, 13:59
74.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 15, 2009, 13:59
Jun 15, 2009, 13:59
 
Valve grossly exaggerated the replayability of the game via the AI director
I don't disagree.

and second because of the way Valve now sells its games as subscriptions
All software is sold under license rather than granting ownership, it's just that DRM like SecuROM and Steam enforce it. There is no tangible difference in the way it operates - you buy a game and you get permanent access to it.

UT3 delivers more official content and variety of play than TF2 and L4D. So, unless you dislike UT3's gameplay, it is a better value for the money than those two games.
No, because that completely disregards quality. There's a reason UT3 got a Metacritic score of 83, while TF2 and L4D managed 92 and 89 respectively - there's also a reason why it only managed a user score of 81, versus the 95 for TF2 and 94 for L4D. That's right, UT3's user score is lower than the critics' score whereas it's much higher for Valve's offerings. Your vitriolic dislike of Valve is clouding your objectivity. I don't claim they're perfect games - far from it, I have raised many criticisms in countless topics regarding the games and Valve's conduct - but certainly I and the majority of other people prefer them.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
73.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 15, 2009, 13:36
GT
73.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 15, 2009, 13:36
Jun 15, 2009, 13:36
GT
 
You've misconstrued my point, which was that people buying L4D knew what they were getting (what content there was in the game) but were expecting more - they are two very different things.
They are not two very different things first because Valve grossly exaggerated the replayability of the game via the AI director, and second because of the way Valve now sells its games as subscriptions. So, first if the game weren't so repetitive, there wouldn't be so many complaints about lack of content. And, second Valve promised ongoing content and it looks as though it won't deliver on that without customers having to pay more to get L4D2. I agree that the fools who bought the game shouldn't have trusted Valve to deliver anything more than what little they received at purchase, but I can certainly see that they were misled.

But surely that speaks to the strength of the gameplay?
No, it just demonstrates how predictable and monotonous those people are. It's human nature for some people to get stuck in a rut. That doesn't make the rut a good thing.

Because they have a much greater depth of gameplay
hahahahahahahahahaha! You've either never played all of the various modes, weapons, vehicles, and mutators of UT3 or you have some top-secret version of TF2 and L4D that is vastly expanded, varied, and better than what Valve released to the public. Yours is an especially ridiculous claim for L4D which has to be one of the most simplistic, repetitive, and outright boring FPS games I have ever played. I've played quite a few budget FPS games which were better and more fun than that. If Valve's name weren't on that game, I'd swear it was made by ValuSoft. It's that terrible.

And if you love crappy CGI then you'll prefer the Star Wars prequel trilogy over the original trilogy but that doesn't mean they're objectively better.
That's not even remotely an applicable comparison. Now, if the Star Wars prequels were more numerous that the three original movies, were longer in length, AND cost the same or less in aggregate than those three then yes, they would be a better value for those who enjoyed them from an objective standpoint. UT3 delivers more official content and variety of play than TF2 and L4D. So, unless you dislike UT3's gameplay, it is a better value for the money than those two games.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 13:49.
72.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 15, 2009, 12:46
72.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 15, 2009, 12:46
Jun 15, 2009, 12:46
 
No, they obviously didn't as the ones who are now complaining believed Valve's lies and hype when they paid for the game.
You've misconstrued my point, which was that people buying L4D knew what they were getting (what content there was in the game) but were expecting more - they are two very different things.

Yes, and the drones who have been playing de-dust ad nauseum in Counterstrike for years would say that single map in Counterstrike obliterates the value of both UT3 and TF2 since they have played it for thousands of hours. But, that simply means that they are boring, repetitive, and easily amused.
But surely that speaks to the strength of the gameplay?

You complained in the thread at http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=98795 that UT3 was less "accessible" than TF2 and was confusing since it was like several radically different games in one so you didn't know what to expect.
I didn't say it was confusing, just that the gameplay types were so disparate as to be like different games.

So, why would you now disagree that TF2 and L4D are simplistic in comparison to UT3?
Because they have a much greater depth of gameplay that is also more accessible. They're not simplistic... they're better.

UT3 is a more complicated and sophisticated game than those two because it has so much more variety in game modes and customization.
I fundamentally disagree with that assertion.

But, if you like the game, UT3 delivers far more value for the money than either TF2 or L4D due to its greater amount of content and variety.
And if you love crappy CGI then you'll prefer the Star Wars prequel trilogy over the original trilogy but that doesn't mean they're objectively better.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 12:49.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
71.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 21:15
Prez
 
71.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 21:15
Jun 12, 2009, 21:15
 Prez
 
That's what this is really about, we don't agree with you so we are suddenly all morons and blah blah blah.

Lots of that going around, not only on Blues, but just about every website of every possible thing under the sun. You'd think this was the internet or something!
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
70.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 13:06
GT
70.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 13:06
Jun 12, 2009, 13:06
GT
 
First, theyarecomingforyou, I see that you contradicted yourself and replied to me even though you stated in your previous post that you wouldn't.

L4D buyers knew what they were getting
No, they obviously didn't as the ones who are now complaining believed Valve's lies and hype when they paid for the game. They bought the promise of a full game and don't see Valve delivering on that promise without having to buy the game again.

It had more content but better value for money? No. To me it was quantity over quality...In terms of playtime:price ratio TF2 obliterates UT3 for me.
Yes, and the drones who have been playing de-dust ad nauseum in Counterstrike for years would say that single map in Counterstrike obliterates the value of both UT3 and TF2 since they have played it for thousands of hours. But, that simply means that they are boring, repetitive, and easily amused. Most people aren't content to buy and play a game with only a map or two especially for that long. That's why you have to look at the games objectively in making a value comparison of different games and throw out whether you like a game or not. More content simply gives more value to a game than less. So, I'm not saying that UT3 is a better game for everyone than TF2 and L4D. But, if you like the game, UT3 delivers far more value for the money than either TF2 or L4D due to its greater amount of content and variety.

it was the terrible server and appalling netcode that stopped most people. It wasn't until the recent update that Epic finally sorted out the netcode in UT3.
That's not true. I played the game online many months before the 2.0 update, and the game was fine in that department. I never had a problem with network performance when playing on Epic's servers. UT3 is a very demanding game from hardware standpoint which stresses the networking performance too even when running in server mode. Some servers simply don't have the hardware and bandwidth to run the game properly for the number of players they allow. In addition the version 1.3 update in August 2008 also made some significant improvements to the game's netcode. See http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=620465

it took them weeks to realise PC gamers don't like double-clicking all the buttons.
I didn't mind that change in the 2.0 update because it prevents the accidental clicks/selections that can occur with just a click of a button. But, yes, Epic reversed that change in the next update a short time later.

LMAO, you've just blown any credibility you may have had out the window.
There you go again contradicting yourself. You complained in the thread at http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=98795 that UT3 was less "accessible" than TF2 and was confusing since it was like several radically different games in one so you didn't know what to expect. So, why would you now disagree that TF2 and L4D are simplistic in comparison to UT3? UT3 is a more complicated and sophisticated game than those two because it has so much more variety in game modes and customization. Even the rules of the various game modes can even be radically altered through the use of UT3's included mutators. TF2 and L4D simply don't have anywhere near that flexibility and variety which makes them simple in comparison.

Discussion over.
You were wrong on that before too.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2009, 13:43.
69.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 13:06
Verno
 
69.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 13:06
Jun 12, 2009, 13:06
 Verno
 
As usual you clearly haven't paid any attention to anything I've said. I don't like Survival mode either, I've repeated this about a dozen times now. Never claimed for it to have been any good.

Yeah except people say "wheres the content?" and you say "oh they already made DLC" despite the fact that it's a rehash of existing assets with a timer tacked on. What you're basically telling us is that you don't even believe your own argument.

Maybe you are starting to get an idea of how I perceive, you, Verno and a whole slew of other people who harp on Valve and their games/Steam/Support constantly with misinformed, ignorant and narrow-minded drivel.

No one cares how you perceive anyone here to be blunt, that's not what this topic nor any discussions about L4D are about. I'm not going to go home tonight and worry about what random internet poster #032 thinks of me, sorry. You constantly call us names but never back it up with anything. We have provided statements from Valve themselves, the game development timeline and how work could not have started without purposely neglecting L4D1 and a variety of other things. You simply sweep it all away and say "U GUYS ARE DUMB, I AM TOUGH ON INTERNET GRR!".

Do you have anything to offer other than insults? Do you ever have anything to offer other than unwarranted hostility and insults? You have no idea what I think of Valve, I have never commented on Valve being some evil corporation or something. I like Valve games, I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I don't like what they are doing with Left 4 Dead and I don't like the idea of them turning into the next EA, a very real concern if you actually read the interview and hear their ideas on one year product turnarounds.

Face it, you don't like it when people disagree with you and when that happens you devolve into a frothing fanboy, tossing out random insults to innocuous questions or comments and berating everyone else on the board. That's what this is really about, we don't agree with you so we are suddenly all morons and blah blah blah.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2009, 13:16.
Playing: Xenoblade Chronicles DE, Ys IX, God of War
Watching: Lupin, You me and the Apocalypse, Days of Thunder
Avatar 51617
68.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 13:02
68.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 13:02
Jun 12, 2009, 13:02
 
Maybe you are starting to get an idea of how I perceive, you, Verno and a whole slew of other people who harp on Valve and their games/Steam/Support constantly with misinformed, ignorant and narrow-minded drivel.

It's the same thing, just reversed here. Difference is, I don't obsess about jumping into every Epic/Unreal related thread to remind everyone that Mark Rein ate my baby, rehash the same game with each release, continually insult their PC customers, have a buggy engine, etc, etc.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2009, 13:03.
67.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 12:22
GT
67.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 12:22
Jun 12, 2009, 12:22
GT
 
what I get for trying to rush a post at 1am
I wrote my posts at the same time and even later than yours and had no trouble being correct. The problem is simply you. Take off your headcrab next time, and you might be able to think straight.

Still doesn't change that there was no new content for UT3 for a year.
It doesn't change it because you are still wrong on that too as you continue to conveniently ignore the official PhysX pack in which Epic added some really nice content to UT3. In addition unlike unfinished and incomplete games like TF2 and L4D, UT3 already had plenty of official content at that point in its life. It didn't need any additional content, and therefore players weren't clamoring for more.

Being a blind fanboy, that is what you just can't see and understand. Other games don't need content to be continually added to them because they already have all that content on release or shortly thereafter. Instead of selling you a complete game on release, Valve sells you a subscription to an unfinished and buggy game with little content and then you must wait months or years for Valve to slowly fix and add enough to the game to justify the price. That why so many are complaining about L4D. They know they paid a high price for only the promise of a full game, and they don't see Valve living up to that promise to deliver a full game without having to pay again now that L4D2 is in the works. Being an ardent fanboy and being so easily amused, you may be content to pay such a high price for repetitive gameplay on the same few locales, but other consumers expect more from their games than that because most other games have delivered more than that.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2009, 12:25.
66.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 12:01
GT
66.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 12:01
Jun 12, 2009, 12:01
GT
 
I don't think so. It's just that all I do in UT is die. Nothing really too fun about that. Admittedly, it's not the game's fault that I suck.
Turn down the difficulty of the bots. On at least the lowest two levels you should have little or no difficulty in staying live unless you simply can't aim at all.
65.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 11:53
65.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 11:53
Jun 12, 2009, 11:53
 
Yeah that's pretty much what most of us were saying about the latest L4D content patch, glad to see you've come to your senses.

As usual you clearly haven't paid any attention to anything I've said. I don't like Survival mode either, I've repeated this about a dozen times now. Never claimed for it to have been any good.

GT...

As for the patch notes on UT3, that's what I get for trying to rush a post at 1am when I'm half passed out. I had looked at Gamershell for the patch notes and didn't notice the tiny ass scroll bar in the middle of the screen. Still doesn't change that there was no new content for UT3 for a year.
64.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 11:50
64.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 11:50
Jun 12, 2009, 11:50
 
Wow, lemme tell you how fun it was to review this thread with 2 people responding to each others comments one sentence at a time...

...

Please never do that again.

63.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 10:18
63.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 10:18
Jun 12, 2009, 10:18
 
You didn't use your internet sarcasm alert, SC.

i considered using some emoticons, but was posting quickly

im gonna start using them more Grouphug
62.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 09:34
Verno
 
62.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 09:34
Jun 12, 2009, 09:34
 Verno
 
Tons of content in a crap game is just a ton of crap.

Yeah that's pretty much what most of us were saying about the latest L4D content patch, glad to see you've come to your senses.
Playing: Xenoblade Chronicles DE, Ys IX, God of War
Watching: Lupin, You me and the Apocalypse, Days of Thunder
Avatar 51617
61.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 09:18
61.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 09:18
Jun 12, 2009, 09:18
 
That's not what the scores of disgruntled L4D buyers say.
L4D buyers knew what they were getting, they're just disappointed that the support they were hoping for - and promised - never materialised.

No, it doesn't depend on personal preference. It can be judged objectively. Even if I hated UT3, objectively speaking I would still recognize that it has far more official content than TF2 and L4D and therefore delivers a better value for the money to those who like the game than TF2 or L4D does to those that like TF2 or L4D.
It had more content but better value for money? No. To me it was quantity over quality. I bought both games at release and while I had an absolute blast with TF2 I found myself playing UT3 much less - even the latest updates haven't been enough to get me playing it as much. In terms of playtime:price ratio TF2 obliterates UT3 for me.

The UT series can be intimidating to play online if you are really competitive, and that is why so many people don't play it online.
It wasn't that... it was the terrible server and appalling netcode that stopped most people. It wasn't until the recent update that Epic finally sorted out the netcode in UT3.

UT3's UI was improved with each update.
Are you sure you're talking about the same game? It didn't receive any meaningful update until the recent patch and even then it took them weeks to realise PC gamers don't like double-clicking all the buttons.

UT3 is a more complicated and sophisticated and a less accessible game than TF2 and L4D which are simplified and repetitive.
LMAO, you've just blown any credibility you may have had out the window. Discussion over.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
60.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 08:07
Prez
 
60.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 08:07
Jun 12, 2009, 08:07
 Prez
 
No, it doesn't depend on personal preference. It can be judged objectively. Even if I hated UT3, objectively speaking I would still recognize that it has far more official content than TF2 and L4D and therefore delivers a better value for the money to those who like the game than TF2 or L4D does to those that like TF2 or L4D.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, because I completely disagree. Not saying TF2 is necessarily better, but I think personal preference has EVERYTHING to do with it.

You put too much emphasis on winning and stats.

I don't think so. It's just that all I do in UT is die. Nothing really too fun about that. Admittedly, it's not the game's fault that I suck.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
59.
 
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview
Jun 12, 2009, 03:59
GT
59.
Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Interview Jun 12, 2009, 03:59
Jun 12, 2009, 03:59
GT
 
I was looking at Fileshack and they didnt have the 1.3 patch listed. Regardless, the below release notes for the patch are hardly anything to write home about.
Just stop because you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself. See http://www.beyondunreal.com/view_story.php?id=12069 for a more thorough description of the changes in the version 1.3 update. It comprised much more than your little list.

Certainly no new content. So yes UT3 was ignored for new content for over a year
A new version of the official PhysX pack for UT3 (which was developed by Epic) was released about a week before the v1.3 update. It certainly contained new content for the game. Plus, UT3 didn't actually need more content at that point. Unlike TF2 and L4D, UT3 players weren't clamoring for more content because UT3 already had plenty.

if it wasnt for one pathetic patch it would have been entirely ignored.
There was nothing pathetic about the version 1.3 update. In addition Epic was hard at work at that point on the free and very substantial 2.0 update and Titan bonus pack for UT3. High quality content of that quantity and scope doesn't get developed overnight especially not from Valve. Those who like UT3 and understand game development don't fault Epic for not releasing that content sooner especially when the game already had plenty of official content up to that point and far more than most games including Valve's.

No it made the promised changes to add the full UI set back into the game that had been promised a year earlier and was never delivered.
UT3's UI was improved with each update. The 2.0 update made more significant changes to the UI, but UT3's UI wasn't actually broken up until that point so Epic didn't need to deliver on the promised UI changes immediately.

I mean people are whining about "promises" made for L4D, right?
Epic delivered on its promises for UT3. Valve has not for L4D and likely won't with L4D2 in the offing.

Thousands upon thousands of people play L4D daily without issue.
No, they play the game despite the many issues and then many of them bitch about those issues later on various Internet forums.

That's far more than can be said of GoW or UT3 after release, both of which were broken and unplayable.
UT3 was certainly not broken or unplayable at release. Sure, it wasn't as great a game as it is now, but it still had far more content than Valve's games especially at release.

More content does not mean better.
It does when you like the game.

Even with their content releases, free weekends, and cheap sales over the last few months, it still did very little to bolster the pathetic player numbers.
UT3 is a more complicated and sophisticated and a less accessible game than TF2 and L4D which are simplified and repetitive. So, it's no wonder that TF2 and L4D are more popular because most people like simple and easy. But, popularity is not synonymous with quality even with PC games. Therefore I don't judge the quality of a game by how many like-minded fools play it. I judge it based on its contents or lack thereof. Most of Epic's games easily pass that test for me.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2009, 17:20.
78 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older