The VALVe Fan Thread: YOU ARE SO SMALL. IT IS FUNNY TO ME.

Can you download the demo on the PS3?

Originally Posted by sea

Yeah, I want something new in my zombie-killing game! Maybe they could like, I don't know... have more zombie types... or some new levels... or new characters... new game modes... how about a different story and setting? Oh wait.

How the hell do you have 18,000 plus posts?


Well, ok, I guess I SHOULD elaborate.

As far as the new weapons go the only significant new weapons outside of the melee weapons are the magnum and....yeah. the ak mostly acts just like the m16, feels like a reskin really. The three round burst rifle could also be viewed on the same lines because I never just go full auto with the other two rifles anyway.

And aside from the auto-shot gun that seriously is it. There's a silenced SMG now that kind of not makes them notice you quite as much but it hardly makes a difference at all.

Oh! and a new sniper rifle that...yeah.


Moving on.

the new zombie types are pretty uninteresting and mostly just do the same function as the smoker and hunter with a different look. The Jockey can move you away from the team while doing damage to you over time. That would be cool if we didn't already have a boss zombie that fills the exact same purpose called the smoker. To be fair it's not exactly the same. Honestly it feels like a combination of the smoker and the hunter in the fact that it has to get in close to do this.

On another note, I completely fail to see how the charger is different from the hunter at all. It bum rushes you, pins you, and does damage to you until a teammate come to your aid. Yeah. Seriously.

The only interesting and even slightly cool one is the spitter. Which actually brings about a completely new enemy dynamic. Instead of doing the same old "LOL IMMA MAKE YOUR CONTROLLER NO WORK" crap that the others do it has a completely annoying (which is good) attack that has potential to hurt you alot and split up the team. I love it.

Melee weapons. Basically, imagine the shove from the original version of l4D. Now imagine that it one hit kills damn near everything. Without cooldown. Description over. In other words, this isn't even really a new game mechanic but rather a tweak to a pre-existing one. They ALL kill in one hit so the only thing take makes them even different from another is range and speed.


New setting? New characters? Seriously, as if the characters in l4d played differently to begin with? there are no new gameplay functions that come with any of these new faces; they're simply new skins. So the new setting and characters point is a nice way of saying new skins and maps. Sweet.

Everything new in this game that holds significance to the gameplay could've easily been DLC for l4d. I laughed at people who said this at first and now, having played the game for myself, I actually am finding myself agreeing with them.


I'd have to try the new modes. The campaign is definitely not going to do it for me.

Originally Posted by Dark~Knight

Can you download the demo on the PS3?

You're joking right?

Originally Posted by squall24

You're joking right?

No I'm not.

Valve doesn't like the PS3, saying its not worth the effort to port their games. L4D is not coming to Sony's system.

Originally Posted by squall24

Valve doesn't like the PS3, saying its not worth the effort to port their games. L4D is not coming to Sony's system.

See. That wasn't so bad, was it?

Originally Posted by Dark~Knight

See. That wasn't so bad, was it?

Sorry, I just thought it was known already after they stuff like this

Its not a very hard game to run on PC though, if you want to try it out I'd give that one a shot.

Yeah I might give it a go on my notebook. However, it has recently been acting up on TF2 whenever I run into a frenzy full of people.

They put The Orange Box on PS3 so that's why I was wondering about L4D 2 being on the PS3.

EA ported the orange box on the PS3 and dropped all support for it immediately after. A game like L4D2 needs constant updates, so I don't know how well that would work out.

Originally Posted by squall24

EA ported the orange box on the PS3 and dropped all support for it immediately after. A game like L4D2 needs constant updates, so I don't know how well that would work out.

I guess any game like L4D (valve) has more success on PC due to updating the games and what-not.

Then again, I have always preferred PC FPS's than consoles. I doubt Modern Warfare 2 will run on my notebook so I will have to sadly get it for my PS3.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

Everything new in this game that holds significance to the gameplay could've easily been DLC for l4d. I laughed at people who said this at first and now, having played the game for myself, I actually am finding myself agreeing with them.

And every single game built on the same engine as the previous game could, technically be DLC. Your point is? Look, I know that Left 4 Dead 2 isn't going to be some revolutionary game. In fact, I plan to not buy it, as I didn't buy the first game either, and don't really care for how Valve has handled the demos and pre-orders and such around it, as well as post-release support. Really, the original Left 4 Dead, from an outsider's perspective, does not seem like it's worth a full price either. Yet at the same time, here we are *****ing about Left 4 Dead 2 doesn't contain enough "new game" to justify it as a full sequel, despite it containing more than the first game to begin with. What if they only charged $30 for it? That's what I'd pay for the original Left 4 Dead, maybe. Would you still be making the same complaints?

Either way, we all know that what's really happened is that Microsoft, after seeing Left 4 Dead's success on the Xbox, went to Valve and said "hey, we want a sequel, and we'll give you a ****ton of support and money and advertising if you do it". And... well, that's what's happened. They had a year to make a game, and it shows. However, I think it's absurd that you complain about the price when the first game contained less stuff and cost just as much; indeed, most will say that the original shipped in an incomplete state. What's different this time around?

Originally Posted by sea

And every single game built on the same engine as the previous game could, technically be DLC. Your point is? Look, I know that Left 4 Dead 2 isn't going to be some revolutionary game. In fact, I plan to not buy it, as I didn't buy the first game either, and don't really care for how Valve has handled the demos and pre-orders and such around it, as well as post-release support. Really, the original Left 4 Dead, from an outsider's perspective, does not seem like it's worth a full price either. Yet at the same time, here we are *****ing about Left 4 Dead 2 doesn't contain enough "new game" to justify it as a full sequel, despite it containing more than the first game to begin with. What if they only charged $30 for it? That's what I'd pay for the original Left 4 Dead, maybe. Would you still be making the same complaints?

Either way, we all know that what's really happened is that Microsoft, after seeing Left 4 Dead's success on the Xbox, went to Valve and said "hey, we want a sequel, and we'll give you a ****ton of support and money and advertising if you do it". And... well, that's what's happened. They had a year to make a game, and it shows. However, I think it's absurd that you complain about the price when the first game contained less stuff and cost just as much; indeed, most will say that the original shipped in an incomplete state. What's different this time around?

It doesn't make any difference to anyone who hasn't bought the first game, but if you did you're essentially paying $100-$120 for a slightly updated game, where as VALVe has built an image of continual, free updates with games like Counter Strike [source] and especially TF2. When you purchase a multiplayer VALVe game you're also purchasing that update cycle, and that's part of what makes them such a great and trusted developer. Essentially, L4D buyers didn't get what they 'paid for', as they expected to see their cash going towards a continual series of updates.

I did not purchase the first L4D, and while I would like to play it, and while I would REALLY like to have Bill's hat in TF2, I don't want to support VALVe's approach with L4D. Not because I care all that much about the L4D series, but because I care a lot about the TF series, and I could see this approach easily being carried over to Team Fortress if VALVe finds it to be successful. After all, it would solve the update issues with the console versions of the game, and would be a move heavily pushed by Microsoft, even if it did conflict with VALVe's ethical stance on sales.

I'm pretty sure that they are going to actually release DLC for Left 4 Dead 2 now.

Originally Posted by sea

And every single game built on the same engine as the previous game could, technically be DLC. Your point is?

That's really not true. By that same logic any source game can be DLC for another when many of them use completely different coding.

Gears of war 2 uses the exact same engine as the first one. However, there's noway that could've been DLC for the original.

Look, I know that Left 4 Dead 2 isn't going to be some revolutionary game. In fact, I plan to not buy it, as I didn't buy the first game either, and don't really care for how Valve has handled the demos and pre-orders and such around it, as well as post-release support. Really, the original Left 4 Dead, from an outsider's perspective, does not seem like it's worth a full price either. Yet at the same time, here we are *****ing about Left 4 Dead 2 doesn't contain enough "new game" to justify it as a full sequel, despite it containing more than the first game to begin with. What if they only charged $30 for it? That's what I'd pay for the original Left 4 Dead, maybe. Would you still be making the same complaints?

Not as much. One could then just easily debate that "Well, it's not like they're charging full price for it."

I really don't feel l4d was worth full price either. I mean, you download the demo, play it about 5 times and you've literately seen everything the single player has to offer you.


The fact that it's sequel adds nothing to that I feel is a big problem. Usually a sequel adds at least one new gameplay mechanic. This doesnt even do that.

Either way, we all know that what's really happened is that Microsoft, after seeing Left 4 Dead's success on the Xbox, went to Valve and said "hey, we want a sequel, and we'll give you a ****ton of support and money and advertising if you do it". And... well, that's what's happened. They had a year to make a game, and it shows. However, I think it's absurd that you complain about the price when the first game contained less stuff and cost just as much; indeed, most will say that the original shipped in an incomplete state. What's different this time around?

I complained about the price of the first game too.

Oh, hey, it's a new Valve game. Oughta be enough memes to last the internet for a few more months.

Who the hell is stupid enough to pay $100+ for a Valve game anyway? They're priced between $2.50 and $50.

My friend is, because she says she likes to have 'hard copies' of her game that she can actually 'own'.

I didn't buy the first L4D because I wasn't that interested in it when it originally came out, and by the time I started getting into it, L4D2 had been announced for November release so I didn't bother. I might get it when it gets really cheap on Steam sometime, but I'm going to get L4D2 on Steam, because $50 for a pretty much brand new game (to me) seems pretty alright.

So, after playing the L4D2 demo, I have decided that Ellis is one of my favorite characters ever.

I want his hat.

I personally think Nick is the most interesting of the group. I think he has a little bit more style than the rest. It's kind of funny when he gets angry, too.

A lot of people complain that the characters don't have any, well, character. Keep in mind that this is the demo. There's plenty of voice work that we haven't heard in context*.

*A lot of the voice recordings are in the game's files, though.

Originally Posted by Scoria

I don't plan on getting any more Valve games for a console. I have the Orange Box and that's good enough. I actually ended up buying TF2 for the PC.

The problem that annoys me to no end is that for some reason there is just SOMETHING that bothers me about the aiming in any of their games on a console. As you turn it's like a slooowww start and then speeds up. This only happens within the timeframe of a fraction of a section but if you play the game for a while then you will notice this minor thing every single time. It's awkward and when you let go of the stick the sudden stop throws you off. It just pisses me off.

Have you tried bumping up the sensitivity in the X axis? I find Valve has really low sensitivities set for their games. The only pet peave(s?) I have with valve is how they map B to reload and X to action. I'm use to it being the other way around in most games. In Half Life you can remap the controls but (at least the demo) you can't in L4D2. Kinda annoying.

So far the only thing that annoys me with Valve games (other than that which can be fixed like the button mapping) is the inability to aim down the weapon sites. In Half Life it doesn't bug me much. But in L4D it really does. I want to aim (I hate cross hairs and turn them off in most every game I can) and this inability to aim down the sites makes me fire way too much. However the rest of the games Valve makes are pretty much perfect to me so I can look past these little things. Nobody makes a perfect game in every way.