L4D 2 demo... what do people think?

[CovertCell]

I enjoyed the demo and experimenting with the new weapons like boomer vomit. It's a fun game to play through with friends.

 

[latenightapplepie]

Not enough blood. That is all. Otherwise decent, I guess.

 

[mr.aravaro]

i like it

 

[Powerman88]

Ultimately it was a ton of fun, but the same core experience as the first. I used melee weapons for the first episode and found some desert eagles for the second and hafta say; the melee weapons seem pretty useless. I dunno, maybe there is something I'm missing but whatever. Bottom line is it feels like a great expansion pack.

 

[Goodluf]

I have say, I actually liked the demo. Compared to L4D, this game felt more...real. The hit detection on the zombies is a lot better, ie. I shoot them in the back and a part of it is blown away, or I could slice a head of with the machete (I just love that melee weapon). The weapons had a more real feeling of striking power in them, as in I felt like I was really shooting a shotty. Though I don't really play other FPS so I can't compare to anything else, but nevertheless, it was better for me. The graphics were also better, the game looked quite good.

The new infected were cool, but damn, the jockey is annoying. Although, it is the only infected you can fight against, while it's...humping you or something. The Charger can be a sneaky little thing and it looked quite effective against a group of survivors. The new smoker model is more freaky than before, I like. Also, this maps uncommon infected, the armored zombie was an interesting addition.

What else...the new horde event was a welcome change. No longer can you camp in a corner until the event end, you actually have to do something. I look forward for more of this. Though at the first time, I was confused at how did I get to the tower...Anyway, I like that there is more variety in weapons and they are scattered around in a more realistic way. The boomer bile grenade was cool, I could swarm a tank with infected and then destroy it safely. Also, it's an interesting choise to make, whether you take a defibrillator to revive a dead survivor or your normal healthpack.

Not much to say about the characters, they are pretty "meh". Not amazing, but not bad either.

PS: It was quite epic to attack and defeat a tank with my Mighty Frying Pan! Chaaarge!

/rant

 

[Jaranja]

Boring as hell and far too easy. Killing Floor

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I never played the first L4D, and I just spent about an hour on the demo. It was astoundingly 'meh'. I'm not quite sure why this game is so popular. Sure, it's fun killing zombies for 10 minutes, but it very quickly grows old when you realize it's the same thing over and over and over...

Like any AI, the zombies are stupid and predictable. That's why playing against AI isn't even half as fun as playing against real people to me.

 

[Slash Dementia]

The game looks great and all, but I felt that it was lacking in places. I wasn't satisfied with it and I don't plan on buying it anymore.

I did like the body parts that get blown off, though.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I never played the first L4D, and I just spent about an hour on the demo. It was astoundingly 'meh'. I'm not quite sure why this game is so popular. Sure, it's fun killing zombies for 10 minutes, but it very quickly grows old when you realize it's the same thing over and over and over...

Like any AI, the zombies are stupid and predictable. That's why playing against AI isn't even half as fun as playing against real people to me.

That's pretty much how I felt about the first one too.

I got bored of it after the second playthrough. It was fun as a novelty for a while but I dunno, I really don't see the appeal.

But it must be doing something right, because everyone else seems to love it.

 

[Jonci]

It is a demo.
And not the final system.
Seriously.
Does no one read that?

Demos are meant to be a way to experience the best the game has to offer, so people will then go and buy it.

They should function as well as the finished game.

And developers should be perfect, find every bug long before it comes out, max out the game engine to the full capabilities of the hardware, and have the entire game in mint condition weeks before release. That way they can release a demo that's just cutting out the majority of the content. Who would dare release a demo that's put together from an unfinished product, taking time from that product which is being stressfully worked on already, just to satisfy and entice potential consumers?

Actually, yes. They should. When did half-assing a release job and then providing patches and updates later down the road become popular? Could you imagine how popular a game would be, if the team that designed it made it right the first time?

O.T.: I'm with the O.P. here. When I play a game I want my money's worth and the demo is supposed to be that tasty worm on the hook to reel me in. Graphics can be overlooked to a minor degree. But not to the point of what the demo did. Not impressed.

You obvious know nothing about how complex programming is. I'll put it this way. If I gave you an average size novel draft, do you think you'd find every single typo and grammar error in that book?
Now image that book was written by ten different people, each working on different chapters. Each person has their own writing style and makes their own unique mistakes. Can you find all of those mistakes?

Can you be confident enough to put that on the market free from all errors? Even when a single mistake could ruin the reputation of the company? And, of course, you have a short amount of time you have to make it perfect, with no option of delaying the release of the book. Oh, by the way, the company wants some sample pages to put on a website. Be sure that what you provide of the unedited work is error-free, too.

Programming is pages and pages and pages of code, written by various programmers with their own styles of coding. All they can do it try to explain how something they wrote works, and leave it up the other guy to be able to understand.

And at any one time, someone can type in the wrong letter, symbol, or name and create a bug. It's as easy as that. It could be a screamingly obvious error or a ticking timebomb requiring very exact series of events to occur before popping up. That bug could have just been made or have been sitting in the codebase for months without ever being noticed. Programming IS an exact science, but humans are not perfect.

These days, a coder doesn't get to finish the job far in advance of release. Even if he does, he'll be tasked with making the game just a little better. Make that reflection just a little better or tweak the network for just a little more effeciency. A game will be worked on even after the disks go out to the factory to be printed. Games are always rushed to minimize how much money is getting spent on development. And at some point, someone looked away from their screen to say hi so someone passing their office, and because of that he missed the tiniest little error in the code that will jump out to annoy 1000 gamers after they buy the game, who will rush to this forum to ***** about what a horrible company they are for releasing a game with so many bugs.

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

L4D was boring enough. I didn't find the appeal of pumping 3 rounds into a zombie, then watching it crumple to the floor. I like the zombie genre, its just they felt too weak, and even the "boss infected" were weak as well. Not to mention the melee weapons are over-powered. They also need a storyline of some sort and a longer campaign at that.

So i'm not getting it. Maybe borrow for some achievement points, cause I'm a whore like that lol. Hope you guys enjoy it though.

 

[oliveira8]

Did anyone else feel that the pistol has been downgraded in terms of power (minus the deagle)

Maybe it's because theres substitutes to the pistol? In the first game there wasn't one, just a second pistol.

 

[stubbmann]

The buildings and character models are horrible, angular last gen atrocities that would look more at home in GTA San Andreas than on a 2009 mainstream release.

Riiiiight...

Now Saints Row 2 is a fucking piece of shitty dated graphics (and gameplay) that belongs in 2003 or something.

The Source engine might be old (even though the one used in HL2 and the one used in L4D2 are actually pretty different), but it's by no means ugly. Please set up an appointment with an optometrist ASAP.

I agree, Saints Row 2 looks like it was created from a team of devs who took a big shit into a bucket and made a game from the various detritus.

It played badly too, wih bugs everywhere and a terrible framerate, which everyone seems to have forgotten since Yahtzee said it was his game of the year.

If you refer to my previous post where I compared screenshots between L4D2 and Dead Space, I think it is clear that Valve is definately quite far behind other mainstream titles in the visual department.

The reason it seems a bigger issue to me is because Valve used to make the best looking games out there once uopn a time. Half Life 2 had the most realistic and amazing world in any game at the time of its release.

Ok, so it looks better than San Andreas. I concede that. The people in San Andreas had spatulas for hands. But the house and car in the background there are pretty damn blocky...

Uhhh... It's a HOUSE. It's not gonna be covered in industrial piping. It's not gonna be a strange geometric shape. It's gonna be built like a house. In general, houses are pretty much squares.

It's a CAR. A standard issue car. That's shaped like that. It's not a crazy Combine vehicle. It's a car. it looks... like a car. Usually, cars are kinda blocky.

If you don't like the gameplay, I can understand that. However, if your main complaint is "the scenery isn't pretty enough" then you're doing it wrong. Honestly, the whole game is structured around moving quickly to the next safe place, trying not to die. If you stick around to observe the scenery, it throws hordes of zombies at you!

 

[GuerrillaClock]

It's good. It's better than the original. But it isn't that much of an improvement that I'm going to shell out full price for it.

I have other thoughts, but they've all been covered on this thread already.

 

[VanityGirl]

I think there is a big disconnect here between the people complaining about the graphics on PC and those forced to play it on the vomit inducing 360. Invest in a PC.

Sure lemme just go get a few grand to get a PC. Sometimes PC gaming's not an option. My 360's much cheaper for me, I'm in college and pay for everything myself. I have a laptop that's 3 years old that I got as a gift, so... yeah. No PC gaming for me.

-------
On topic:

I actually really enjoyed the demo on the 360. It was fuctional, fun and to me, it was better. I liked the fact that now we can't just duck into a corner and smack at the zombie horde.
I also like the amount of detail in the gore (sorry Aussies). I love shooting a hole in a zombie's chest and seeing a rib cage and sternum! It was accurate and... creepy.

Spoiler: in case you don't know what a ribcage should look like

[/spoiler

The wandering wich was also a breath of fresh air. I mean the witch's music is even more eery and strange now. Small changes, just in things like the music, really makes games better for me.
Also, the new amount of special infected. I love every one of the special infected. They make the game fun, hilarious and challenging. I had a scenario where I was puked on by a boomer and couldn't see a thing, my friends were trying to help get the horde off of me when a charger come out of nowhere and picks me up and rams me into a tree. When my friend saw he said "Oh cool" instead of helping me -_-'.

The new special infected will definately add more variation in versus. I like that. I hate being the same special infected time after time. And since there's six special infected now, it means I'm more likely to play as a dfferent special infected! Yay.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

The buildings and character models are horrible, angular last gen atrocities that would look more at home in GTA San Andreas than on a 2009 mainstream release.

Riiiiight...

Now Saints Row 2 is a fucking piece of shitty dated graphics (and gameplay) that belongs in 2003 or something.

The Source engine might be old (even though the one used in HL2 and the one used in L4D2 are actually pretty different), but it's by no means ugly. Please set up an appointment with an optometrist ASAP.

I agree, Saints Row 2 looks like it was created from a team of devs who took a big shit into a bucket and made a game from the various detritus.

It played badly too, wih bugs everywhere and a terrible framerate, which everyone seems to have forgotten since Yahtzee said it was his game of the year.

If you refer to my previous post where I compared screenshots between L4D2 and Dead Space, I think it is clear that Valve is definately quite far behind other mainstream titles in the visual department.

The reason it seems a bigger issue to me is because Valve used to make the best looking games out there once uopn a time. Half Life 2 had the most realistic and amazing world in any game at the time of its release.

Ok, so it looks better than San Andreas. I concede that. The people in San Andreas had spatulas for hands. But the house and car in the background there are pretty damn blocky...

Uhhh... It's a HOUSE. It's not gonna be covered in industrial piping. It's not gonna be a strange geometric shape. It's gonna be built like a house. In general, houses are pretty much squares.

It's a CAR. A standard issue car. That's shaped like that. It's not a crazy Combine vehicle. It's a car. it looks... like a car. Usually, cars are kinda blocky.

If you don't like the gameplay, I can understand that. However, if your main complaint is "the scenery isn't pretty enough" then you're doing it wrong. Honestly, the whole game is structured around moving quickly to the next safe place, trying not to die. If you stick around to observe the scenery, it throws hordes of zombies at you!

So that's where they came up with the idea for L4D... they were trying to find a way to discourage people from looking at the scenery.

I kid.

Look, I don't have a HUGE problem with the visuals... it's just that I love Valve and I know they can do better!

 

[Kinguendo]

I like it... the only problem I have is the slow turning... which I changed by increasing the X and Y axis sensitivity by 3... sorted and now perfectly fine.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

It is a demo.
And not the final system.
Seriously.
Does no one read that?

Demos are meant to be a way to experience the best the game has to offer, so people will then go and buy it.

They should function as well as the finished game.

And developers should be perfect, find every bug long before it comes out, max out the game engine to the full capabilities of the hardware, and have the entire game in mint condition weeks before release. That way they can release a demo that's just cutting out the majority of the content. Who would dare release a demo that's put together from an unfinished product, taking time from that product which is being stressfully worked on already, just to satisfy and entice potential consumers?

Actually, yes. They should. When did half-assing a release job and then providing patches and updates later down the road become popular? Could you imagine how popular a game would be, if the team that designed it made it right the first time?

O.T.: I'm with the O.P. here. When I play a game I want my money's worth and the demo is supposed to be that tasty worm on the hook to reel me in. Graphics can be overlooked to a minor degree. But not to the point of what the demo did. Not impressed.

You obvious know nothing about how complex programming is. I'll put it this way. If I gave you an average size novel draft, do you think you'd find every single typo and grammar error in that book?
Now image that book was written by ten different people, each working on different chapters. Each person has their own writing style and makes their own unique mistakes. Can you find all of those mistakes?

Can you be confident enough to put that on the market free from all errors? Even when a single mistake could ruin the reputation of the company? And, of course, you have a short amount of time you have to make it perfect, with no option of delaying the release of the book. Oh, by the way, the company wants some sample pages to put on a website. Be sure that what you provide of the unedited work is error-free, too.

Programming is pages and pages and pages of code, written by various programmers with their own styles of coding. All they can do it try to explain how something they wrote works, and leave it up the other guy to be able to understand.

And at any one time, someone can type in the wrong letter, symbol, or name and create a bug. It's as easy as that. It could be a screamingly obvious error or a ticking timebomb requiring very exact series of events to occur before popping up. That bug could have just been made or have been sitting in the codebase for months without ever being noticed. Programming IS an exact science, but humans are not perfect.

These days, a coder doesn't get to finish the job far in advance of release. Even if he does, he'll be tasked with making the game just a little better. Make that reflection just a little better or tweak the network for just a little more effeciency. A game will be worked on even after the disks go out to the factory to be printed. Games are always rushed to minimize how much money is getting spent on development. And at some point, someone looked away from their screen to say hi so someone passing their office, and because of that he missed the tiniest little error in the code that will jump out to annoy 1000 gamers after they buy the game, who will rush to this forum to ***** about what a horrible company they are for releasing a game with so many bugs.

You don't pay 60 euros for a novel.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I think there is a big disconnect here between the people complaining about the graphics on PC and those forced to play it on the vomit inducing 360. Invest in a PC.

Ignorance must be bliss.

Is it?