L4D 2 demo... what do people think?

[Jonci]

You don't pay 60 euros for a novel.

And a novelist doesn't spend millions of dollars to write a book. Making a game isn't cheap.

I know people love to rant on the boards how some games suck, but in the end most of you are just a bunch of spoiled brat gamers that have no idea what goes into the production of a video game. You can scream how they think a game is "half-assing" without knowing anything about computer science. If a game runs, the graphics are nice, gameplay solid, and the only thing that "ruins it" is a smoker can grab you from a spot he shouldn't, the game has a bug. It isn't the end of the world and you haven't been cheated out of $60. That's just life. Sometimes a novelist misspells a word, sometimes a carpenter doesn't nail a stud just right, and sometimes a mechanic didn't tighten a bolt enough. It just means somewhere down the line something is going to act weird and requires a small fix.

If that's still not good enough for you. I suggest you wait two years, pick the game up for $20, and get all the nice patches that fix the game up. By then, if you bought from a good company, the game will in excellient condition for you to play. Sure, everyone else has two years of fun times with you, but you are more concerned with flawless performance over fun.

 

[MultiPurposeBlue]

I liked it but I did find some scripting errors, when the charger charged me I got out of the way but the damage was still hit against me. Not a big deal I know valve will fix them, they are good with DE-bugging.

 

[CloggedDonkey]

for everyone going "ho it looks to blocky" or "they don't say enough" I think that the cars and houses and all that will look at least a little better on the finished product, and as I said in a previous post, the houses look like that in the french quarters. And them not saying much, I was expecting this from a demo before release, now if this was after release then valve would have no reason for that. They did go overboard with the fog, even in a coastal town, it is not that foggy even in the summers, at ten in the morning. The characters are not well made out at all. When Francis would scream as loud as he could "STOP SHOOTING ME!!" the guy in the white coat almost silently says "would you please stop shooting me?". Even with the flows I will probably still buy it, if after a price drop down to $50.

 

[ssgt splatter]

I liked it. The only thing I found problematic with it is the audio stingers for the special infected. In the first one you knew when a hunter, boomer, smoker, and witch was spawned in by their unique music(you knew when the Tank spawned in because he often appeared when you went around a corner). Now those cues are still there but the New Orleans background music that constantly plays through out the demo kinda overpowers the audio cues as well as the new cues for the new special infected are also hit and miss; the tend to blend in to the normal background music. Other than that, the demo was very good and I expect that the full game be a diamond farting wonder...or at least close to it.

 

[orangebandguy]

Dling it now. Can't wait to find out, I'm sure it'll be great knowing Valve.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

You don't pay 60 euros for a novel.

And a novelist doesn't spend millions of dollars to write a book. Making a game isn't cheap.

I know people love to rant on the boards how some games suck, but in the end most of you are just a bunch of spoiled brat gamers that have no idea what goes into the production of a video game. You can scream how they think a game is "half-assing" without knowing anything about computer science. If a game runs, the graphics are nice, gameplay solid, and the only thing that "ruins it" is a smoker can grab you from a spot he shouldn't, the game has a bug. It isn't the end of the world and you haven't been cheated out of $60. That's just life. Sometimes a novelist misspells a word, sometimes a carpenter doesn't nail a stud just right, and sometimes a mechanic didn't tighten a bolt enough. It just means somewhere down the line something is going to act weird and requires a small fix.

If that's still not good enough for you. I suggest you wait two years, pick the game up for $20, and get all the nice patches that fix the game up. By then, if you bought from a good company, the game will in excellient condition for you to play. Sure, everyone else has two years of fun times with you, but you are more concerned with flawless performance over fun.

I hardly think expecting value for your money is the same as being spoiled brats.

You just basically insulted the entire community of this website for wanting non-broken products, then your solution is to wait two years after they come out to play them?

I am not a wealthy person, I never have been. I'm as working class as they come.

Gaming is my only indulgence, I rarely drink, I don't smoke or overeat, or have a car or fancy electronic gear.

I have a 360 and some low-power games for my mini-laptop (which took me 3 months to save up for)

If I pay 60 quid for something I can just about afford, it is always dissapointing when it is broken.

And if you really think that is being a 'spoiled brat' then you are living in some kind of alternate mental universe.

 

[Jonci]

You don't pay 60 euros for a novel.

And a novelist doesn't spend millions of dollars to write a book. Making a game isn't cheap.

I know people love to rant on the boards how some games suck, but in the end most of you are just a bunch of spoiled brat gamers that have no idea what goes into the production of a video game. You can scream how they think a game is "half-assing" without knowing anything about computer science. If a game runs, the graphics are nice, gameplay solid, and the only thing that "ruins it" is a smoker can grab you from a spot he shouldn't, the game has a bug. It isn't the end of the world and you haven't been cheated out of $60. That's just life. Sometimes a novelist misspells a word, sometimes a carpenter doesn't nail a stud just right, and sometimes a mechanic didn't tighten a bolt enough. It just means somewhere down the line something is going to act weird and requires a small fix.

If that's still not good enough for you. I suggest you wait two years, pick the game up for $20, and get all the nice patches that fix the game up. By then, if you bought from a good company, the game will in excellient condition for you to play. Sure, everyone else has two years of fun times with you, but you are more concerned with flawless performance over fun.

I hardly think expecting value for your money is the same as being spoiled brats.

You just basically insulted the entire community of this website for wanting non-broken products, then your solution is to wait two years after they come out to play them?

I am not a wealthy person, I never have been. I'm as working class as they come.

Gaming is my only indulgence, I rarely drink, I don't smoke or overeat, or have a car or fancy electronic gear.

I have a 360 and some low-power games for my mini-laptop (which took me 3 months to save up for)

If I pay 60 quid for something I can just about afford, it is always dissapointing when it is broken.

And if you really think that is being a 'spoiled brat' then you are living in some kind of alternate mental universe.

No, the problem is that some people overexaggerate problems. The spoiled brat types will condemn a game as being a horrible game for the simplest bug and that the company is a bunch of lazy developers that don't know what they are doing. And this comes from people that don't know what the hell developers even do. andrewfox is the one I was mostly refering to, with his "half-assing" comment, but there's a fair share of his type on this forum.

Now you I replied to because originally you complained that the demo isn't as good as a finished product, when there isn't even a finished product yet. The demo is most likely taken out of a stable build, but not the finished product. You can form your opinion about buying the game or not based from the demo, but you still have to realise that it is JUST A DEMO. Be glad you got a free taste of the game before it even released, because no game company has to take time out of their development to make one.

Bugs suck, of course. But you have to accept that they will be there. If a company could fix every bug before release, they would (if they are a good company). But the term "bug" is used because it is something you don't see until there is too late. Games generally aren't released with bugs being known about. They crop up at the worst times, believe me, and the programmers have to scramble to try and fix it. Sometimes it is a last minute thing, even after the gold disk has been sent to be pressed. It isn't a matter of a company not being motivated enough to fix them, it's just a matter of reality that the more complex a program is, the more likely there are unknown behaviors that exist within it.

 

[andrewfox]

You don't pay 60 euros for a novel.

And a novelist doesn't spend millions of dollars to write a book. Making a game isn't cheap.

I know people love to rant on the boards how some games suck, but in the end most of you are just a bunch of spoiled brat gamers that have no idea what goes into the production of a video game. You can scream how they think a game is "half-assing" without knowing anything about computer science. If a game runs, the graphics are nice, gameplay solid, and the only thing that "ruins it" is a smoker can grab you from a spot he shouldn't, the game has a bug. It isn't the end of the world and you haven't been cheated out of $60. That's just life. Sometimes a novelist misspells a word, sometimes a carpenter doesn't nail a stud just right, and sometimes a mechanic didn't tighten a bolt enough. It just means somewhere down the line something is going to act weird and requires a small fix.

If that's still not good enough for you. I suggest you wait two years, pick the game up for $20, and get all the nice patches that fix the game up. By then, if you bought from a good company, the game will in excellient condition for you to play. Sure, everyone else has two years of fun times with you, but you are more concerned with flawless performance over fun.

It seems like you haven't been patched or upgraded yet. How do I download the latest version to stop your annoying whining?

 

[andrewfox]

You don't pay 60 euros for a novel.

And a novelist doesn't spend millions of dollars to write a book. Making a game isn't cheap.

I know people love to rant on the boards how some games suck, but in the end most of you are just a bunch of spoiled brat gamers that have no idea what goes into the production of a video game. You can scream how they think a game is "half-assing" without knowing anything about computer science. If a game runs, the graphics are nice, gameplay solid, and the only thing that "ruins it" is a smoker can grab you from a spot he shouldn't, the game has a bug. It isn't the end of the world and you haven't been cheated out of $60. That's just life. Sometimes a novelist misspells a word, sometimes a carpenter doesn't nail a stud just right, and sometimes a mechanic didn't tighten a bolt enough. It just means somewhere down the line something is going to act weird and requires a small fix.

If that's still not good enough for you. I suggest you wait two years, pick the game up for $20, and get all the nice patches that fix the game up. By then, if you bought from a good company, the game will in excellient condition for you to play. Sure, everyone else has two years of fun times with you, but you are more concerned with flawless performance over fun.

I hardly think expecting value for your money is the same as being spoiled brats.

You just basically insulted the entire community of this website for wanting non-broken products, then your solution is to wait two years after they come out to play them?

I am not a wealthy person, I never have been. I'm as working class as they come.

Gaming is my only indulgence, I rarely drink, I don't smoke or overeat, or have a car or fancy electronic gear.

I have a 360 and some low-power games for my mini-laptop (which took me 3 months to save up for)

If I pay 60 quid for something I can just about afford, it is always dissapointing when it is broken.

And if you really think that is being a 'spoiled brat' then you are living in some kind of alternate mental universe.

No, the problem is that some people overexaggerate problems. The spoiled brat types will condemn a game as being a horrible game for the simplest bug and that the company is a bunch of lazy developers that don't know what they are doing. And this comes from people that don't know what the hell developers even do. andrewfox is the one I was mostly refering to, with his "half-assing" comment, but there's a fair share of his type on this forum.

Now you I replied to because originally you complained that the demo isn't as good as a finished product, when there isn't even a finished product yet. The demo is most likely taken out of a stable build, but not the finished product. You can form your opinion about buying the game or not based from the demo, but you still have to realise that it is JUST A DEMO. Be glad you got a free taste of the game before it even released, because no game company has to take time out of their development to make one.

Bugs suck, of course. But you have to accept that they will be there. If a company could fix every bug before release, they would (if they are a good company). But the term "bug" is used because it is something you don't see until there is too late. Games generally aren't released with bugs being known about. They crop up at the worst times, believe me, and the programmers have to scramble to try and fix it. Sometimes it is a last minute thing, even after the gold disk has been sent to be pressed. It isn't a matter of a company not being motivated enough to fix them, it's just a matter of reality that the more complex a program is, the more likely there are unknown behaviors that exist within it.

This is a topic for another thread. Create one. I'm actually interested.

 

[Jonci]

It seems like you haven't been patched or upgraded yet. How do I download the latest version to stop your annoying whining?

Sorry, but I am working as intended. Annoying whining is a feature of the program. However, there is DLC to add other wonderful features such as a charming smile, a bad disposition, or wacky antics.

 

[AddytheGreat]

I'm downloading the demo now, it looks really fun though.

 

[theguyinthecorner]

It was great! It was fun to see a zombies head fly off after hitting it with a frying pan.

 

[Flames66]

Just played the demo and I have to admit I wasn't all that impressed.

This is coming from a huge Valve fan, by the way.

The gameplay was nothing new, felt just like the first one with the lights turned on.

Now I know graphics are not the most important part of a game, but man Valve need to either update or replace the Source engine.

The game looks like shit.

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.

Objects are blocky and have no shadows, lighting effects look dated and blurry.

The very first vista was a badly implanted endless sea with an almost blank horizon. Half Life 2 had better graphic than this.

Animations and sounds are still very good, and the guns feel about right. The characters seem a bit more interesting than the last bunch too. The music was very cool and jazzy and helped with the setting.

But all in all I found the experience pretty underwhelming and won't be forking out my cash for it.

Especially not after playing Borderlands. Aussie friends, you're not missing all that much.

Anyone love it? Hate it? Feel indifferent to it?

Edit:

I forgot to mention the best thing about it: Mike Patton rocks.

Have you tried changing your graphics settings. It looked really bad when I started playing but not after i fiddled around for a bit. Unfortunately I fiddled so much that I cocked it up so I'm reinstalling it atm .

 

[Flames66]

I loved every second.
It was gory, fun, and I got to blast at zombies.
Sadly, I do not have the money to spare for it, so I have to pass at this time...sigh.

And I do not know where you're finding issues with the graphics...I played it on the default settings and it still looked markedly better than the first game when I played it on high.

I'll try and explain what I mean.

See how everything is angular?

This game has more right angles than the companion cube factory.

Look at the texture clash between the balcony and the wall below it... they look badly pasted together, it's too obvious. The balcony just floats next to the wall. Nothing seems to fit together well in the world.

The guns are definately better looking than in L4D 1 though. Finding an AK47 was pretty cool.

The character models are kind of blocky and 'gamey'. The survivors look ok, I mainly refer to the infected.

Compare this to say, Dead Space, now almost a year old, as an example of a game that makes good use of the current gen's lighting and graphical power:

The graphics are not the biggest concern anyway, though anyone who says they are not important I would disagree, graphics enhance a player's immerison within a game when done correctly, therefore enhancing thier enjoyment of it.

Don't see the problem here. Yea it's not exactly photorealistick but the characters are well designed and the weapons are fun to use. I still play Jedi Accademy so I really am not that bothered about graphics. Story and gameplay are MUCH more important.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

You don't pay 60 euros for a novel.

And a novelist doesn't spend millions of dollars to write a book. Making a game isn't cheap.

I know people love to rant on the boards how some games suck, but in the end most of you are just a bunch of spoiled brat gamers that have no idea what goes into the production of a video game. You can scream how they think a game is "half-assing" without knowing anything about computer science. If a game runs, the graphics are nice, gameplay solid, and the only thing that "ruins it" is a smoker can grab you from a spot he shouldn't, the game has a bug. It isn't the end of the world and you haven't been cheated out of $60. That's just life. Sometimes a novelist misspells a word, sometimes a carpenter doesn't nail a stud just right, and sometimes a mechanic didn't tighten a bolt enough. It just means somewhere down the line something is going to act weird and requires a small fix.

If that's still not good enough for you. I suggest you wait two years, pick the game up for $20, and get all the nice patches that fix the game up. By then, if you bought from a good company, the game will in excellient condition for you to play. Sure, everyone else has two years of fun times with you, but you are more concerned with flawless performance over fun.

I hardly think expecting value for your money is the same as being spoiled brats.

You just basically insulted the entire community of this website for wanting non-broken products, then your solution is to wait two years after they come out to play them?

I am not a wealthy person, I never have been. I'm as working class as they come.

Gaming is my only indulgence, I rarely drink, I don't smoke or overeat, or have a car or fancy electronic gear.

I have a 360 and some low-power games for my mini-laptop (which took me 3 months to save up for)

If I pay 60 quid for something I can just about afford, it is always dissapointing when it is broken.

And if you really think that is being a 'spoiled brat' then you are living in some kind of alternate mental universe.

No, the problem is that some people overexaggerate problems. The spoiled brat types will condemn a game as being a horrible game for the simplest bug and that the company is a bunch of lazy developers that don't know what they are doing. And this comes from people that don't know what the hell developers even do. andrewfox is the one I was mostly refering to, with his "half-assing" comment, but there's a fair share of his type on this forum.

Now you I replied to because originally you complained that the demo isn't as good as a finished product, when there isn't even a finished product yet. The demo is most likely taken out of a stable build, but not the finished product. You can form your opinion about buying the game or not based from the demo, but you still have to realise that it is JUST A DEMO. Be glad you got a free taste of the game before it even released, because no game company has to take time out of their development to make one.

Bugs suck, of course. But you have to accept that they will be there. If a company could fix every bug before release, they would (if they are a good company). But the term "bug" is used because it is something you don't see until there is too late. Games generally aren't released with bugs being known about. They crop up at the worst times, believe me, and the programmers have to scramble to try and fix it. Sometimes it is a last minute thing, even after the gold disk has been sent to be pressed. It isn't a matter of a company not being motivated enough to fix them, it's just a matter of reality that the more complex a program is, the more likely there are unknown behaviors that exist within it.

I never said the demo wasn't as good as a finished product. I merely said what I did and didn't like about it. If you read the OP you'll see this.

Unfortunately even Valve fans can't say anything negative about a Valve game these days without getting blasted with fanboyism.

As for your points on bugs, everything you said is true but surely most bugs can be dedected by extensive playtesting?

Bethesda for example: people couldn't even play The Pitt when they released it. It made my copy of the came crash. That's a pretty damn big bug for something you just paid your good money for. Surely you can understand the frustration of the consumer in this instance?

And I remember laughing to myself playing F3 for the first time, when it entered a game-breaking glitch within the first ten minutes, during the G.O.A.T. exam... Beth obviously hadn't playtested the intro properly.

Thankfully, Valve's games tend to be more bug-free than almost anyone else.

But nowhere in my OP did I mention bugs anyway, that coversation was a tributary.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I loved every second.
It was gory, fun, and I got to blast at zombies.
Sadly, I do not have the money to spare for it, so I have to pass at this time...sigh.

And I do not know where you're finding issues with the graphics...I played it on the default settings and it still looked markedly better than the first game when I played it on high.

I'll try and explain what I mean.

See how everything is angular?

This game has more right angles than the companion cube factory.

Look at the texture clash between the balcony and the wall below it... they look badly pasted together, it's too obvious. The balcony just floats next to the wall. Nothing seems to fit together well in the world.

The guns are definately better looking than in L4D 1 though. Finding an AK47 was pretty cool.

The character models are kind of blocky and 'gamey'. The survivors look ok, I mainly refer to the infected.

Compare this to say, Dead Space, now almost a year old, as an example of a game that makes good use of the current gen's lighting and graphical power:

The graphics are not the biggest concern anyway, though anyone who says they are not important I would disagree, graphics enhance a player's immerison within a game when done correctly, therefore enhancing thier enjoyment of it.

Don't see the problem here. Yea it's not exactly photorealistick but the characters are well designed and the weapons are fun to use. I still play Jedi Accademy so I really am not that bothered about graphics. Story and gameplay are MUCH more important.

Yes they are more important, but it's also nice when it looks pretty. It adds to the feeling of being 'in' the world.

Would Oblivion have been as immersive and fun if it looked like shit?

Load up the demo, go up the first ramp and look at the flower pots. They're almost comically bad.

 

[Iskenator67]

I enjoyed it. It was waaay to short like the first one but I'm still going to buy it.

 

[Flames66]

I loved every second.
It was gory, fun, and I got to blast at zombies.
Sadly, I do not have the money to spare for it, so I have to pass at this time...sigh.

And I do not know where you're finding issues with the graphics...I played it on the default settings and it still looked markedly better than the first game when I played it on high.

I'll try and explain what I mean.

See how everything is angular?

This game has more right angles than the companion cube factory.

Look at the texture clash between the balcony and the wall below it... they look badly pasted together, it's too obvious. The balcony just floats next to the wall. Nothing seems to fit together well in the world.

The guns are definately better looking than in L4D 1 though. Finding an AK47 was pretty cool.

The character models are kind of blocky and 'gamey'. The survivors look ok, I mainly refer to the infected.

Compare this to say, Dead Space, now almost a year old, as an example of a game that makes good use of the current gen's lighting and graphical power:

The graphics are not the biggest concern anyway, though anyone who says they are not important I would disagree, graphics enhance a player's immerison within a game when done correctly, therefore enhancing thier enjoyment of it.

Don't see the problem here. Yea it's not exactly photorealistick but the characters are well designed and the weapons are fun to use. I still play Jedi Accademy so I really am not that bothered about graphics. Story and gameplay are MUCH more important.

Yes they are more important, but it's also nice when it looks pretty. It adds to the feeling of being 'in' the world.

Would Oblivion have been as immersive and fun if it looked like shit?

Load up the demo, go up the first ramp and look at the flower pots. They're almost comically bad.

I see what you are saying (havn't looked at the flower pots yet cos I'm still redownloading it). My response is that a game can be immersive whithout amazing graphics. Speaking of Oblivion, yes it had quite good graphics for it's time, but L4D2's graphics are quite a lot better. I personally appreciate it when games designers focus on something other than the graphics (story, AI, gameplay for example) because it means that my PC will more likely be able to play it well.

Also the demo may be more focused on the gameplay so the graphics elements may have been a bit rushed and might be improved apon later.

 

[Jonci]

I never said the demo wasn't as good as a finished product. I merely said what I did and didn't like about it. If you read the OP you'll see this.

Unfortunately even Valve fans can't say anything negative about a Valve game these days without getting blasted with fanboyism.

As for your points on bugs, everything you said is true but surely most bugs can be dedected by extensive playtesting?

Bethesda for example: people couldn't even play The Pitt when they released it. It made my copy of the came crash. That's a pretty damn big bug for something you just paid your good money for. Surely you can understand the frustration of the consumer in this instance?

And I remember laughing to myself playing F3 for the first time, when it entered a game-breaking glitch within the first ten minutes, during the G.O.A.T. exam... Beth obviously hadn't playtested the intro properly.

Thankfully, Valve's games tend to be more bug-free than almost anyone else.

But nowhere in my OP did I mention bugs anyway, that coversation was a tributary.

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.

That.

As for playtesting, you also have to consider how many people can a company really hire to playtest. Then consider how large games are that need to be playtested. Multiply by the number of systems to be tested on. The consoles tend to be straight-forward testing. There should not be any notable different between one 360 and another 360. Same with the PS3, though that does mean that you need teams to test for a 360 and a PS3. Even still, they could have only 50 people playtesting and all 50 could miss that crash. Suddenly you have 100,000+ players playing and the chances of one of them finding that crash is much higher.

If you go PC, that's a whole other hell. Different versions of Windows, types of video cards, sound capabilities, processors, RAM, drivers, etc.... They can only test so much and even a slight difference in the versions of your C++ runtype libraries sitting on your computer could result in a crash. The process of optimizing for any one thing can result in bad performance on another, if the company isn't careful. If something absolutely breaks, it's most likely because whatever you are running wasn't a test machine they had or didn't have the conditions that cause your crash.

I once had to figure out why a program I developed wouldn't work on ONE machine my clients had. The machines should have been the same. Turned out to be as simple as having the wrong version of some library because it hadn't been connected to the internet for Windows updates. Knowing this, I made sure all future versions would properly add those library files necessary. It's is tricky and there are just so many things you have to take account for and it is too easy to miss something.

 

[Kukakkau]

I downloaded the demo for the 360 expecting to be unimpressed... and my god I was even more unimpressed afterwards.

The game is the exact same as the original. You could put everything new in DLC for the original and it would be the same game. Campaign driven games need to have alot of depth and replayability, but from what I saw this game has neither.

The demo only showed 2 chapters of the game but really I saw everything new in that short ammount of time anyway (new infected, weapons, chars)

I found the melee weapons so lazily done - they all do the same damage and swing at the same speed from what I could tell. A frying pan killed as many infected in one swing as a machete? Now that's just plain wrong

I played the demo through four times (twice solo and twice online) and the sad thing is it took me more time to download the demo than I spent actually playing it