L4D 2 demo... what do people think?

[Cilliandrew]

Eh, i enjoyed it. Liked the Guitar as a melee weapon. As you swing the axe, you can hear the strings twanging off key. Nice touch.

Likin' the new weapons alot, and the new infected.

 

[Susano]

The only problem I have is that there is a ton of different weapons, and I don't really know the difference between them most of the time.

Strangely enough, this happened to me too. I ended up having to fire a weapon and looking at it's ammo before I decided to take it. Apart from that, I like it, and am anticipating the versus mode to come out, so I can piss people off with the Spitter and Jockey.

 

[darkroot]

Wasn't impressed. Looked like the last left 4 dead. Same graphics and gameplay, kinda felt like left 4 dead 1.5 or left 4 dead with stuff they could have shoved into updates.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

i enjoyed the only to things that i was disapointed with are that i think the l4d survivors are more better than the new ones and because its now in the daylight you rarely get that "oh shit which direction are they coming" from moment.

Other than that a good game the new infected and weapons are awesome.Also you would rather better graphics than gameplay?.As the game play in deadspace was terrible also so was the story thinking about it.

How about nice graphics AND gameplay?

We should expect nothing less from developers of mainstream games.

Personally I loved the gameplay in Dead Space, it is one of my favorite games. It reminded me of Resi 4.

What was it you didn't like about it?

i agree about games having good graphics and gameplay but i cant see why your complaining when you compare it to something like dead space.

Trying to do anything in dead space was really slow and was rather unnatural. Also the constant find a key,open a door,kill everything and repeat was horrible it was like playing an early 90s game. Also the horror elements were none existence as everything either killed you instantly or not at all that quickly made the game boring.

That was the whole point of the game. It was an old school, slow paced, linear corridoor game. Some of the greatest games of all time take a similar format. Resi 4, and Silent Hill for example.

If you could move around like a hyperactive Blur on steroids, the whole tension and feeling of vulnerability would have been lost.

What's this about complaining? I was merely stating an opinion. I got the demo for free and am glad I did, as it showed me that I don't need to spend my money on a game I wouldn't really enjoy.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

"Terrible graphics"? Are you sure you and I played the same game? I played it on my 360 and I thought it looked remarkably better than the first one.

Yes, I am sure. The first one looked pretty bad too, though due to being mainly in darkness the flaws weren't as glaringly obvious.

You can see the texture separations on the Tank and other character models from 20 or 30 yards away. They're horrible.

The houses look like dolls houses.

It's like everything in the world was built from giant Lego polygons from 2004.

For a perfect example, go to the first saferoom and look at the shelves. Ugh.

I still maintain, Mike Patton was the best thing about this demo.

Well were sorry you can't enjoy a game without graphics that look amazing,you should care more about the gameplay.

I think you should read the OP and then rethink that last post.

 

[Retardinator]

I tried it a few moments ago and while it feels nice to have something fresh to play, I found the number of gameplay additions a little overwhelming at first. Some items even left me confused as to what I'm supposed to do with them (namely, the defibrillator - even though it's kind of obvious now ).
The graphics look nice, in fact, I think I'm seeing Source at it's best, but I'm a bit more worried about the number of actual zombies. From what I've seen there's too many Special Infected spawning compared to the actual number of common infected. I'm really hoping they'll balance it out a bit more before the actual release.

 

[ThatsBitch3n]

For all those saying "Where are the other survivors?" I give you...Logic!
Louisville=Louis=PILLZ HERE
On a more serious note, i had alot of fun in the demo. Im still a bit skeptical, but the melee weapons are a ton of fun.

 

[Flying Dagger]

1. i spent £520 on a new pc and monitor to play L4D1 on when it came out.
2. i really enjoyed playing it for a few weeks, and still occaisonally do.
3. i can never find a decent game with decent players who have the same skill level as i do, so i play single player, and not often.
4. i played the demo in single player and then with friends, both times it just felt exactly like l4d1, but without the atmosphere. i think that was mostly due to it being set in the daytime, it just isn't as good for me.
5. i'm not forking out £30 for what i believe is effectively 4 new campaigns. especially with the large amount of l4d1 player made campaigns available for free.

I can't see how they could have solved any of the problems relating to me, the weapons felt clunkier, and the mele weapons are crap compared to something like mount&blade, which whilst not a fair comparison, is the one i inevitably make having played it. so i'll keep playing L4D1, and let the fans buy the new one.

Though the writing in the walls at the one safehouse in the demo was still funny: "will someone please hide the pens"

 

[Flying Dagger]

And the characters are nowhere near as iconic as the characters from the first game.
probably because they made them so well.

 

[Immobile]

It's most certainly fun, and it sticks to the L4D series, after all.
it's a sequel, they can't add a whole bunch of new stuff or old time players will be confused as feck and new players will have too much to learn.
I think it's a good demo, i've played through it quite a few times now.
the new weapons are great, the melee are fun, and all in all, i've never been afraid of a guy with one big massive arm and and a tiny noodle of an arm before in my life.

 

[thom_cat_]

Console port.
The weapons are the size of the whole screen.

 

[andrewfox]

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.

 

[RanD00M]

I think that it's still downloading.Fucking slow internet.

 

[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.

Glad someone agrees.

If we pay for something it should work, and if we taste a free sample of the new Philadelphia in the supermarket it better not taste like it's gone off, because nobody likes rotten cheese.

 

[Flour]

[...]

Good graphics add to a game, yes. However, graphics also add another slight problem, one that Valve solved by using their older engine.

A lot of people like me(as shown by the most recent valve survey) have computers that, where the "old blocky" graphics look infinitely better than the "new organic" blurred mess that appears when you play games on a too-large (LCD?)monitor. Basically, Dead Space barely runs at 1024x768 resolution(15FPS average) while I can play L4D2 at 1920x1080.(25FPS average)

To go back on-topic: played the demo and enjoyed it, however I'm not going to buy it. Might be a great game, but like Borderlands it's only decent if you're playing the game with friends and none of my friends like these "horde shooter" type games.(well, two friends do, but they've gamed together for years and know exactly what the other means with a single word so it's impossible to enjoy any game with them)

 

[MiracleOfSound]

[...]

Good graphics add to a game, yes. However, graphics also add another slight problem, one that Valve solved by using their older engine.

A lot of people like me(as shown by the most recent valve survey) have computers that, where the "old blocky" graphics look infinitely better than the "new organic" blurred mess that appears when you play games on a too-large (LCD?)monitor. Basically, Dead Space barely runs at 1024x768 resolution(15FPS average) while I can play L4D2 at 1920x1080.(25FPS average)

To go back on-topic: played the demo and enjoyed it, however I'm not going to buy it. Might be a great game, but like Borderlands it's only decent if you're playing the game with friends and none of my friends like these "horde shooter" type games.(well, two friends do, but they've gamed together for years and know exactly what the other means with a single word so it's impossible to enjoy any game with them)

I loved Borderlands single player. I prefer it to the multi sometimes, as its hard to find people who have the level as you, and you don't have to share the loot or have random douchebags using Lilith steal it all before you even see it.

 

[andrewfox]

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.

Glad someone agrees.

If we pay for something it should work, and if we taste a free sample of the new Philadelphia in the supermarket it better not taste like it's gone off, because nobody likes rotten cheese.

Good analogy.

 

[YuheJi]

I thoroughly enjoyed the demo. It sure as hell is a lot more than just maps and weapons. The style of gameplay overall felt slightly different, with less standing around and shooting zombies than there had been in the first game.

And the characters are nowhere near as iconic as the characters from the first game.
probably because they made them so well.

I think that has more to do with the game having been out for so long now. I sure as hell didn't care about the original four when I first got the game.

 

[Nullphantom]

It felt like what happened with Fable 2. It's not exactly a sequel, more like an upgrade. Daytime settings were a nice little change and gave me a moment to look at graphics, although the "holy shit where are zombies gonna come from" factor kinda left the building. This is a demo, though, so I'm sure there are some dark as hell areas which are welcome. New weapons and infected were nice, including the wandering witch which beat the shit outta one of my friends for being an R-tard. Again, just feels more like an upgrade. Hopefully they wont make a L4D3, if they are going to, in a year like they did with L4D2