Poll: Left 4 Dead 1: Vastly Superior to L4D2
- Thread starter Ryokai
- Start date
Recommended Videos
First, your opinion is valid and I support your right to talk about it. Unfortunalty, you struck a raw nerve with me since I hate people who think there overblown opinion of what should have been means that they can simply call a game worst then the original because it improved but wasn't god. Second, here is my opinion of your opinion:
Sorry to say but your biases is showing.
1. Yes L4D was dark but about 99% of the community has long since gotten over horror and the setting has become almost a farce of itself with people playing it like any other game unrelated to a movie (not to mention Ramboing it and ignoring the spirit of the game). L4D2 just goes with the idea that most of the community has "lets shot some zombie" not "let's survive." I think the setting is a reflection of the players here. I suppose you could call the first more atmospheric but I think the main difference is one is in the day. It has roughly the same layout of level shapes (this is necessary because the game will only really work with certain level designs) and it has "panic" moments that weren't even in the first game. If the panic moment is an improvement on the tense atmosphere, then the world has Jaded you.
2. The characters of both are flat as pancakes. The only thing we have to give them any life is a series of repeatedly parroted short dialogue lines thrown out at random. A single run through the game tells you nothing beyond the stereotype of the characters. Heck, I've played the game dozens of times and still know almost nothing about these flat characters. On the scale of real characterization the L4D method is a complete failure leaving the characters little more then shells. I think he problem is that people are just more fmailiar with the first survivors and this like them more when in fact both sets have about equal characterization (a stereotypical model with a smattering of equal amounts of dialogue to characterize them). Hell, unless you really go out and try to scrap what you can out of the game, it hard to get much of anything out of these character besides a list of about a dozen items per person that completely define them.
3. I don't have numbers, nobody does besides Valve but I'm willing to make the assertion that both would have the same core bugs and that fixing them in L4D leads to them being fixed in L4D2 and since L4D2 has less then double the content of L4D assuming that there is an equal distribution of bugs per content, L4D2 should have less bugs since its content gets fixed along with L4D.
4. Maybe the new infected aren't very good, maybe they are but it's hard to make the sale that they actually make the game worst and so long as they are not detrimental that means that the game is actually improved by them, maybe by only a little but still improved. Remember that just because you are disappointed that its not as good as you thought doesn't mean its worst then not having it. Too many people think that dashed hopes make a game worst then the original when logically so liong as everything is roughly the same but more is added it is actually better (logically and mathematically).
5. Nitpicking.
I suggest you ignore it since no logical argument can change how a game "feels" but I really do think that L4D2 is L4D+ thus rendering it "better". It just feels more like what they wanted to make rather then a a demo like version what they wanted. This little digression is to diffuse my own anger not to try and say that anyone's opinion is wrong.
Sorry to say but your biases is showing.
1. Yes L4D was dark but about 99% of the community has long since gotten over horror and the setting has become almost a farce of itself with people playing it like any other game unrelated to a movie (not to mention Ramboing it and ignoring the spirit of the game). L4D2 just goes with the idea that most of the community has "lets shot some zombie" not "let's survive." I think the setting is a reflection of the players here. I suppose you could call the first more atmospheric but I think the main difference is one is in the day. It has roughly the same layout of level shapes (this is necessary because the game will only really work with certain level designs) and it has "panic" moments that weren't even in the first game. If the panic moment is an improvement on the tense atmosphere, then the world has Jaded you.
2. The characters of both are flat as pancakes. The only thing we have to give them any life is a series of repeatedly parroted short dialogue lines thrown out at random. A single run through the game tells you nothing beyond the stereotype of the characters. Heck, I've played the game dozens of times and still know almost nothing about these flat characters. On the scale of real characterization the L4D method is a complete failure leaving the characters little more then shells. I think he problem is that people are just more fmailiar with the first survivors and this like them more when in fact both sets have about equal characterization (a stereotypical model with a smattering of equal amounts of dialogue to characterize them). Hell, unless you really go out and try to scrap what you can out of the game, it hard to get much of anything out of these character besides a list of about a dozen items per person that completely define them.
3. I don't have numbers, nobody does besides Valve but I'm willing to make the assertion that both would have the same core bugs and that fixing them in L4D leads to them being fixed in L4D2 and since L4D2 has less then double the content of L4D assuming that there is an equal distribution of bugs per content, L4D2 should have less bugs since its content gets fixed along with L4D.
4. Maybe the new infected aren't very good, maybe they are but it's hard to make the sale that they actually make the game worst and so long as they are not detrimental that means that the game is actually improved by them, maybe by only a little but still improved. Remember that just because you are disappointed that its not as good as you thought doesn't mean its worst then not having it. Too many people think that dashed hopes make a game worst then the original when logically so liong as everything is roughly the same but more is added it is actually better (logically and mathematically).
5. Nitpicking.
I suggest you ignore it since no logical argument can change how a game "feels" but I really do think that L4D2 is L4D+ thus rendering it "better". It just feels more like what they wanted to make rather then a a demo like version what they wanted. This little digression is to diffuse my own anger not to try and say that anyone's opinion is wrong.
Aw c'mon, the sugar mill level was fantastic. Not being able to see a thing when you walk through the sugar cane fields and knowing full well there's at least one witch wandering around in there with you was really intense, not to mention the rain and flooding in the second half.Ryokai said:
Other than that though, I reckon the fist game did have a better atmosphere. Give me No Mercy over The Parish anyday.
At first I was going to say they aren't that far apart but your reasoning is quite good.
2 Really lost a LOT of the atmosphere 1 had, see that daylight? Yep.
Characters were laughable, literally it seemed like every single guy was just there to joke around in the middle of a zombie swarm.
I'd say the only real improvement are the weapons, with much more variety and the fact that you can actually defend yourself in melee now.
2 Really lost a LOT of the atmosphere 1 had, see that daylight? Yep.
Characters were laughable, literally it seemed like every single guy was just there to joke around in the middle of a zombie swarm.
I'd say the only real improvement are the weapons, with much more variety and the fact that you can actually defend yourself in melee now.
L4D2 had that 'hit at home' feeling where it felt like the military and other survivors actually tried to stop the infection. Leaving a safe room to find tents with dead CEDA agants and abandoned luggage amist the trail of dead bodies felt more hitting than a bunch of cars and rubble on a dark street that L4D1 had most of the time.
Point being L4D2 does win on atmosphere because there are a lot more small stories that are told through speech.
Point being L4D2 does win on atmosphere because there are a lot more small stories that are told through speech.
Actually, I think that the sequel improved upon the original in nearly every possible way. To each their own.
Fuck yeah it was the best one! I don't see why they didn't just keep it to 150 infected types. I mean, it's bad enough that people keep running rule 34 on it, but the creators don't even add anything new to the series. And WTF is with the storyline? It's the same damn thing every match! And none of it's realistic because defibulators don't work that way! Plus there's racism and sexism. When was the last time you saw any Asians? Mexicans? How about transgendered people? The fact that these haven't been in the games yet means that Valve are racist.
Whatever. The series died when L4D2 came out. They should just kill it now and stop making these games forever.
Whatever. The series died when L4D2 came out. They should just kill it now and stop making these games forever.
The only thing I really like about L4D2 is the melee weapons, also L4D 1 has turbo versus, so that right there trumps L4D 2
They're basically the same game. L4D2 just has more stuff tagged on, and from a technically objective standpoint is a much better game. More zombies, more weapons, better balance, and so on...
Anyway, on to your opinion. The reason people are taking particular issue with is because, when you read it, it sounds like you're stating your opinion as fact, and then fail to really justify it.
Those movie moments only occurred because, when you started playing L4D1, you were crap at it. So naturally things were a closer shave more often. The actual game mechanic that causes these events is exactly the same. And come on? L4D2 is full of set pieces.
Now you're just looking insignificant things which few people care about. I never even noticed the campaigns were connected in L4D2, and who cares? It's not like that game had any story anyway.
The giant coach with a heart of gold, and an endearing and relatable craving for chocolate. He finds himself on the run after his basketball team tries to eat his brains, and now has to put his team-building skills to good use holding together this new group of survivors- his only hope for survival.
See? I can fill in blanks, too.
Like Bill, the old-but-in-command Vietnam vet. This is Coach's equivalent.
Or Francis, the grouchy-but-nice biker. This is Nick's equivalent.
Or Louis, the nervous-but-perceptive IT consultant. This is Ellis's equivalent.
Or Zoey, the frightened-but-tough schoolgirl. This is Rochelle's equivalent.
Generally, people are pretty dull like that in Horror films. That was the point of these games, to put you in zombie films. Valve even admitted they were shallow, because that was the point.
Zombies spawn where the survivors are not, no? It is exactly the same mechanic as in L4D1, I don't see a change. The director is just more mean in L4D2. These impossible distances you mention must relate to the smoker. That's just a design choice, not a bug. Perhaps they received a lot of complaints that the smoker's tongue was too short? I could agree with that.
And the crashing isn't the game, you know that as well as I do. It's a problem with your hardware. It's never crashed for me, so it must be. We have the same game, after all.
And hell, L4D1 was buggy to begin with, too. All games are. That's why they patch them.
Make the charger actually a half tank? That's way over the top. There's almost constantly one in the field, after all. The spitter's goo could've been designed better? What does that mean? Does it not look like you think it should look?
And yeah, I hate playing a the jockey too. However, it is the most satisfying class if you actually manage to kill someone with it, to be sure. The person playing as it is also forced into teamplay when he's using it, as it really is useless on its own, unlike the others. Plus, actually, he fills the niche of the 'indoor smoker'.
The novelty for the first game seems to be the only thing driving this critique.
I think the OP's points are either teeny tiny nits (I can't see my feet etc), not really points(Bugs, design changes), or a matter of taste.(Atmosphere, characters.)
As such, the only really valid ones are the matters of taste, but those are just that, taste. They don't make either game better than the other.
Anyway, on to your opinion. The reason people are taking particular issue with is because, when you read it, it sounds like you're stating your opinion as fact, and then fail to really justify it.
Yes, the atmosphere is different. I personally prefer the new one. It's more light-hearted and funny. When you actually look for the small touches that make each campaign unique, you will find them. I think you just didn't look.Ryokai said:
Those movie moments only occurred because, when you started playing L4D1, you were crap at it. So naturally things were a closer shave more often. The actual game mechanic that causes these events is exactly the same. And come on? L4D2 is full of set pieces.
Now you're just looking insignificant things which few people care about. I never even noticed the campaigns were connected in L4D2, and who cares? It's not like that game had any story anyway.
All of this is just what you imagined them to be. You say that the characters in L4D1 had depth, but did they really, or do you just want them to have had depth? Personally, I think all the characters except Nick, Keith, and Louis were pretty dull. Nick because I just like his suit, and Keith and Louis were funny.
Or how about this:
The giant coach with a heart of gold, and an endearing and relatable craving for chocolate. He finds himself on the run after his basketball team tries to eat his brains, and now has to put his team-building skills to good use holding together this new group of survivors- his only hope for survival.
I agree, but just to prove a point: Rochelle, the naive and newly recruited reporter, who spent her life trying to find her big story and one-way ticket to fame. She doesn't expect that the biggest story of her life will try to kill her, though, and soon regrets chasing after such a petty dream. Now she finds herself a member of a rag-tag gang of survivors, providing the most educated voice when it's needed, and her natural feminine ability to keep the others calm.
And then we have Nick, the streetwise ex-con. Busted out of prison along with a horde of zombies. He doesn't see the virus as a disaster, but as an opportunity. As evidenced by his fancy suit, he is enjoying the free reign he has, until he finds himself reliant upon those he would previously have used and discarded. He now finds himself in the awkward position of having to actually help people for a change.
See? I can fill in blanks, too.
He wasn't, Keith was. The only reasons people like Ellis are his accent and the stories he tells. Otherwise he's rather dull. Just a greesemonkey from down South.
Like Bill, the old-but-in-command Vietnam vet. This is Coach's equivalent.
Or Francis, the grouchy-but-nice biker. This is Nick's equivalent.
Or Louis, the nervous-but-perceptive IT consultant. This is Ellis's equivalent.
Or Zoey, the frightened-but-tough schoolgirl. This is Rochelle's equivalent.
Generally, people are pretty dull like that in Horror films. That was the point of these games, to put you in zombie films. Valve even admitted they were shallow, because that was the point.
Maybe to you, but when you really examine them, you'll see that the characters from the first game are no better than those from the second. What you've done is what Valve wants you to do. They give you a rather blank character and let you easily fill in the personality gaps so that you grow to like them as they will have many things in common with you. Because you played the first one first, they had time to grow on you, so you'll naturally prefer them over the second batch.
What are you on about?
Zombies spawn where the survivors are not, no? It is exactly the same mechanic as in L4D1, I don't see a change. The director is just more mean in L4D2. These impossible distances you mention must relate to the smoker. That's just a design choice, not a bug. Perhaps they received a lot of complaints that the smoker's tongue was too short? I could agree with that.
And the crashing isn't the game, you know that as well as I do. It's a problem with your hardware. It's never crashed for me, so it must be. We have the same game, after all.
And hell, L4D1 was buggy to begin with, too. All games are. That's why they patch them.
So how would you have had it? Keep the game exactly the same as it was before?
Make the charger actually a half tank? That's way over the top. There's almost constantly one in the field, after all. The spitter's goo could've been designed better? What does that mean? Does it not look like you think it should look?
And yeah, I hate playing a the jockey too. However, it is the most satisfying class if you actually manage to kill someone with it, to be sure. The person playing as it is also forced into teamplay when he's using it, as it really is useless on its own, unlike the others. Plus, actually, he fills the niche of the 'indoor smoker'.
I'm just gonna skip this whole section, because, as you profess, this is microscopic nit picking.
It doesn't seem like you're getting much fun out of this game, but I think the cause of that isn't the game, I think it's you subconsciously not wanting to like it. You say you did, but it seems more like you've blatantly ignored evidence that runs against your opinion. You go into tiny details about L4D1, then ignore the far more common tiny details that are present in L4D2.
The novelty for the first game seems to be the only thing driving this critique.
Ditto.Hiphophippo said:
I think the OP's points are either teeny tiny nits (I can't see my feet etc), not really points(Bugs, design changes), or a matter of taste.(Atmosphere, characters.)
As such, the only really valid ones are the matters of taste, but those are just that, taste. They don't make either game better than the other.
I played L4D1 again recently..it does have a nicer, more fun feeling to it. I think the first game did better with the survivors being within a city. L4D2 couldnt (or perhaps shouldnt) just remake that...they had to jazz it up a little.
Personally im not impressed with Melee but the idea was great...bet it started with the chainsaw
What i would like to know is why so many people dont like Rochelle
Personally im not impressed with Melee but the idea was great...bet it started with the chainsaw
What i would like to know is why so many people dont like Rochelle
I'm normally not a fan of versus threads, but I agree with you on this one. Left 4 Dead was amazing, while L4D2 just wasn't as good.Ryokai said:
God, no. The franchise isn't ruined, far from it. L4D2 is a great game. I just think it disappointed a lot of people, and the first was better.oppp7 said:
Because Rochelle is boring. "The black chick" can sum her up totally.Audio said:I played L4D1 again recently..it does have a nicer, more fun feeling to it. I think the first game did better with the survivors being within a city. L4D2 couldnt (or perhaps shouldnt) just remake that...they had to jazz it up a little.
Personally im not impressed with Melee but the idea was great...bet it started with the chainsaw
What i would like to know is why so many people dont like Rochelle
I agree with the characters in L4D2.
Ellis constantly carries the dialogue and is the only character I find remotely funny
Ellis constantly carries the dialogue and is the only character I find remotely funny
"Let me axe you a question!" Why would people like someone who says that when they pick up an axe?Audio said:I played L4D1 again recently..it does have a nicer, more fun feeling to it. I think the first game did better with the survivors being within a city. L4D2 couldnt (or perhaps shouldnt) just remake that...they had to jazz it up a little.
Personally im not impressed with Melee but the idea was great...bet it started with the chainsaw
What i would like to know is why so many people dont like Rochelle