What bothers me about L4D
- Thread starter Metalgamer81
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Since we could be here for eternity arguing the nature of l4d rotting hordes allow me to throw my hat into the proverbial political ring to bide the time.
Valve have dropped the ball into a huge vat of lava/acid compound in terms of zombie lore.
Zombies shouldn't sprint (how can legs that are in an advanced state of decompasition work better and thus outrun those who are quite healthy and decay free?), being bitten once might as well be fatal (then again, at this rate every zombie game would be impossible if that were included for the player, and the zombies in l4d don't bite for some abstract reason), killing a zombie should be a case of headshots only, full auto to the rib cage isn't enough (saying they're infected with a form of rabies, and thus still actually alive, is a flimsy excuse which just strikes me as being a get out of jail free card for explaining anything).
These guys aren't really zombies (and screw your multiple zombie formula nonsense, zombies have always been slow, shambolic and hard to kill and always should be).
I remember the Yahtzee definition of a zombie game (that being that you could replace the enemies with pretty much anything and it would still feel like the undead are after you) and this game fails to deliver there (I only thought these things were zombies because of the title and the fact that it was advertised as a zombie game).
You could give this game to someone in a blank box, tell them it's about escaped mental patients and they'd probably believe you.
Valve have dropped the ball into a huge vat of lava/acid compound in terms of zombie lore.
Zombies shouldn't sprint (how can legs that are in an advanced state of decompasition work better and thus outrun those who are quite healthy and decay free?), being bitten once might as well be fatal (then again, at this rate every zombie game would be impossible if that were included for the player, and the zombies in l4d don't bite for some abstract reason), killing a zombie should be a case of headshots only, full auto to the rib cage isn't enough (saying they're infected with a form of rabies, and thus still actually alive, is a flimsy excuse which just strikes me as being a get out of jail free card for explaining anything).
These guys aren't really zombies (and screw your multiple zombie formula nonsense, zombies have always been slow, shambolic and hard to kill and always should be).
I remember the Yahtzee definition of a zombie game (that being that you could replace the enemies with pretty much anything and it would still feel like the undead are after you) and this game fails to deliver there (I only thought these things were zombies because of the title and the fact that it was advertised as a zombie game).
You could give this game to someone in a blank box, tell them it's about escaped mental patients and they'd probably believe you.
So that absolves Valve of being faithful to the lore and making any sense? See why people hated Twilight.thedrop2zer0 said:
The only thing I hate about it is when they swarm you while you're reloading or in any way busy or incapacitated. Although it is pretty funny when they vomit on me right after I throw a pipe bomb or molotov and then I just run around shooting at everything that moves because I can barely see anything... sometimes even my own team, lol.
I see your point however, saying that they shouldn't be able to be sprinting and hitting you is just wrong. I guess you have been playing and watched the RE Movies/games like alot else here have. Good games indeed, but saying that they're way of picturing a zombie is right is just wrong. They haven't existed so how shall you and they know how a real zombie should be like? They think of zombie as ''Arisen dead'' but the term of ''zombie'' refers to a body of any person in a state where he has lost control and can't think or act on his own. I might be wrong at some parts however, stating that this or that is how a zombie should behave is wrong. But really, having 50 shambling zombies wich die of a 1 hit in the face ain't really that hard.. Say if you climb on a truck and they try to follow, you can easily get rid of a few then. If it would have been like that then they should have called the game ''Hit and Run''. Even how many shambling bastards you put up i guess 4 players with the shotgun from start whould have taken down alot. And besides.. Why shouldn't the zombies been able to run? They have an ''enhanced'' form of rabies wich have taken over in a way, not arisen from the grave with almost a 2/5 of a body. Running zombies equals more stress, more stress equals more fun of the gameplay.Iron Mal said:
What valve miss at this game is the music. It's not an slow old creeping tune wich comes down your spine.
Because there is no 'lore' to speak of. It's not only made up, it's made up over and over again by different people independantly of one another. As I mentioned earlier [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.81741.1101095] 'the lore' goes back a lot further in modern popular culture than people think. Deciding that your preferred sort of zombie is the 'one true zombie' basically boils down to saying "I would have done it differently, so their version sucks". Deciding that a computer game, an interactive programme designed to be engaging and rewarding, should have to adhere to those particular aspects of a popular culture archetype that you like entirely misses the point of it (A) being a computer game and (B) not being made by you...GenHellspawn said:
It'd be like me complaining that the android in Megaman isn't a real android because it doesn't go on a murdreous rampage and attempt to rape somebody...
Its a video game for god sakes!
I am a hardcore game like the next but If a game doesnt meet my satisfaction or I beat it i bring it back to the videostore.(I always rent before buying)
I was encapsulated with the opening title screen but after that It gets boring. Except for the witch scenes. OMG those are intense.
Write to vavle if you arent satisfied or make a better zombie game. My version of L4D would be like this:
1.) A longer more interesting story that is open world and more variety with the zombies.
2.) Why are the guns so clean and work perfectly?
3.) If you or your teamates get bitten they are infected. Do you kill them or find a medical center?
4.) How do they all know how to handle guns so properly?
5.) Fire lasts until it is put out so careful with those molotovs!
6.) Far cry 2 style healing instead of that bandage wrapping.
That i think would make it better.
I am a hardcore game like the next but If a game doesnt meet my satisfaction or I beat it i bring it back to the videostore.(I always rent before buying)
I was encapsulated with the opening title screen but after that It gets boring. Except for the witch scenes. OMG those are intense.
Write to vavle if you arent satisfied or make a better zombie game. My version of L4D would be like this:
1.) A longer more interesting story that is open world and more variety with the zombies.
2.) Why are the guns so clean and work perfectly?
3.) If you or your teamates get bitten they are infected. Do you kill them or find a medical center?
4.) How do they all know how to handle guns so properly?
5.) Fire lasts until it is put out so careful with those molotovs!
6.) Far cry 2 style healing instead of that bandage wrapping.
That i think would make it better.
I really do love it hehe. Only a developer with such skill like Valve could EVEN pull this game off the drawing board, I mean its selling points are frankly awful from a plain pespective.
1. 4 Identical Character, all the same attributes
2. A complete no plot game with barely any interaction at all
3. Only 10 weapons in total and they include fairly generic Uzis and M16's etc.
4. Only 4 campaigns to play through and limiting number of maps
5. Full retail price for hwat appears to be a download centric game.
Only Valve could pull it off
.
1. 4 Identical Character, all the same attributes
2. A complete no plot game with barely any interaction at all
3. Only 10 weapons in total and they include fairly generic Uzis and M16's etc.
4. Only 4 campaigns to play through and limiting number of maps
5. Full retail price for hwat appears to be a download centric game.
Only Valve could pull it off
.
i have been wondering why they punch and kick me but i don't really care that much about it. my two big complaints are no story and to short
If this were an infected game... Why call it a zombie game...
28 weeks later "zombies" are not zombies...
Zombies shouldnt be able to run, the ridger mortis (sp?) should kick in, giving them a limp of sorts and stiff limbs....
Anyway, ZOMBIE is a set term, no matter what your interpretation is of it. Anything else is undead or infected, not Zombie. geez.
28 weeks later "zombies" are not zombies...
Zombies shouldnt be able to run, the ridger mortis (sp?) should kick in, giving them a limp of sorts and stiff limbs....
Anyway, ZOMBIE is a set term, no matter what your interpretation is of it. Anything else is undead or infected, not Zombie. geez.
Wow, this topic got crazy.
There are still quite a few folks who want to make this argument that the zombies in L4D are not supposed to be zombies. This is a bad argument for several reasons.
1) Since before its release this has been touted as a "zombie" game.
2) The back of the package, the instruction manual, the graffiti on the walls and the dialogue between characters during gameplay make constant references to "zombies" and directly refer to the monsters in the game as "zombies."
3) At the end of each stage after the stats roll by it says "(# of zombies) were harmed in the making of this film."
Anybody trying to make the argument that these are not supposed to be zombies is simply not paying attention.
Moving along, the cool thing about fantasy is that we can do whatever we'd like with it. One idea of "zombies" may clash with another and it's all good. I think that when I originally posted this I was a bit disappointed that L4D was not the Romero film in game form that I was hoping for. In any case, I do love L4D and if Valve's idea of zombies are something of a cross between 28 days later style RAGE victims and classic Romero zombies, I'm cool with that.
I think it's pretty clear, however, that in our current consciousness Max Brooks' idea of "zombie" is the prevalent one, since the whole "zombie craze" of the last few years seems to stem from his books which are awesome.
There are still quite a few folks who want to make this argument that the zombies in L4D are not supposed to be zombies. This is a bad argument for several reasons.
1) Since before its release this has been touted as a "zombie" game.
2) The back of the package, the instruction manual, the graffiti on the walls and the dialogue between characters during gameplay make constant references to "zombies" and directly refer to the monsters in the game as "zombies."
3) At the end of each stage after the stats roll by it says "(# of zombies) were harmed in the making of this film."
Anybody trying to make the argument that these are not supposed to be zombies is simply not paying attention.
Moving along, the cool thing about fantasy is that we can do whatever we'd like with it. One idea of "zombies" may clash with another and it's all good. I think that when I originally posted this I was a bit disappointed that L4D was not the Romero film in game form that I was hoping for. In any case, I do love L4D and if Valve's idea of zombies are something of a cross between 28 days later style RAGE victims and classic Romero zombies, I'm cool with that.
I think it's pretty clear, however, that in our current consciousness Max Brooks' idea of "zombie" is the prevalent one, since the whole "zombie craze" of the last few years seems to stem from his books which are awesome.
I think the problem you have with the game is that you think they should take more damage if you hit them in the heart as opposed to somewhere else. There's only 2 damage zones on them, head and the rest of the body. They die easy enough when you shoot them in the foot same as if you hit them in the chest.GenHellspawn said:
If you stand around long enough the "horde" is supposed to come after you.
Also they aren't quite zombies they are just vicious mindless violent people, and some mutants.
As just people that are overly violent they are easy enough to kill, they most likely feel no pain.
Also they aren't quite zombies they are just vicious mindless violent people, and some mutants.
As just people that are overly violent they are easy enough to kill, they most likely feel no pain.
*ahem*Hunde Des Krieg said:
Wow, this topic got crazy.
There are still quite a few folks who want to make this argument that the zombies in L4D are not supposed to be zombies. This is a bad argument for several reasons.
1) Since before its release this has been touted as a "zombie" game.
2) The back of the package, the instruction manual, the graffiti on the walls and the dialogue between characters during gameplay make constant references to "zombies" and directly refer to the monsters in the game as "zombies."
3) At the end of each stage after the stats roll by it says "(# of zombies) were harmed in the making of this film."
Anybody trying to make the argument that these are not supposed to be zombies is simply not paying attention.
Moving along, the cool thing about fantasy is that we can do whatever we'd like with it. One idea of "zombies" may clash with another and it's all good. I think that when I originally posted this I was a bit disappointed that L4D was not the Romero film in game form that I was hoping for. In any case, I do love L4D and if Valve's idea of zombies are something of a cross between 28 days later style RAGE victims and classic Romero zombies, I'm cool with that.
I think it's pretty clear, however, that in our current consciousness Max Brooks' idea of "zombie" is the prevalent one, since the whole "zombie craze" of the last few years seems to stem from his books which are awesome.