Working Title 06.12.09: Left 4 Dead 2...Soon?

Posted by Jordan Williams on 06.12.2009

With great fanbase comes great conspiracy, Left 4 Dead 2 was announced last week and in less than a month it has risen to be one of the most controversial parts of this years E3. But is it really all THAT big a deal?

Welcome to the #1 Column to move to FRIDAYS, Working Title! Yep, Working Title will now be moving to Fridays and will be the official kick off to your weekend. That is, if you necessarily want your weekend kicked off by someone one ranting and raving about what all is right and wrong in the world of gaming. I mean I know I would like to kick off my weekend passed out in the arms of a cheaply priced hooker behind the I-75 off ramp but with gas prices and the economy I don't think I can afford that lifestyle anymore.

Or the crabs.



So, unless you were under a rock or REALLY don't like videogames (why are you here?) you should know that E3 was last week. We got all of those big announcements, shockers, new controllers, and other things that we can hope for. But also with this installment of E3 we got some pretty big controversies as well. From Metroid's new direction to botched EA giveaways we have had all of our fair share of "I call BULLSHIT" going on. But it seems that the one that is getting the most attention is coming out of the land that Gordon Freeman built, Valve.

Last year Valve released a little game that you may know as Left 4 Dead. This game was a zombie FPS game that stressed co-op teamwork over run and gun Rambo style games before it. With Valve's wonderful track record for multiplayer FPS games like CounterStrike, Team Fortress 1 and 2 and the various mods they have yielded, people took to L4D like a moth to a flame and it ended up being one of the best selling and best praised games of last year. Mainly because it was a Valve game and they have a great track record with post-launch content, many knew that Left 4 Dead was going to be supported well into it's old age and until it's eventual sequel.

But last Tuesday a bomb was dropped, although it was only two minutes long, there it was in full glory...Left 4 Dead 2's debut trailer. This has had a pretty black and white reaction across the board. Some people are very happy to see a new Left 4 Dead game, while others are obscenely angry that they are seeing a Left 4 Dead game out so soon after the release of the original (almost exactly a year, matter of fact). Both sides of this argument have valid points.
Is it really time for a new Left 4 Dead game or is it...


Left 4 Dead 2...Soon?

Editor's Note: To stem the flow of comments that will point out as such, this column was written as on Tuesday of this week


So, I have a secret. I fucking love Left 4 Dead. It is by far the most fun game I have played on Xbox since I got one (and yes, for those purists out there I DO have a PC and DO have the PC version, too) and probably my personal favorite game of 2008. I know it isn't that big of a secret since to this day I have written two whole columns about it, but I just didn't want to use the "It's not secret that I..." line.

Anyway, although I am going to write the column and discuss both sides of the argument I personally have no problem with Left 4 Dead 2 coming out so soon, and I will point out why in the coming points but it is obvious that a lot of you (So far 20,000) obviously do. I am not going to bother to link to the Boycott L4D2 petition because I am sure you can find that on ever other video game blog in the world, but if you have a passing interest in this subject you already know the main points as to which people are throwing a fit.

• Valve has not supported Left 4 Dead with post-launch content outside of a game play patch and a new multiplayer mode.


• L4D2's daylight setting detracts from the scary setting of the original L4D's mostly night time setting


• The new survivors look bland and uninspired and the setting does not lend


• There are not enough game play changes, fixes, or added content to declare this a full sequel

Now, even though I have noooo problem with these, I am not going to say they are not valid points. But I am just going to say my side of this whole thing...


What have you done for us lately?

The biggest argument here is that Valve has not shown anywhere the level of DLC support for L4D that they have shown other games that they have made. The year it has been out we have only see a patch to fix most of the game play bugs, and a (free)DLC that adds all of the maps to the Versus game mode and the Survival Game mode to the initial game. As far as new infected, new weapons, new campaign levels and what not we have not seen any of those.


Now there is just no denying it, as of today there really hasn't been much DLC for Left 4 Dead, the community really hasn't been hurt by the lack of upgrades and what not, but when it comes to a Valve game it's almost as if there HAS to be a fuckton of post-launch support to a game for it to be awesome. But I think that lays out the problem here. Since I can't find a way to say it nicely I think I'll just say it like so. I think Team Fortress 2 has spoiled a lot of people.



Valve has made no bones about it, they have been supporting the SHIT out of Team Fortress 2 since it has launched and will continue to do so until Team Fortress 3 is (ever made). They have been giving these updates, achievements, and everything else for free across the board to everyone to boot. So obviously people expected the same level of treatment when L4D came out. I know a lot of people have said that Valve themselves said they would support the game in the same way but for the life of me I cannot recall any interview, blog post, forum thread, or printed publication that has said this. I think everyone just assumed and you know the saying about that.

Now, personally I do think that L4D should've had more DLC on the end of it, but in the same way I think people are think that somehow having the lack of DLC on the game makes it an incomplete game. I bought L4D at full price and I can honestly say I never felt it was an incomplete game as far as content goes. When I got it wasn't expecting some 8 hour long epic zombie shooting game or a deep story. I knew what the game was from the get go.

There is a sort of school of thought that the game (especially Valve games) have to have an obscene amount of DLC (be it paid or free) to somehow qualify it as being a complete game. These DLC packs are just upgrades the existing product to make it better, not patches to fix problems overall. If you also think of it Valve releases a lot of these upgrades for free, be it through advertising agreements or via Steam these things come free to the consumer. After awhile I think you might just have to suck it up and BUY something once in awhile.

This, however leads into another problem. Is this 'something' we have to buy really worth 60 bucks? I am not really going to get into the price point of this because in the week we have known about L4D2 we haven't seen many details in regards to what it will be and what price it will be. Many people are throwing around rumors and the like saying that they might actually include the original Left 4 Dead 1 content in with Left 4 Dead 2 and others are saying it still very well could end up being a downloaded/on-disc DLC package ala Halo ODST. So no one really knows.

In the event that it IS a full priced game though, I think my stance on it stands. I don't think L4D was an incomplete game that NEEDED to have extensive upgrades and DLC attached to it to make it playable or better. I think people thought L4D was going to be the next Team Fortress 2 in that regard and got burned when their assumptions didn't pan out. Also in that respect at E3 itself Valve said they were NOT done with the content and updates for Left 4 Dead 1, with another update supposedly on it's way in July. And the one thing that many people are saying about this is something I have noticed. I won't dwell on it but I'll just say it like this.

Like it or not, L4D is a game that is on consoles AND PC, Valve would have to support both and even though they have been supporting the PC version of Tf2 like hell. When have ANY of those updates come to XBL or PSN? You can blame Microsoft all you want to but the fact is that console gamers get screwed out of this wonderful post-launch rep that Valve has, and while you can easily say "Well boo hoo, get a PC" that same exact argument could be used to those complaining about L4D2.

Boo hoo get 60 bucks.


Sunshine, Lollipops and...Zombies everywhere

Daylight, it's the bane of the vampires reality and supposedly also the bane of Left 4 Dead fans as well. The fact that the demo level shown in the trailers and in the footage showed that a good chunk of a campaign took place during the day has really set off some flags with the fans. The claim is that the daylight atmosphere of Left 4 Dead 2 ruins and suspense or fear that is had from setting the game in the dark.

I am supposed to be impartial (to a fault) but FUCK that noise. A zombie is a fucking zombie. The same zombie at night is going to scare the fuck out me in the day. Sure, there is a certain feel to having the game in the dark with the flash lights being your only source of light, but I do think having it in the day can actually pose some greater form of tension.

Look at the crescendo and hordes for instance. Nearly all of these took place in well lit places where you could see every corner nook and cranny of the map around you and they were still intense. In fact if you REALLY look at it. Unless you were in a side room or a closet Left 4 Dead wasn't THAT dark. They purposely used light to direct you where to go and made the offshoot areas dark to hide the Infected but unless you were an infected player or were looking around you NEVER ventured that far off. Even the Witch has a spotlight on her at all times.

So I really don't see what the point of that gripe. I can even put it this way. You get Boomed by a Boomer and the horde comes. In the dark it does lend a bit of a panicky feeling to it because they are coming from everywhere at all sides, but it's still the same amount of infected. The fact that it is in the daylight doesn't change a damn thing. Those zombies are still going to gnaw on my head parts regardless of rain, sleet, snow, or nightfall.



The other problem I have with this particular gripe is the fact that having the game completely in the dark MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE. There. I said it.

Go ahead, think about it. The city has been infested with zombies which obviously are smart enough to set up ambushes and have some level of night vision. It's hard to see, the power is out, and supplies are scarce. Is that a situation that just SCREAMS "Go out in the dead of night to search for rescue"? Fuck no!

You don't even have to read the Zombie Survival Guide to know that knowingly going into danger at NIGHT is a bad idea. So in that respect that could be why the some of the levels take place during the day. Also, be it day or night. 6000 zombies running at me ready to bust my fucking head wide open is still 6000 zombies. The only difference is now I can see them coming from a mile away. So ignoring the fact that Valve has already said that the levels will have day and night cycles, with differences in the infected for those cycles I ask you this.

What is scarier? Being tied to the train tracks in the middle of the night where you can't see the train coming to run you over and kill you or being tied to the train tracks at high noon, seeing the train in the distance, and knowing there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Also, someone on a forum mentioned this. I am not stating it as my own view because I don't feel like researching it to see if it's true but according to them all of the great zombie movies actually took place during the day.


Faces in the Crowd

The cast of Left 4 Dead is widely popular. Although they all have the same abilities and weaknesses they all have their own personality. Be it Francis hating everyone, Zoey's outlook on the events, Bill's need to save hold the team together, or Louis' love for pills and shouting loudly. They each had something that made them all loveable. But in the time span of a week with only beta footage and a trailer to go off of, everyone has suddenly taken a giant steaming shit on the four new Survivors from Left 4 Dead 2. They said they are bland and unappealing and don't look good. I call them realistic.

A biker, a teenage/early twenties college student, a cubicle dweller, and an army vet aren't exactly the most original characters around in video games or really any sort of medium. While I know Left 4 Dead isn't exactly MEANT to be some hyper realistic game, it's still just a bit...well...convenient that such a colorful group of people just managed to end up together fighting for their lives. But as I said before it was the personality that made the characters and really no one on the boycott or the whiners have given them a chance to see what exactly these characters are going to do. Going off of face value I will admit that outside of Coach and The Gambler I am not really frothing at the mouth for my chance to play with them, but in the same vein I think it's still a bit more realistic that a high school football coach, some random chick, an auto mechanic, and a southern gambler would end up together rather than the big box of cliché's we had in the first game.



Now moving on from the characters and to the world they inhabit...does anyone really have a problem with Louisiana? Really? It's zombies and I know they aren't picky. Given the one level we have seen I can't gauge how much the environments are alive, but once again not to point out the fault in L4D1 but honestly outside I only remember No Mercy and Dead Air off the top of my head. Blood Harvest and Death Toll look almost identical to me and sort of blur together and even then some of the more 'neutral' levels in the game have the same feeling.

The more and more I look at the reasons for most of the complaints, it looks more like instead of people having fundamental reasons to dislike the early sequel (like the price), it seems more like people are complaining about things that make a sequel a sequel. New characters, new location, changes to the engine and game play. Sort of the same things that happen with every Madden, Call of Duty, and Halo that no one really seemed to have a problem with.


Too little, too soon

This might be the only point I do agree on. While I am elated that there is a Left 4 Dead 2 coming out, the part of me that has seen what they have showed to us and is ignoring all of the "we are going to do this and that" stuff. I am honestly still wondering why this couldn't be a priced DLC add-on to L4D1. Now I have faith in Valve and I am one of those blind followers that will buy stuff I like (or think that I'll like) so I don't doubt this stuff is true, but FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN I just look at it and go "Add on.".

Valve has gone on record and said that the changes to the AI director, Zombie AI, Infected AI, weapons, ammo, melee weapons. All of the changes they have made had made the game too big to be a DLC. Especially given that Microsoft does have some sort of limit on what can and can't be considered a DLC or an Arcade Game and they can price it accordingly. But I don't think I like that answer too much either because then it just makes it look like that Left 4 Dead 2 was just all of the DLC and whatever they have supposedly planned for Left 4 Dead 1 wrapped in a new shiny coating. But then (God, I have backtracked a lot in this rant) the same could be said for any sequel in this generation.



For those of you that have actually listened to the commentary track on Left 4 Dead, you would actually recall that they said the original Left 4 Dead was made and completed almost three years ago. It was originally made as a test for AI in bots and they decided to beef it up and turn it into it's own game. So in it's own right Left 4 Dead (or TerrorStrike at the time) was just something that was meant for another game that was eventually beefed up and turned into a full fledged game in it's own right. Does this justify L4D2 IF that's the true origins behind it? No. But it is interesting to know that L4D1 wasn't some novel original idea that it is being heralded as, it was just another "Eh, you know what. Let's just make it a stand alone game" like so many things before it.

Now, to switch gears and go with the side of me that IS paying attention to what Valve is saying and promising, I can't possibly see how this could not be considered a full sequel. It has new levels, new weapons, new characters, a completely overhauled AI Director, better storyline and an as of yet unnamed new multiplayer mode (which may or may not be part of the upgrade coming to Left 4 Dead 1). Add that in along with the fact that Valve is still toying with the idea of making the original Left 4 Dead content exportable and it sounds pretty much like a done deal as far as sequels go. But surely you but a game because you base your decision off of the game itself not the DLC you HOPE it will have sometime down the line right? You keep hearing arguments saying that "We are angry because we purchased an unfinished game" and I call bullshit on that. I dropped 60 bones for L4D and thought it was damned finished, and if you are somehow saying that Valve releases unfinished products and then finishes them in post-launch content (which never comes to consoles, by the way) then that is by FAR worse than making a sequel too soon.

So without any regard to the feelings of the internets, what it looks like is that a lot of people are just pissed that they might actually have to spend money on a product for once. They have been getting it free from Valve since forever as far as TF2 goes, but the keywords there are free from Valve. Valve, which is still making a killing with Steam, isn't necessarily getting a profit from all of the free stuff it gives out. It can say that it's not about the money and it's all about good games all they want, but at the end of the day the gaming industry is an industry. Period. Pokemon for all intents and purposes has been the same damn game since Red and Blue but there are no boycotts for that. Oh wait? Pokemon changed stuff in between, and added new Pokemon, new abilities, new locations, and new main characters.

...

Like Left 4 Dead 2, right?

---

So there you have it. I opted to do this rant instead of an E3 Fallout rant like last year (although technically I did that already because of the 4Rs) so this will mark the end of my talk of E3.

BUT.

Next week is also going to be a big week because it will start the second annual Workies Halftime Awards. Tons of games get left in the dust when it comes to the End of Year game awards season. So the halftime awards will look at all games released withen the first 6 months of the year and the nominations will go up next week. Got a nomination you want or a category? Let me know.

As for this week's Working Feedback....

Working Feedback

Just to leave all the E3 loose ends tied up...I have to ask the obligatory question.

Who won (and lost) E3?


Until next time, I'm Jordan Williams( @DasUberOgre on Twitter) and see you--RELOADING!!!