bl00gername bl00gername

The case for a L4D2

▼

The case for a L4D2

Is the sequel to Valve's zombie shooter hinting to a new direction their taking?

from Stardock Forums

  Recently, there's been a controversy surrounding a popular online game's annouced sequel, which has been brewing around in gaming sites and forum communities alike.  This controversy is regarding the recent annoucement by Valve Software, the makers of games like Half life and game mods such as CounterStrike and Team Fortress 2, of a planned sequel to last year's popular title Left 4 Dead.  Regardless of your opinion in this argument, this controversy is interesting not only because of its relation to this particular game, but to it's possible indication of the direction game companies like Valve might be taking in the future.

Announced at E3, Left4Dead 2 will featured five new campaign, brand new characters and weapons, and many other yet unannouced features when it's released late 2009.  The annoucement came as a surprise, not only because of a lack of rumours about it, but because of Valve's past records on sequels.  Having required 6 years before releasing the sequel to Half Life, and almost a decade to ship the much anticipated sequel to Team Fortress, Valve is known for their long development cycles, and longer periods of time in between games and their sequels.  That's why when they suddenly announced a sequel for one of their games, which will come almost a year after the original game shipped, everyone was caught off guard.  The surprise quickly gave way to controversy, nonetheless, as many questioned Valve's motives for such an early sequel.  Rumors, speculations and all sort of arguments began to invade online gaming boards, including Steam's very own, where every side of the controversy poured in.  Both arguing Valve's need to continually produce and ship titles to continue to stay in business and those citing greed and Valve's departure to fully supporting their exisiting products before shipping new ones. 

 The controversy didn't stop at forums threads, sparked its very own community group called Left4Dead2 Boycott on Steam's boards.  Composed of mostly owners of the original game, this group crafted a manifesto, where they explain their reasons for not buying the new game when it's released, and calling for others to do the same.  In their manifesto, they mention that the new game will divide the community into two, those who buy the new game and those who are still playing the old one.  They are also worried about Valve's so far unfullfilled promises they made about the original game, such as releasing more content for the campaigns, as well as the final version of the SDK.  With the new game in the works, they say, Valve's resources and efforts will be focused on the sequel, leaving the original game as a lesser priority. According to them, if the old game is made compatible with the new content, then there wouldnt be any incentive to buyt the new game, so the new game and its features won't be backwards compatible.  And since the old game won't work in the new game's servers, will it be treated with the same amount of updates and patching as the new one will? 

The controversy reached Valve, and they themselves have responded, somewhat, in the comments by Left4Dead's main writer Chet Faliszek, in an interview he made recently.  He argues that all the new ideas for features and new content for Left4Dead they wanted to put together were too big for simple for a simple update of patch, and required a full brand new standalone sequel to be implemented.  This nonehtless, gives way to many speculations of whether this new features will make it to the sequel's ship date.  Many of those who bought the original game now believe paid for a half-finished product, under the promises by Valve that many updates and additional content would be added to it. As these updates havent yet arrived and with the sequel in full speed ahead, many are thinking they paid to beta test a protoype of a game, whose real final version will come late '09. 

There's many uncertainty regarding why the need for a full sequel as well.  Valve hasn't detailed all the reasons for this.  Many are believing they are less related to technical constrains of the original game's capabilities and more about finances.  This bears a liking with the explanations Microsoft gave for their decision to make the next release of DirectX, DX10, not compatible with Windows XP.  Why the need to make a new game? Some players ask themselves, why can't Valve adopt an update model similar to the one from another of their popular games, Team Fortress 2.  Being a similarly online team-based game like Left 4 Dead, TF2 now has a system of frequent updates, both for the game's executable itself as well as for its content.  The updates are the form of new items, weapons and upgrades for the many different player characters in the game, in a MMO-like upgrade system.  Why can't Valve implement a similar system for Left4Dead?  Such a system would be ideal as a way to deliver the much touted upgrades. 

As the release date approaches, and as Valve remains unclear about the reasons for the need to shell out the old plastic again for Left4Dead, the controversy will be guaranteed to continue.  And most likely it won't contibute to  Valve's own digital download system Steam's already diminished popularity among a big part of their customer base, specially the one based in European countries.  And the questioning will continue.  Will all the so-called brand new features, which required a complete new sequel, make it to the final release?  If that's not the case, will they be implemented in future updates, like it was in the case of the old game?  This controversy also extends beyond this particular game, and into Valve's very own future business model.  Will this sequel signal a change in Valve's direction, hinting to a more frequent churning out of sequels to their products, before fullfilling all the updates and bug fixes to their existing products before the new ones are on virtual shelves everywhere? Only time will tell.

left dead valve steam digital download online update patches game content controversy l4d l4d2
127,459 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from Demigod Forums Top

I don't think Valve would've gotten such a big outcry if they called it an expansion pack than a sequel. Sequels generally bring updated and improved engines with new functionality and features, not more game content on the same engine.

Take a look at Crysis and Crysis Warhead, for example. Crysis was the first, full-priced game. Warhead made no improvements to the engine, it just added new guns/vehicles and new campaign content (and redesigned Multiplayer). It was not sold as a full priced game, but a standalone expansion and that was reflected in the price.

What Valve is doing, though, is essentially the same thing, only they're charging full price for it even though it's not a new game. It's the same game, with different campaigns. There are not enough brand new features and engine updates to qualify it for a full-priced "sequel" title.

Reply #27 from Demigod Forums Top

It's because of Microsoft and the Xbox. They have stupid restrictions over DLC and patch sizes, so it's easier for them to just make a new game.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

If you don't like it, don't buy it.  It's not like L4D2 is so unique that it's a must have game.  There really aren't that many of those.  Ultimately, Valve will listen to money, they're a PC gamemaker, and they're not Sega.

 

Elemental is the only one that I consider "must-have" right now on my list.

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting uberShade, reply 2
It's because of Microsoft and the Xbox. They have stupid restrictions over DLC and patch sizes, so it's easier for them to just make a new game.

And thats part of the reason why I do not buy or ever will buy consoles.

Reply #30 from Demigod Forums Top

What Valve is doing, though, is essentially the same thing, only they're charging full price for it even though it's not a new game. It's the same game, with different campaigns. There are not enough brand new features and engine updates to qualify it for a full-priced "sequel" title.

Like Doom 2, or Homeworld Cataclysm, or Homeworld 2, or a Halo sequel, or Call of Duty World at War or Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2?

Anyway, you get the point.  Have they actually announced the full feature list and price yet?

Reply #31 from Demigod Forums Top

Homeworld Cataclysm

Was a standalone expansion.

Homeworld 2

Was a new/updated engine.

Call of Duty World at War or Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2?

Didn't say Valve was the only one :) In another thread I made the same comment about the CoD series. After Modern Warfare, it's all the same gameplay, just the models and guns are different.

Reply #32 from Demigod Forums Top

I don't think Valve would've gotten such a big outcry if they called it an expansion pack than a sequel. Sequels generally bring updated and improved engines with new functionality and features, not more game content on the same engine.
This.  My main problem with the 'sequel' is that all of the game mechanics were completed a whopping six months after release of the first one?  Probably even sooner?  The fact that they have a complete, working campaign already shows that at this point they're just using the SDK to build a few more levels and call it good, there was very little actual innovation there.

Don't get me wrong, I'll still buy it, but when I do buy it I won't expect any more levels, content, or attention from valve.  The support for L4D1 has been absolute garbage.  I think most people assumed that at least another campaign would be delivered, but what's worse than that is that they released the SDK (beta) without any way to actually distribute any maps you make.  I've seen the previews of campaigns that people have made and they're decent, but no one will ever play them.

The idea of including L4D1 with L4D2 is absurd and it highlights the issue with the early sequel, which is that there's zero hope for new content once it launches, so to make it a fuller game they need to include the first one.  There's four campaigns in L4D and while they're fun but they're all getting pretty old by now.  L4D2 only has five, and obviously that's all you're going to get from Valve and I still haven't heard of any changes to allow players to actually share the ones they make.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Kitkun, reply 25

1) Valve will not deliver additional content for the originalThere's no indication they will do so. They haven't done so yet, and they're already releasing a sequel. Also, the player base will quickly drop as soon as the sequel hits. At best, I'd hope they'd backport a feature or two from the sequel.

2) modders will not mod for the originalI'd have to agree with Vinraith here. If the sequel is supposed to have all the same stuff and more, why not mod for it? You'll get a little content for the original, but you're not going to get nearly as much as you would have. In my experience, modders tend to gravitate towards newer games (within the genre) when starting a mod from scratch. They get more to work with.

3) the content for the sequel is equivalent to a patch not a sequel.If it's as content-light as the original, then it could have been a large expansion.
 

 

These arguments all boil down to the same assumptions present in Vinraith's argument. At this point in time, I don't believe that there is sufficient information available regarding 1) Valve's commitment to the original, 2) modders' interest in the original, or 3) the actual scope and nature of the content of the sequel on which to base such assumptions.

The bottom line here, to me, is this. In my opinion, a segment of the gaming community, represented by users like Vinraith and Kitkun, are jumping the gun and making certain assumptions about the nature of the future support that Valve will provide to the original product and the nature of the content/scope of the new product. For all of the talk out there about this on the internet, I doubt many people have a lot of solid facts on these matters. Maybe time will prove me wrong in being open-minded about the situation and prove the users like Vinraith and Kitkun absolutely correct and justified in feeling as though they were ripped off (or at least given less than stellar post-purchase support) by Valve. But I think it's too early to say right now.

In the overall scheme of things, I don't know that it's reasonable to infer a larger trend in gaming from this, except to say that companies will generally make sequels to games that sell well. That's not really news. On the other hand, I think the Ghostbusters lack of PC multiplayer does point to a trend that will undoubtedly continue, which is that developers and publishers will continue to emphasize creating the best possible experience on the platform(s) that generate the most cash.

 

 

Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

L4D was fun, but most definately a 50 dollar mod imo. I would have never payed more than $10 for it, I ended up getting it for free via a gift on Steam. I enjoyed it, but again, even after playing it for hours, wouldn't have payed more than bargain bin prices for it. Maybe L4D2 will tempt me more.

 

The market is buyer beware, but if Stardock released GalCivIII, promising to update it as they do all of their games, and then didn't, and produced GalCivIV with all of the promised updates, everyone here would be pissed. It's reasonable to assume that L4D1 will not be updated anywhere near it's promised stature, but I'd be surprised if Valve didn't offer some kind of discount or somesuch for original owners, seeing how they aren't one of the evil companies yet.

 

 

Reply #35 from Demigod Forums Top

These arguments all boil down to the same assumptions present in Vinraith's argument. At this point in time, I don't believe that there is sufficient information available regarding

1) Valve's commitment to the original,
There is not going to be any new content for the original. By content I really just mean levels.  They said they're committed to bringing team matchmaking and I'm sure they'll follow through, but I don't think most players realized that four campaigns would be all they'd get, but it's now clear that's the case.  What's worse is that so many obvious level glitches still exist and are unlikely to ever be fixed.

By level glitches I mean insta-kill spots (mostly on Dead Air) where smoked players will float through the air instead of grabbing an edge correctly, areas that are just clearly unfinished like Death Toll's fourth level panic event at the end of the street where there's no way for special infected to approach the players, and the way some levels shut down completely if you run from a panic event.  Have you ever just bolted on Dead Air's panic event where you ram the van through the gate?  Literally zero common infected spawn for the entirety of the rest of the level. 

None of those things are going to be fixed, period, because they're level design issues and you can guess where the level designers' effort is focused.

2) modders' interest in the original, or 3) the actual scope and nature of the content of the sequel on which to base such assumptions.
It doesn't even matter to 90% of the playerbase where modders' attention is focused.  Seriously, who cares?  Unlike say Warcraft 3 where players could hunt down and also share specially modified maps, the average L4D player's interaction with the modding community isloading into a game of hunter tag every tenth time they play quick match, or joining a lobby and then loading into a Low G server or a server where boomers run at 300% speed and can vomit on the run (true story) and then promptly quitting and finding a non-retarded server.

There's been no indication that they're going to improve the delivery of player created content.

Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I don't think Valve would've gotten such a big outcry if they called it an expansion pack than a sequel.

 

Exactly. An expansion implies just that: expanding on the original game. A sequel, when it offers similar but improved content, reads as a replacement and therein lies the problem.

Reply #37 from Elemental Forums Top

One other factor- I think L4D was primarily designed as a console such- due to the fact it's easier to rip off console owners.

 

I own a console, but only becvause some games I really enjoy don't come to the PC.   (fighting games)  If they did, I wouldn't own one, and for years I didn't due to arcade emulation.

 

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, I figured I'd pretty much said my piece on this subject, but I ran across this article this morning that should be of more than passing interest to some of the respondents here:

link

 

Reply #39 from Stardock Forums Top

That above only says that they will add the functionality of installing additional content to L4D.  Will Valve actually make that content? Or are they hoping the community modders will do it for them.  That article doesnt mean much since people were expecting Valve to support the old game by means of releasing professional quality levels, versus camapaigns, additional weapons, enemies etc.  Not a bunch of tools for doing such.

Reply #40 from Elemental Forums Top

Im getting it but why doesn't value get Episode 3 out the door... I WANT IT NOW! AHHH! XO

Reply #41 from Demigod Forums Top

Episode 3 would be nice. Need some revenge for the end of episode 2. :(