09 Jun 10
Originally posted by hopscotchBecause, thanks to not having 3rd world internet issues, I can enjoy the multiplayer aspect of the game as it was intended. It is this that makes the game work and the single player is merely the demo side of things. The 4 new infected, if you include the wandering witch, are not at all half baked, but surprisingly well conveived to fit in to a tactical mix I thought would be wrongly unbalanced before I played the game. In fact they make the combinations of potential attack and the tactics for defence all the more enjoyable and complex. The game never gets repetitive if you play with friends and against other humans because every single game is different and challenging.
The same game + a mediocre total of 3 new half baked special infected + some new maps. Oh, and swords. yaaay... I would totally spend money on that.
Why spend 150 hours on a game that gets repetitive after less than 2 hours anyway? Seems like your teh big fanboy.
Do you in fact own the second game?
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by StarrmanDo I in fact own the second game? Considering that I just wrote that I wouldn't spend money on it, you're still asking me that question?
Because, thanks to not having 3rd world internet issues, I can enjoy the multiplayer aspect of the game as it was intended. It is this that makes the game work and the single player is merely the demo side of things. The 4 new infected, if you include the wandering witch, are not at all half baked, but surprisingly well conveived to fit in to a tactical m ...[text shortened]... s because every single game is different and challenging.
Do you in fact own the second game?
Anyway, you just proved my point with your fanboy rant. As you say, they added a few little things which changed the tactical mix and it made you happy. Now why did they have to go and put a full retail price on that, instead of just adding those few things to the original left 4 dead and improved the "tactical mix" on that game for free and thrown in the campaigns and characters too? They could have even charged maybe a quarter of the price of a retail game and that would have been fine too for this expansion pack. http://tinyurl.com/3ypob3y
Compare it to Red Faction: Guerrilla, for example. The DLC includes a map that's bigger than the biggest map on the original, a new story and dialogue, many new weapons, vehicles, quests, and challenges. And it's 100% free with the PC version of the game. And it's fun.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by hopscotchI haven't ranted at all, I'm just disagreeing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. I love the game, I don't have to be a Valve fanboy to hold that opinon.
Do I in fact own the second game? Considering that I just wrote that I wouldn't spend money on it, you're still asking me that question?
Anyway, you just proved my point with your fanboy rant. As you say, they added a few little things which changed the tactical mix and it made you happy. Now why did they have to go and put a full retail price on that, ...[text shortened]... quests, and challenges. And it's 100% free with the PC version of the game. And it's fun.
All 5 maps in the new game are significantly different from the 5 in the original, they include two of possibly my favourite maps of any game (Dark Carnival and Hard Rain) which, for me, rank up there with Shalebridge Cradle. In addition to the same number of maps as the original, they include new finales and panic events which are a whole different experience to those of the first, which are the same on every map. New guns and melee weapons, which, whilst you might think are immaterial, significantly change the gameplay. There are two new game modes; scavenge and mutation, which in themselves would have been enough for a DLC pack if brought out for the first game. On top of all of this, the graphics are improved, the level design is better thought out. With 3 new special infected, roaming witches and 5 new uncommon infected the gameplay is better (when I now play L4D1 I find it a little boring and feel like something is missing). The AI Director is smarter and they've added support for modding.
To suggest that this game could be a DLC for the first is ludicrous, if anything it would be closer to suggest that the first one is a prelude to a better, bigger game. When you make it to England, I'll buy you a copy and you can test it for yourself, when you've played it through, I'll listen to your then founded opinions on it.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by PalynkaHmm, that sounds about right, though I'd be tempted to include either Morrowind or Oblivion. I recently borrowed a copy of 'X2 The Threat' which apparently is a modern version of Elite but haven't got round to installing it yet - anybody tried it?
Nice pick.
Ultima VII would be my pick, followed by Elite and Half-Life.
14 Jun 10
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundZero Punctuation on those games (WARNING "BAD" WORDS)
Borderlands was the first game in ages i felt compelled to finish, but Bioshock has to take it, for story and gameplay.
I'm waiting for fallout new vagas at the moment, so we'll see if it's as good as it looks.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1448-Borderlands
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/4-BioShock