Valve responds to the L4D 2 criticism

[Blink]

It's been quite a controversial time with the annoucement of L4D 2. Some people love the idea and some people feel a bit cheated by it. CVG have posted an article with some comments from Valve over the whole thing:

Apparently the developer was expecting backlash from the sequel before it was even announced, deciding to text prominent map makers minutes after its reveal to let them know that their work would not be affected negatively by the sequel.

But according to Faliszek, Left 4 Dead 2's five new campaigns, new weapons, special infected and zombie dismemberment are simply too huge to put in an update.

It's worth reading the full article and seeing if your opinion changes at all.

[Australian Bushman]

Excellent, good to see a response.

"a bit cheated by it" is a bit of an understatement as many in the community are over-reacting pretty badly to it. Just look at the amount of effort gone into the boycott group, intense discussions on forums and Youtube videos.

"Give us a fair shake on this, read more about it, find out about it"

Where? They're not exactly making it easy for us to find and read more about it. They're blog hasn't been updated since the initial announcement, and the only reason why I knew this response from Valve existed is because of this site, which isn't even a L4D-specific website (unlike the L4D blog).

It's much easier for people to go by "word of mouth" and assume whatever they see fit than to search the web for relevant information.

If Valve were to simply make all of this info clear and found in the most obvious place (the L4D blog or linked via a Steam announcement) then there wouldn't have been such a hugely negative reaction in the first place, as they would have been informing the community better and not leaving it up to the community to assume their own info. Seeing as they anticipated some negative reaction but didn't quite do enough to help "deflate" it, they've kind of allowed themselves to be in this kind of difficult position, which is rather silly.

Anyway, hopefully they'll make more effort to inform the community better in the future.

[KILLA-COW]

why didn't they mention the photoshopped screenshots?

[Jman]

I'll never understand how people can actually be annoyed with Valve over this, I see their motive and I'm fine with it.

[Blade Nd64]

In my opinion, the main issue was the lack of knowledge. Left 4 Dead 2 was announced with some footage and screeshots. Most people jumped to conclusions, a common one being that Valve was going to ignore L4D and pump out and endless number of sequels to harvest cash. Why they did, I don't know. We know Valve is a gaming company that has an extremely good track record.

[oneups]

why didn't they mention the photoshopped screenshots?

I know rite? The game probably doesn't really exists. Just another joke.

Or

Robin really did fire everyone which is why all this weird stuff is happening.

[Blink]

For such a big game company they are awful at PR. They admit they knew this was going to happen so why the hell didn't they just make a news announcement at the same time, that addresses everyone's fears.

It would take what, 15 minutes to craft a decent news post? And then all this shit would have been avoided. They almost deserve this backlash for being so secretive.

[Kodox]

It will be interesting to see if all the complaints makes a difference. It would be nice if L4D owners could unlock the sequel for free if they have their CD key for the original, but that would be like admitting that the sequel is not actually a full blown game.

[stoopdapoop]

well, I hope they're right.

It's kinda strange that some parts of that article are the exact same as this one

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009 ... to-ars.ars

but some parts are different.

[Frips]

I am on both sides here.

In valve's defense:
If valve wasn't known for releasing so much free DLC "updates" to their products, this would be nothing more than a standalone sequel announcement slated to release one year after the highly successful original was released. Yes, its a little close to the first one, but considering what is included, it makes sense.

On the other side, this is awfully close to the release (finally) of the SDK/survivor pack, and considering their history of releasing tons of free DLC (tf2), you can easily be offended at having to pay a full price for a sequel.

Personally, I have no problem with them selling it as a sequel, considering what is involved, but I do think it should be like an "HL episode" which would be around $20.

[cashed]

IMO it should be called an expansion pack charged for the modding/content of the new campaign and leave it at that. Was there a lot of coding involved? probably some but the basic game is done and there really isn't a vast improvement at all on what seems to be the same gameplay.

But honestly L4D was released in beta and incomplete. It took to the Survival pack to finish the game to what I thought $50 was worth. Which is why i was disappointed when it was called a "DLC"

[source-maps]

IMO it should be called an expansion pack charged for the modding/content of the new campaign and leave it at that. Was there a lot of coding involved? probably some but the basic game is done and there really isn't a vast improvement at all on what seems to be the same gameplay.

But honestly L4D was released in beta and incomplete. It took to the Survival pack to finish the game to what I thought $50 was worth. Which is why i was disappointed when it was called a "DLC"

well we can all argue about this for ever.
I personally think I bought a good game for a good price wich provided me with lots of game play and hours of fun with my friends. I really think it depends on how much you like l4d1 if you are going to buy l4d2...

[The Wanderer]

IMO it should be called an expansion pack charged for the modding/content of the new campaign and leave it at that. Was there a lot of coding involved? probably some but the basic game is done and there really isn't a vast improvement at all on what seems to be the same gameplay.

But honestly L4D was released in beta and incomplete. It took to the Survival pack to finish the game to what I thought $50 was worth. Which is why i was disappointed when it was called a "DLC"

Wow, it was released in beta? Weird because i received a working, bug free game...
Lack of content is something your mind makes up. I want quality not quantity. I'd rather have one great map i can replay endless times than 50 dev textured shitty maps. Which is exactly what L4D offered at launch, quality.

I hate when people assume things without knowing more details, and yes this is directed to you cashed. Do you know the new features of the upgraded director? no. Do you know what the new gamemode is? no... Well then how the hell can you know there wasn't a lot of coding work involved in it? Answer is: you dont. Seriously stop assuming things, and wait for more info to be released.
This is like people walking out of the theatre five minutes after the movie started because the intro was crap, so the movie is as well.

And why should they change so much from the original anyhow? Everyone loved the original, change will only make fanboys pissed. improving is an entirely different matter however

[YokaI]

IMO it should be called an expansion pack charged for the modding/content of the new campaign and leave it at that. Was there a lot of coding involved? probably some but the basic game is done and there really isn't a vast improvement at all on what seems to be the same gameplay.

But honestly L4D was released in beta and incomplete. It took to the Survival pack to finish the game to what I thought $50 was worth. Which is why i was disappointed when it was called a "DLC"

Wow, it was released in beta? Weird because i received a working, bug free game...
Lack of content is something your mind makes up. I want quality not quantity.

If you want quality and not quantity, wouldn't you be in favor of 1 GOOD game, and not 2 incomplete ones?

No offense, but I wouldn't say L4D's original content is really as replayable as you are stating it to be. I played the game once on a friend's account and found no need to play it any more than I did after playing all of the campaigns. You seem to be making the assumption that we don't want to buy L4D2 because we think theres NO new material, which isn't right. The reason why I don't think L4D2 is a good idea is because I know that it won't be enough of an update to be a stand alone game.

L4D2 is literally if they made Opposing Force and called it "Half Life 2." There's no justification to making this a stand alone game, and would sell better and be better as a DLC. I would rather valve charge for downloadable content than see them release mediocre sequels with some slight updates to the last games AI.

They can make the game if they want, but I wont buy it and I hope others follow. Not because I think valve is a bad company, it is only because they have failed to really make me interested in L4D with mindless, spur of the moment sequels.

[dissonance]

For such a big game company they are awful at PR.

QFT.
I'm glad, though, that they took all the energy they could have used for PR and shunted it into quality games.