| nightsurge said: Hmmmm... they can either keep patching a game with minimal changes every few months, or make a new game each year that compiles lots of changes and enhancements. I guess I don't see where the problem is as either approach works for me. I do agree that just 1 year later does seem a bit early, but what if L4D 1 was just a trial for them in hopes of releasing a much better, more advanced, longer, et all game based on the feedback? If that be the case I'm glad I could help. And seriously, how often do mass amounts of people play games online a year after they release? The only ones I can think of are scarce, especially on consoles. Also, CoD has yearly releases that only minimally change the games, and do we boycott them? |
COD is a bad example because there are two developers making the games. One developer which is lazy and one that is productive. This is why COD WAW sucks compared to COD4 and MW2.
Sports games can't be included in the argument either because the developers have to adjust rosters, add new player models, do minimal graphical updates, and some other things.This is what is expected of them.
This is a Valve game. Valve games are meant to take a while and be supported for a long time. Each game is expected to receive a good an all around boost in all categories from gameplay to graphics. What is the difference between L4D and L4D2? truly not very much. Only 5 new campaigns? come now for $50 I expect it to have 10 at least. 20 weapons? err.. ok? new enemies? a half breed between an infected and tank isnt a good new enemy. I want something that actually takes time. Maybe give us real boss enemies like in RE.
The amount of content is a complete joke. If we received half of this as add-ons for L4D it would be a great thing but making a new game out of what was announced is quite unimpressive.
L4D2 should have easily been equal to Crysis on medium graphically if they actually spent time to work on the game properly.
