No, can't say I have played it and doubt that you have either since it's not released yet. The difference is that I never will play it and you probably will. Listen, I noticed the fine nuances which is why I acknowledged the effort and talent that obviously went into it; but at the end of the day you're still just blasting zombies with a shotgun. Not matter how refined and sophisticated the execution, it's a stale old overworked idea.

Just the opinion of a veteran gamer who long ago has blown away a zillion zombies in 4 or 5 different generations of mindless games. I would have not mentioned it because I really don't give a rat's patootie how you get your yah yahs but Sqrl said "Bah, nobody has anything to say about this? Don't be bums, comment people!" So I did.

The quote from Miyamoto:

"A late game is only late until it ships. A bad game is bad until the end of time." -Miyamoto-San

the game looks great.

I understand your frustration, but that simply isn't what this game is about. Frankly, I'm not sure Valve has ever tried to be cutting edge or innovative with their graphical fidelity. It isn't their calling card. 

Look at portal as another example, an extremely heralded game and my personal GotY last year. The graphics were servicable, but nothing special; most likely downgradable to the Wii, even, and not an especially vibrant or unique aesthetic. 

But that wasn't that game's calling card. The game was amazing because of the game mechanic, teleportals. The game was visually unoriginal, but very innovative and polished with gameplay. And the same thing applies here: the idea of a game that's really co-operative. Not four guys who just happen to be on the same team, but four people who must work together, who have to stay together or they will die, is what makes this game appealing to me. 

I don't care about zombies, at all. In fact, I don't like them either. But that's not supposed to be the pull of this game; I think everyone here will agree, even the most ardent fans, that blowing up zombies isn't original, nor are the visuals in the game spectacular (servicable, but not spectacular). What makes this game is the gameplay. 

So excitement for this game entirely depends on your personal preference. If you're more concerened with great graphics and story, then this game won't be you. If you're more focused on polished, creative gameplay, then it will be.  

That's fine if you think the genre is stale, but I disagree. Sure there's been plenty of zombie games, but there really has not been enough first person horror games. That alone puts Left 4 Dead up a few notches for me, since you can list the number of FPS zombie games on one hand.

But again, it's not even about the zombies.  The zombies are the genre, the actual game is what's new and fresh.  Of course you're still shooting a zombie with a shotgun, I don't want that to change and the fans of this don't either.  We want a co-op shooter.  If you don't like that then this really isn't the place for you. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_featuring_zombies

I was curious.

Other than light-gun shooters, there are only a couple FPS zombie games in existence...I wouldn't say Left 4 Dead is tired, unlike WW2 or modern warfare games.

The point I made wasn't the typical "stfu you haven't played it n00b". It was that everyone who plays the game goes into it saying "yeah yeah zombies, we get it, we see what you're doing with the co-op and we understand". Then when they are done they are saying "wow...i really didn't get it...thats incredible". If it was one or two people thats one thing, but its several major sites that have had their hands on the game and come away with a whole new perspective on what it is and what its about.

If you think you "get it" when nobody else did then kudos to you for being such a smart guy. But personally I'm perfectly willing to except the possibility that the game might not be all its cracked up to be since I haven't played it and thus lack the first hand experience. Why do you seem insistant that you are correct without having played it? It seems you would dismiss it on the basis of its similarities to other stuff and ignore what is different.

Even a game like portal which was terribly original can be dismissed on this basis. I mean at the end of the day its just a puzzle game played from an FPS perspective...whats so new about that? You can't point out the portal innovation since the AI Director wasn't good enough to be original. Honestly that line of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that new born babies are unoriginal since they are made from the same stuff everyone else is...and can even go so far as to make a case that originality isn't original.

Show me anything you think is original and I will show you how it is a derivation of something else.  From video games, cars, planes, movies, stars, planets, galaxies, and pretty much everything with the possible exception of "existance" as a whole. 

Oh Yawn. Remember I only gave my opinion because you asked for it. I'm not an idiot. I can certainly appreciate the need for a good cooperative game. And I agree that there haven’t been enough of them.

That said however, I personally think they wasted that by putting it in a game with waves of zombies attacking at such a frenetic pace that it mostly about reflexes; twitch and try not to blow away your buddy. I personally would prefer to have that level of sophisticated co-op in a genre more like Brothers in Arms Road to Hill 30 where there was actually time to practice some strategy and better squad tactics. What I saw on the videos was more like a FPS “Four Person Shooter”. At the pace of the game I wouldn’t expect nor did I see any real joint tactics. Shooters are fine but they are far better when they also engage the brain.

Just my opinion, unlike a lot of people on this site, I don’t judge people for liking something else. Fine by me. The thought that my taste were like everyone else would disappoint me. I just don’t find the fact that someone likes something different a person attack on my values and way of life. You would have to admit, some peoples reaction to others not sharing their taste in games, is ridiculous melodramatic and childish.

I did ask for people's opinion on the videos, but I didn't ask for their conclusions about the game...that would be silly since very few people have played it. But you did in fact offer your conclusion which was, to refresh everyone's memory, that the game was "disappointing considering the talent and effort that went into it". Thats quite a lot to glean from a couple videos and no play time.

You are of course entitled to your opinion of both the game and the video...once you've played and watched them respectively. I never said you weren't, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped acting like I did. But you were quite clearly talking about the game unless you believe there was a lot of effort and talent put into the video (not likely). This is what Ben, Bod, and myself responded to.

You seem to think we were attempting to silence your opinion but if you check back in the thread the first responce from all three of us was telling you what we saw in the game that we thought you missed. This is called a discussion, giving your opinion is a two-way street afterall. If you were expecting to give your opinion and then have nobody respond to, ask questions, or disagree with it then I have to say you were sorely missinformed about what it is that happens on these forums.

This is a place to discuss these games, and I think its a bit naive not to expect people to respond to you when you post fairly negative comments about a game in a thread about videos meant to hype the game. If you didn't want anyone to question or discuss your views why did you post? The bottom line is that the very point of these forums is to have a discussion, this topic specifically is a discussion on what people think about what we've seen so far from this game. Your opinion is valid, but don't assume it will or should go unchallenged.

Honestly I thought the folks who responded to you were quite helpful, informative, and simply trying to point out why/how they thought you had missed what was good about the game. You clearly want none of it though so I'm content to let you miss out on what will probably be remembered imo as one of the best games of 2008, which from appearances is saying quite a lot.

Put simply there is an easy rule of thumb on forums. If you want to discuss a topic, then post. If you don't want to discuss a topic, then don't post, or at least don't respond to those who disagreed with you. I cannot fathom why you would get yourself in a huff about having to participate in the discussion...you're the one who joined it.

I agree with everybody in this thread. I think a game based solely around co-op would be amazing, and I think that if anybody can pull it off at all, it's Valve.

I think zombies rule. I read that whole list of zombie games Ben posted, and some games I've enjoyed have had a few zombies in them, like Doom, Half-Life, and Metal Slug, but the only "Zombie game" I've loved dearly was Zombies Ate My Neighbors. The rest of the list was crap or maybe okay, but I haven't played it and never will.

I think the genre's getting pushed a lot these days due to the recent resurgence of zombie movies from 28 Days Later to Planet Terror, but all the games suck, so I can understand why the setting alone can leave a bad taste in somebody's mouth.

Now personally, I really hope that some day somebody can do a zombie game justice, and do it right. Maybe this is that game. Maybe it isn't. I hope it is. I also hope I have a fast internet connection by the time it comes out, because I can't even play my Team Fortress 2.