By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - IGN 9.0 for Left4Dead unfair, would be 6.5

blazinhead89 on 20 November 2008

You know i don't think it's right people saying saying" L4Dead Isn't about Campaign, it's about Multiplayer. " These are some of same people flaming Resistance 2 for it's lacking campaign. IGN Gave R2 a better score (9.5). Does that make L4Dead Less of a AAA Game than R2?



Around the Network
vlad321 on 20 November 2008
blazinhead89 said:
You know i don't think it's right people saying saying" L4Dead Isn't about Campaign, it's about Multiplayer. " These are some of same people flaming Resistance 2 for it's lacking campaign. IGN Gave R2 a better score (9.5). Does that make L4Dead Less of a AAA Game than R2?

 

The mutliplayer IS the campaign....

 

@masschamber

Maybe if you played the game on something above easy you'd realize 5 boss monsters are more than adequate to keep up the action and interest in this game. Especially in Versus mode. I'm not one to get blinded by hype, and I still think this game is probably one of the best shooters made recently. My friends and I have been having a blast playing through this game, something we haven't enjoyed in a long long time. I already gave you a scale of how games shuld be rated had L4D been a 6.5.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

twesterm on 20 November 2008
BenKenobi88 said:
epicurean said:
I was going to pick it up till I saw the campaign was about 2 hours long. I know it has a lot of value for multiplayer, but still...games get completely crucified for being only 6 hours long, and this is a third of that. It does seem a bit confusing to me, but whatever. Let those who enjoy it, enjoy it.

One campaign took my friends and I two hours.  We finally played the last campaign last night...all in all completing the 4 campaigns took about 7 hours.

And I've already got like 10 hours in Versus mode.  The game is by no means 2 hours long...and don't forget each campaign is very replayable...it really is different every time you play.

Also, here is Gabe hitting the launch button:

 

Man, it takes us about 3 or more hours to get through No Mercy and we still fail.  We must just be doing something completely wrong.  >_>



 

Sqrl on 20 November 2008
masschamber said:
Sqrl said:

Wow, defensive much? I made a statement that people who dislike the game fall into a few categories and you inferred things I never sayed or even implied from it. For instance I never said you were unjustified in forming a conclusion or that Valve or the demo were perfect incarnations of the game, or really anything of the sort. Just that those who didn't like the game had a common thread where they hadn't experienced the full game yet. Perhaps you should have waited to see if I felt Valve made a mistake in the structuring of their demo before assuming I would blindly defend it?

As for your personal anecdote, it provides further basis for my assertion.

Frankly it seems there are a lot of people who are angered that others don't have the same tastes as they do. So rather than moving on and playing something else they have to come back to a forum and trash the game. Honestly though that's fine, but you should justify your reasons for not liking the game by explaining which portions you disliked and why. Of course there is a fair chance that you might assume something erroneously since you've never finished a campaign.

And I must admit I find it odd that you would say "you have to beat the game to dislike it?!?" (paraphrasing). You say this as if completing a single campaign would be considered beating the game. In reality though, your first run through any given campaign is an hour or two of gameplay (if you play on a difficulty level that suits you). I would think that by any reasonable standard you should give a game 1 to 2 hours before rendering a verdict. And even then with how replayable each campaign is it makes the assertion of "you have to beat the game" all the more ridiculous. And frankly I'm not sure what purpose you have in using such deceptively embellished statement to begin with, I thought your angle was to paint me as the person being unreasonable but you betray that when you rely on such a tenuous statement..

In any case I never said people had to like it, I made an observation about those who do not like it. If you don't like the fact that you embody that observation then don't get angry with me. Go back and play the game on those higher difficulties and actually try one of the finales (hint: you can skip to it if you have the full game). Of course, this will only make a difference if you keep an open mind, and honestly the finale's are epic because of the struggle in getting to them and the way they accent the experience as a huge crescendo.

Of course you seem to have missinterpreted my motive and heading in my first post. The motive behind my statement was simple, I was very "blah" about the demo until I upped it to expert and the game got extremely fun for me. My heading has been to help others correct this mistake as well. In jumping to a conclusion about a simple statement you've made a number of assumptions about what kind of person I am and frankly you've made the assumption that I'm some sort of blind defender without logic or reason and I find that rather insulting. So if you'd like to know my logic and reasoning then you may simply ask me, but do not ever presume to know my position on a matter until I've given it.

 

I explained why I didn't like it in my first post, the 5 special enemies don't seem to be enough to keep the game interesting, and I found fighting the horde terribly dull,

They "don't seem to be", sounds like you're not really sure of yourself =P  Was this the entire reason or did you have something else you weren't fond of?  It just seems odd to me that you would let something like this prevent you from completing a single movie.  It would be like quitting MGS4, Halo 3, or SMG before even completing the first level, you could do it, but it hardly qualifies as giving it a fair chance.

You could be called defensive as well as you continue to return to forums to defend the game and you responded with a rather long tirade about how your opinion is impirial evidence of its greatness and how anyone disagreeing with you just further proves your point,

You do realize I'm a moderator on these forums right?  "Returning" to the forums is something I do just about every day =P  And I'm not denying that my post was defensive, you attacked me because you didn't grasp what I said, so my reply had to be a defense of that.  The difference is that I was defending myself where you are defending your hatred of a game...

The rest of this blurb shows me that you aren't even trying to comprehend what I've written.  At no point did I declare my opinion empirical evidence or try to assert my greatness or that anyone disagreeing with me proves my point. I suggest you re-read the thread and grasp what has been said before you respond again, because at this point I highly suspect you're just trolling. 

It was your admission that you fell into those categories I listed that further proves my point. I don't appreciate people twisting my words to make their case as you've done here, if you can't make your case on the merits then don't bother replying.

the biggest thing is you said that the just playing the demo wasn't enough to guage wanting the game you then proceed to go further down with the absurd defensive of Left 4 dead, now beating the game isn't good enough? it has to be played until it is enjoyed?

seriously Left4dead seems to have reached the same unreasonable level of defensiveness of games like littlebigplanet were anyone with a differing opinion is wrong and only proved further proof of how great it is

Seriously, you need to re-read what was said, I'm not going to give a substantive reply to a comment that is devoid of any relevant substance.  Making up things you would have liked me to say and twisting my words is not a valid way to debate. 

 

 

 

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
twesterm on 20 November 2008
masschamber said:
Sqrl said:

People who hate this game fall into at least one of five categories without fail, and typically they fall into more than one:

1) Never played it.
2) Only played the demo.
3) Never played above normal difficulty.
4) Terrible at shooters and got frustrated, thus its the game's fault (not them of course).
5) Was never ever to reach and/or beat a finale.

 

The folks I've met who don't fall into any of these categories, but still don't personally like the game, are at least able to recognize why others do like it and are also able to see why it is regarded so highly...even if its not their style of game.

 

Why release a demo if it isn't a gauge of the whole game, isn't that the point of a demo?  I played it on normal and hard and didn't like either both alone and co-op

  Should I have bought Too Human anyway even though I didn't like the demo? or what about army of 2, or lost planet, or any other game I've played a demo of, didn't like much or at all then paid full price anyway saying

So people can't dislike a game until they've beaten it, on the hardest difficulty, and they had to pay full price?

  Frankly it seems there are more people that can't accept that some people just don't like Left4dead or think it is worth full price than people that think others aren't allowed to like it , when it is 20 dollars or so I might pick it up but the demo made the game out to me not to be worth the full price

Actually, demos rarely deliver what the game is.  I hate demos because more often than not they make me not want a game than want to buy the game.

 



 

Around the Network
Mise on 20 November 2008
BenKenobi88 said:

He's right though...you haven't experienced the game until you've played through an entire campaign...especially the finale.

Blame Valve on not giving enough levels in the demo if you want...but the full game is definitely better, and harder.

He has a point, though. If you "need" to complete a campaign run to "fully" experience L4D, why doesn't the demo include a full campaign? More importantly, why release a crippled, half-assed demo that gives an inferior image of your product in the first place?

The vast majority of ye old shareware games always included at least one full episode/campaign/whatever, so the player would get enough gameplay to decide whether you wished to buy the full version or not without giving too much away for free. Demos are meant to be playable commercials of the game itself, and if they are lacking for whatever reason, they drive customers away and the company is only shooting itself in the foot. And if the closest legal thing to the full game leaves a bad taste in a players mouth, it's completely justified and reasonable to give the game a pass unless convinced otherwise.



Warning: The preceding message may or may not have included sarcasm, cynicism, irony, full stops, commas, slashes, words, letters, sentences, lines, quotes,  flaeed  gramar, cryptic metaphors or other means of annoying communication. Viewer discretion is/was strongly advised.

Sqrl on 20 November 2008
Mise said:
BenKenobi88 said:

He's right though...you haven't experienced the game until you've played through an entire campaign...especially the finale.

Blame Valve on not giving enough levels in the demo if you want...but the full game is definitely better, and harder.

He has a point, though. If you "need" to complete a campaign run to "fully" experience L4D, why doesn't the demo include a full campaign? More importantly, why release a crippled, half-assed demo that gives an inferior image of your product in the first place?

The vast majority of ye old shareware games always included at least one full episode/campaign/whatever, so the player would get enough gameplay to decide whether you wished to buy the full version or not without giving too much away for free. Demos are meant to be playable commercials of the game itself, and if they are lacking for whatever reason, they drive customers away and the company is only shooting itself in the foot. And if the closest legal thing to the full game leaves a bad taste in a players mouth, it's completely justified and reasonable to give the game a pass unless convinced otherwise.

I actually pointed out that I didn't disagree with that in my initial reply to him.  The demo could have been put together significantly better.  I'm not saying it was perfect at all.

I also don't think you absolutely must finish a campaign to get the full idea, but some folks take a bit longer to catch on to the game's main principles than others.  The teamwork and cooperation required sections are when the game shines and folks who aren't as quick to pick up on how to engage these features rather than fighting them are going to be confused and frustrated as they quickly get bored of it.  The dev commentary actually talks about this quite a bit and they made quite a few changes to help these folks figure things out, clearly they didn't get it exactly right and the majority of blame should fall to them for that, I've never said otherwise (although it has been assumed that I did).

This goes back to my point that the folks who give the game a chance and finish at least one level come to understand it even if they don't think it's their style of game.  This type of reaction is somewhat expected when a new/revolutionary approach is used in a genre. This is the first FPS game where you are truly at the mercy of your teamates and their skill for your long-term survival.  Not everybody is going to pick up on the nuiance and strategy involved and it will seem boring to those folks. 

The thing I simply don't get is why if they find the game so boring do they feel the need to come trash it?  There are plenty of games that I didn't like that I thought were overhyped that I didn't feel the need to trash.  This kind of persistence on a topic the person claims to be disinterested in doesn't really make much sense to me.  What benefit is gained from this?
To Each Man, Responsibility
Mise on 20 November 2008
Sqrl said:

The thing I simply don't get is why if they find the game so boring do they feel the need to come trash it?  There are plenty of games that I didn't like that I thought were overhyped that I didn't feel the need to trash.  This kind of persistence on a topic the person claims to be disinterested in doesn't really make much sense to me.  What benefit is gained from this? ***2)***

Attention?

There are three easy ways for getting attention in regards to games on teh internets: Trolling, bashing a widely appreciated game, or defending a widely despised one. Only one of those is a bannable offense, and the former is much easier to do than the latter.

I can understand why people don't necessarily love it, though. First of all, the single-player component is practically non-existent (ie. a near-dealbreaker for someone like me), and second, the game essentially demands a team. And I'm pretty sure that players, being the persistent pests we are, can find all sorts of nifty ways to completely eviscerate the games balance in the coming weeks.

Also - it might be just me, but a game like this can potentially have a really steep learning curve. When you are required to work as a team, wide differences in skill can quickly disrupt a team and its performance, and weaker players will either be typecast in the weakest roles there are or ousted completely. I don't use Steam, so I don't know whether it has a skill-based matchmaking system or not, but this is something to consider IMO.



Warning: The preceding message may or may not have included sarcasm, cynicism, irony, full stops, commas, slashes, words, letters, sentences, lines, quotes,  flaeed  gramar, cryptic metaphors or other means of annoying communication. Viewer discretion is/was strongly advised.

mwjw696 on 20 November 2008
kibebr said:

I don´t believe LEFT4DEAD got a 9.0 for this game, for more random and AI presented, it´s SO POOR, try playing more than one hour for 5 days, you never more touch the game.

Is this 9.0 from IGN because VALVE is behind??

 

WTF

To bad your opinion counts for nuthing. The average reviews are glowing. So either go back and play your COD4 over and over. Or go make your own respected video game review site.... ROFL YEA RIGHT.

Look you dont like the game thats fine but a useless post about your own opinion is not going to lower the score. ALOT of people LOVE the game. You are going to have to deal.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/left4dead

Look at the score. Its not just IGN, it all over.

 



"Leap ignorantly to the defense of wealthy game company’s, who don't know or care about you!"

BenKenobi88 on 20 November 2008

If you don't like multiplayer, there's really no need to even be talking about the game then.

You don't buy TF2 and go aww no single player? You don't buy Portal and go aww no multiplayer? L4D is a multiplayer game, so if you don't like playing with people online, it's simply not the game for you, end of story.

No need to go on.

And there's an easy difficulty setting for a reason...



LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release.  (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )