Just a tiny snippet of almost-news before bed. Valve have slipped out the information (via IGN) that joining Left 4 Dead 2’s arsenal of melee weapons is a cricket bat. The awfully British sports-stick will be yet another way to brutally smash zombies out of your path. Having previously played with both the axe and the frying pan, I can assure you that the melee combat is something pretty special. With the freshly regioned bodies of the Horde, taking aim before lashing out brings gruesome rewards. While no one’s seen the cricket racquet in action, it seems safe to assume that aiming at legs is going to produce something dreadful. As for faces – there’s a hint in the pic above. Click on it to see the full version available on IGN’s site, with a fat IGN logo on it to ruin your desktop. (In case you’re wondering about the lack of cricket puns here, Orlando Parfitt used them all up in IGN’s story, leaving a global drought for all other sites.) Read all our Left 4 Dead 2 coverage here.
Related Stories:
Which is what it should have been in the first place. All this acrimony could have been avoided if they’d announced it as such.
Because obviously keeping the angry hordes happy is Valve’s number one priority, rather than selling games, and that. Following up on their second successful foray into consoleland and trying to consolidate that new audience seems like good business sense. Me presumes the console market’s worth much more than the PC market at this point (and comparitive sales figures?)
Its not all about you all the time…
“What the hell is a “cricket racquet”?”
It’s the noise the Ozzies will be making in a few days when they win.
Jonny: I always think of that as more of a braying…
@Funky Badger
PR foul-ups that result in this much public outcry to not help game sales. This was bad marketing, plain and simple, and it’s cost them a lot of good will (a commodity they’ve traded heavily on in the past). Worse yet, there’s no reason for it, since the product in question is likely to end up as an expansion in effect anyway.
Why create hostility when no hostility need have existed for them to do exactly what they’re doing?
Vinraith:
What do you mean by “improperly integrated”?
@Obdicut
In order for this to work, mods for L4D1 need to work with L4D2, servers need to be able to run maps from both, and if you own both games you should be able to play both from the same interface. This way there’s no player community split and no modding community split, so no one gets screwed.
Vinraith
I’m sorry, but why do you feel that way? They both (I’m assuming) use the Source Engine, and porting stuff from one to the other should be, if not a breeze, then at least relatively simple. I’m not sure mods will just work out of the box– attention would have to be paid to where there was change– but unless they’re not actually using Source, it shouldn’t take that much work.
I’m not sure why you think people get screwed even if the worst case scenario occurs: where Valve says, “We’re not going to be even supporting modders for L4D anymore, or updating it at all.”
I haven’t encountered a single bug in the game (except hordefail, which is a necessary balance bug), it’s far more polished than the average AAA release, and I don’t feel it needs mods to keep it alive.
I’m really unsure why you think that both games need to be played from the same interface; it’s something not even all expansion packs have, and most mods don’t.
Now what I’m unclear on is what you mean by “in order for this to work”. It seems like you’re speaking half from the perspective of an individual gamer, and half from the perspective of someone giving business advice to Valve.
All this acrimony could have been avoided if they’d announced it as such.
“Well, I wouldn’t have had to hit you if you’d just do as you’re told, darling”
@Obdicut
It’s pretty simple from my perspective: if they fail to support integration the playing and modding/mapmaking communities for L4D1 will die as a result of L4D2. People are saying “if you don’t like L4D2 don’t buy it, it’s not hurting you!” but rather clearly it would be under those circumstances. Taking a game and completely obliterating community support and available player base a meager year after its release is going to piss people off, and rightly so. When the company that does it promised significant, long standing support for the game in question it’s going to piss them off even more. When the company in question trades on its good reputation for supporting multiplayer games long into the future, it’s going to cost them that good reputation.
Some people don’t seem to understand why people are angry, I’m trying to help them (and Valve) understand. This has been a PR mess for Valve, they’ve gone from having a rabid fanbase to having a partially rabid fanbase (see RobF above) on one side and a horde of apostate detractors on the other. That’s not good for business, and it’s not good for gaming. When Chet’s running around insulting people with legitimate concerns, it only goes to exacerbate the problem.
@RobF
Did you just compare advising a game company on how they could have avoided a PR mess to spousal abuse?
“Not Out”
And I concur with amesace.
“this pictures depicts the only way anyone english could ever beat an australian with a cricket bat*”
Vinraith, it was a flippant remark but not entirely off the mark man, y’know?
You guys are all starting to sound like Gillen, y’know?
Although I am entirely in favour of releasing a sequel, I do agree with Vinraith’s point. To be honest, from the initial announcement of L4D2 I assumed that the originals content would be playable in the sequel, but I am not sure if this has ever been confirmed or dismissed by Valve.
I actually think that the outcome could be potentially worse than what Vinraith suggests, as some modders will stay with the original whilst others will move to the sequel and the same will happen to the play base. Neither will ever be able to thrive under those conditions and both games will eventually die out.
I think the best way for Valve to release this game would be with the original fully integrated. If you own the original you can buy it at a discounted price (£15-20) or if you don’t you buy the bundle which could be priced as a standard full price game (£30-35). That way there would be absolutely no split in the community, servers won’t have to double their efforts and modders would just have the single package to work with. I can’t really see anyone complaining about that.
Vinraith:
I kind of understand, in a vague way, why you think that you have the right to expect that a game being heavily supported included making sure it’s got a thriving mod community.
I have no clue, however, where you derive that it is Valve’s responsibility to keep the player base for L4D, or for any game, high. That’s just, to me, extraordinarily silly.
Added on to this, of course, is that this is just a timing argument. Nobody is making the argument that they shouldn’t make a sequel. The only argument that’s being made is that the sequel is being made ‘too quickly’.
I’m not certain, again, why people think that there’s a specified amount of time that is supposed to pass before a sequel occurs, and that Valve is violating it. I guess it’s part of those people who consider sequels as supposed to be ‘better’, rather than supposed to be ‘different’– which isn’t the way I look at things.
@ DarkNoghri
Haha, that’s absolutely terrible! :D
FOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR!
Seriously, can this game get much more awesome?
Answer: Yes
But only with zombie strippers
There’s also a map floating around, Left4Winchester. Not finished, and I’m too lazy to look up a link.