Left 4 dead wars

[supermariner]

(if you can't be bothered to read i've summarised in my last paragraph)

So i bought Left 4 dead 2 recently
i've had the first one for a while and it's always had a special position in my top 10 favourite games of all time
i'd avoided the second one on the basis that i've seen it get nothing but hate from Escapist members (which is where i get most of my gaming news, reviews and discussion)
In fact a thread a few months back about the worst game Valve ever made had several people insisting it was L4D2
however i caved in and bought it due to sheer curiosity of how they could have botched it so badly
However ...
I couldn't believe that this game was hated
The characters have more in-depth conversations with each other
There are new special infected and even some new uncommon ones too
The atmospheres and settings are so much more varied
The music is better (and sometimes relevant to the setting)
There are more types of guns, more throwables, more healing items, they even introduced melee weapons
The finale's had more range, rather than just call for help and hold out, there were more varied endings. I.e. get over a bridge wired up to explode or fill up a car with gas before the horde tears your face off
the characters themselves were pretty decent and not particularly hateable
the AI director can change the weather and even the layout of certain parts of the map now
amongst many other things i won't bore you with which i loved

My point is...
why was it generally agreed that Left 4 dead 1 was fantastic (which it was)
but Left 4 dead 2 was awful?
I don't understand what's so terrible about it, but would like to

 

[Capt. Crankypants]

I think it's the 'less is more' idea. Building on an extremely solid base and throwing more and more stuff on isn't always the best thing. While they kinda needed to bring in the new special infected for balancing, they were definately not the stong part of the game for me, and I actually wanted a mode to play by myself or co-op where there wasn't any (special infected, that is). The new finales, pretty cool, but take a step back and say "this new game that valve are selling, is it sequel-worthy, or could this have been implemented through optional DLC for the original L4D?". I think the vibe is that no, there wasn't enough of a deviation or new flavour for a sequel title, and throwing more and more 'bits' into the mix just doesn't cut it. What they had worked well, the addition of vials of boomer bile and adrenaline etc. ,in my opinion, just made it harder to organise your buddies.

I hope that's a decent, well presented argument, and I think others can/will agree with me.

 

[L1gh7Sp33d]

Most of the hate that people lined up against the game had the most strength before the game released. People were simply upset and speculative that Valve had rushed out a game too quickly after the original game, eschewing the normal long-term support they give to their multiplayer games. I don't think any other company could be blamed for such a thing except Valve, who, after their extended support for TF2, have created certain expectations. Once the game was released, I think its quality shows that Valve did not simply rush out the game and sincerely wished to improve their ip with a quality title.

As for the hate among Escapist members, I think most of the "hate" is a sincere preference of the first game over the second. Any time there is a change of mechanics in a game, some people simply aren't going to be happy. Valve forced this change of mechanics and setting upon the l4d community at the price of a full game, dividing the community. Some dissatisfaction was inevitable.

This is all from the pov of a Valve fanboy who probably doesn't understand the negative opinions as well as others.

 

[supermariner]

I hope that's a decent, well presented argument, and I think others can/will agree with me.

It certainly was sir
and I thank you very much for it

 

[barbzilla]

I own both of the games, and I play mainly L4D2 because I enjoy all of the added features. The main reason people complained about the second one was how soon it came out after the first. This upset a number of people (not really sure why, but it did). I say if you enjoy it, say balls to everyone else's opinion and enjoy it.

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

L4D2 has unlikeable characters in my opinion... the rest is better in comparison to L4D1.

 

[Alucard788]

I certainly don't hate L4D2, but visually I prefer the first one. I like the creepy abandoned city scapes, and dark gloomy setting.

I also feel like, in a weird way, that the first one has a more serous setting, and over all tone. Also I didn't really like the melee weapons in 2 the guns were, oddly, more realistic...I mean really would you let something thats half rotting and full of disease get 'that' close to you? And then carve it up so it sprays it's infection all over and others..also I think the melee was wayyy overdone...for what it was.

I dunno L4D2 just didn't resonate with me the way the first game did. I don't hate D2 I just don't like it as much as I thought I would.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Because people were complaining that it should have been DLC tacked onto the original L4D purely because of the same base formula (i.e. get from A to B, don't die on the way and shoot infected). However I stand by my argument that there is way too much different to simply call it DLC.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I much preferred the first L4D to the second. The second one just didn't capture grip me as well as the first and I didn't really enjoy all of the added stuff Valve just threw into the game. The whole point of L4D was it's simple fun, and L4D2 eschewed that for bigger guns, bigger explosions, and crazier infected.

 

[Woodsey]

I haven't seen it hated here at all. I think it mainly breaks down to how you feel about the characters and the environments.

Personally, Ellis is my favourite character, and I'm not bothered about the setting. I thought they balanced it well between daylight stuff, and maps like Hard Rain in particular.

I haven't played the first (beyond No Mercy) though, so maybe I'll change my mind when those maps appear in L4D2.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I think it was for a few major reasons:

1. People got attached to the original survivors. While they were little more than stereotypes for survivors in a zombie movie (The grizzled vet, the tough biker, the cute college girl and the token black guy), they came off as extremely likeable characters. When Valve mentioned that they were planning on giving the Left 4 Dead series the TF2 treatment with lots of downloadable content, I think people assumed they would continue to focus on these survivors. Consequently people were disappointed to learn Left 4 Dead 2 dropped the original group entirely to focus on an entirely different group of survivors (though the recent crossover DLC's have helped address this issue somewhat).

2. It was a bit uncharacteristic of Valve to release a sequel in such a short time frame. This is the company that inspired the term "Valve time," after all. With games like Half-Life 2 and Team Fortress 2 taking six and nine years respectively, releasing a sequel to Left 4 Dead after just one year led some to believe Valve rushed development of the first game to make a quick buck, then released the "proper" game as a sequel to fleece customers out of more money. It also gave the impression to some that Valve had changed their mind about adding new content to the first game.

Generally the uproar over L4D2 died down once people got a chance to play the game though. The new survivors (with the possible exception of Rochelle) are iconic and memorable in their own right, and the recent crossover material indicates that Valve plans to support both games for the foreseeable future.

Personally I think the first game set a better tone with a more oppressive atmosphere, but the second game has more variety.

 

[Treblaine]

(if you can't be bothered to read i've summarised in my last paragraph)

So i bought Left 4 dead 2 recently
i've had the first one for a while and it's always had a special position in my top 10 favourite games of all time
i'd avoided the second one on the basis that i've seen it get nothing but hate from Escapist members (which is where i get most of my gaming news, reviews and discussion)
In fact a thread a few months back about the worst game Valve ever made had several people insisting it was L4D2
however i caved in and bought it due to sheer curiosity of how they could have botched it so badly
However ...
I couldn't believe that this game was hated
The characters have more in-depth conversations with each other
There are new special infected and even some new uncommon ones too
The atmospheres and settings are so much more varied
The music is better (and sometimes relevant to the setting)
There are more types of guns, more throwables, more healing items, they even introduced melee weapons
The finale's had more range, rather than just call for help and hold out, there were more varied endings. I.e. get over a bridge wired up to explode or fill up a car with gas before the horde tears your face off
the characters themselves were pretty decent and not particularly hateable
the AI director can change the weather and even the layout of certain parts of the map now
amongst many other things i won't bore you with which i loved

My point is...
why was it generally agreed that Left 4 dead 1 was fantastic (which it was)
but Left 4 dead 2 was awful?
I don't understand what's so terrible about it, but would like to

I have one number to describe how much I like Left 4 Dead 2:

250

The units for that number is hours, hours spent playing the game. And I haven't even loaded any mods nor custom maps yet!