MinishArcticFox said:
This really doesn't look all that good. The shotgun never required a reload he walked about 1mph and it seemed to me that there was absolutly no reason for his two squad mates which I never saw shoot. As for the people that think this would be better than Left 4 Dead it just looks simpler. If L4D had released with one gun and no special zombies no one would have liked it so why do you like this?
Cause Valve is a bunch of evil money grubbers, dur.
Seriously though I don't get it. I'm not sure why,for something that is 4+ years old and was never fully developed, this is supposedly "huge". As pointed out it really isn't
that amazing other than "oh hey we would have beaten Left 4 Dead to the punch on this kinda/sorta." And even then it really isn't "Proto-L4D" since the whole hunkering-down and gathering supplies concept isn't really in there, save for the finale events to some degree and the scavenge mode in the sequel.
In fact the only reason I can think of this being talked about like this is because Ken is considering going back to the idea which would mean that this might be the "unannounced shooter project" Irrational has been working on/hiring for. Which would be kind of cool because there are some great ideas here.
CanadianWolverine said:
L4D is fun but it is only a few aspects of the horror that is the fictional zombie apocalypse. There are no true bases or hope for surviving the apocalypse exist in the gameplay in L4D, only running and gunning, never do our intrepid heroes consider planting a garden, clean water, and raising a family amidst the devastation trying to look for a time when the zombies have been dealt with or at least at safe distance and tolerable.
It'd be hard to do that considering there is no time when the zombies have been dealt with in that game. The idea seems to be that the infection is beyond any reasonable control once it takes hold, and if the infection spreading across the Eastern half of the US in L4D2 is any indication, there would not be a "safe distance". So rather than spending time considering the what-ifs, the survivors are more focused on escaping.
Mr.Governor said:
because its more realistic and you have a feel that you are really in a zombie apocalypse and l4d is nothing like that.
zombie games are supposed to be survival horror not a shooter.
You say that and yet it's pointed out the shotgun never needed a reload. Realism out the window.
Mr.Governor said:
This game looks waaaay better than l4d cuz its more scary as every single zombie is comin for you slowly unlike in l4d where most of the zombies sit in a corner waiting to get shot.
No they don't, and the ones that do are doing so because they aren't the typical shambling and frankly, boring, zombies (yes I went there). They have been infected with a mutated rabies virus, so of course they're going to have a passive state until they notice something and then charge at you growling and jabbering. But I'm splitting hairs at this point. I'm not saying you can't like this over L4D, I am saying you can't make stuff up.
