Valve attempting L4D1/L4D2 cross-play Comments by Robert Purchese

You've got red on you...

you've got some red on you

god damn.

How about: cricket is shit?

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Shaun_...

I still don't like the introduction of melee weapons. A hard-to-find chainsaw that requires you to drop your main weapon, that is okay. A frying pan that instantaneously kills four common infected and helps you converse ammunition which already is no big feat in L4D1, on the other hand...

@LOLLERS

Beat you by 1 minute!

Of course they are working on cross-play. Did I not predict this in every thread full of L4D2 complainers.


"A frying pan that instantaneously kills four common infected and helps you converse ammunition which already is no big feat in L4D1, on the other hand"

Well, that does assume that they will basically implement an unbalanced feature, and we have no reason to believe Valve would do that. Again, we can all think of crap ways of doing this if we are looking for something to worry about, but Valve are quite simply better than that and will probably get it right.

Cross-play is instant buy for me!

Didn't know the residents of New Orleans played cricket.

What they really need is a banjo melee weapon - complete with 'BOINNNNG' sound effects.

not exactly much difference between a cricket bat and a plank of wood is there..

Also i thought it said Cos-Play...
Meaning you had to dress up as a zombie or summat.

That'd mean that either L4D2 would need maps from 1, or vice-versa I'd have though. Not sure what that implies, I'll let you muse on it.

Well, that does assume that they will basically implement an unbalanced feature, and we have no reason to believe Valve would do that.

No, nothing is assumed. I would be assuming if I hadn't watched a video where what I've described actually was part of the experience. Sure, they could change that. I hope they do.

And really, no purely online game comes out truly balanced. Left 4 Dead 1 was hardly balanced (and, in some aspects, it is broken up to this day).

Pool cue please.

Don't stop me now!

Well ok, I suppose what I am thinking is whether the mechanic fits into the game well. All weapons have advantages and disadvantages.

As far as balance in L4D1, maybe you are talking about the deathmatch games. I only played co-op, and the overall experience seemed pretty balanced to me, and certainly did a good job of incentivizing team cooperation.

"Valve just want top dollar for it i guess."

What, like the £15 you can buy L4D1 on PC for, or the £25 I bought the 360 version for?

If the sequel gives me as many quality gameplay hours as L4D1 has, I'll consider it a bargain.

As far as balance in L4D1, maybe you are talking about the deathmatch games. I only played co-op, and the overall experience seemed pretty balanced to me, and certainly did a good job of incentivizing team cooperation.

Deathmatch? L4D's Versus game mode is what you would call a deathmatch? And you call a cooperative, non-competitive game mode 'balanced'? A more horrendous misuse of terms is hard to find.

Versus is closer to 'team deathmatch', and even then, the point of (team) deathmatch is to kill as many opponents as possible. The point of Versus is to kill the other team as early on as possible, and there's certainly a lot more involved than brainless killing.

And you cannot balance a cooperative, non-competitive game mode. You can tailor its difficulty, but otherwise, there is nothing to balance. You balance competitive game modes involving different weapons, abilities, classes or what have you.

/gets downrated to -58

How could Versus in L4D not be described as balanced? You have a go at Survivors, then the opposing team does. You both get a chance with exactly the same advantages and disadvantages, and weapon/ability choice. It's not like there are Perks or anything to unbalance things, it's as pure a game as possible.

It'll be the same in L4D2, it'll still be one of the best asymmetrical multi-layer experiences out there. I hope :)

EDIT: Or what the above poster said as I typed. That's good too.

Not sure what there is to balance in the versus mode - you both take it turns playing both sides so you each get equal advantages/disadvantages for each match - how is this not fair? o_O

EDIT: Or what the above poster said as I typed. That's good too.

;0)

So basically, we can expect higher-res versions of the L4D maps in L4D2 which allow the players from both games to play each other on them. ABOUT BLOODY TIME MORE DEVS DID THIS

@ChthonicEcho

Hehe, I use deathmatch to refer to all competetive multiplayer models. I don't really play them, so I am not that interested in the sub-types found within :)

Besides, balance is a pretty wide ranging term. A coop game can be balanced, because the players don't want too hard or too easy a time against the AI undead.

I'm hoping for breakable limbs to go with our blunt melee weapons. Breaking an infected's legs and watching them drag limply behind them would be so much more satisfying than just shooting them off :)

>>>That'd mean that either L4D2 would need maps from 1, or vice-versa I'd have though. Not sure what that implies, I'll let you muse on it.

The original campaigns have already been released via the SDK, which is cross-compatible with L4D 2.

>>>Valve's long backtrack continues.

More like the boycott brigade looking more foolish by the week.

So if Valve panders to the boycotters, it's called backtracking, but if they do nothing to appease them, then they're stubborn, greedy, money-grabbing swines?

It seems to be that no matter what Valve do here, people will complain and try and make them out to be the bad guys.

Sorry giant_frying_pan , I meant on 360. I wasn't clear there, by bad.

It seems to be that no matter what Valve do here, people will complain and try and make them out to be the bad guys.

Hi, have you met the Internet?

Let me preface this comment by saying I never played L4D.

I think that for a multiplayer online game with the success L4D achieved (and maintains) it's a bad idea to just shrug it off and invest in a full sequel like this so early. And news like this doesn't really strengthen Valve's decision.
It's not that you can't release a game so close to its predecessor, it's rather that a game like L4D, where you need other people to play with, doesn't need to have its player base fractured like this and Valve seems to realise that (though I would really expect them to realise it from the start, given their experience).
Unless it was because of something like technology that wasn't on the first one that they feel they really need to have going forward (and here this can mean quite a few years), I don't see why L4D2 needs to exist so soon.

For xbox versions, what would stop them allowing L4D2 accessing data from a HDD with L4D1 saved to it? Therefore, with L4D2 disc in the drive and using it's front end you could launch any map from both games at the drop of a hat.
Obviously one copy of L4D could do the rounds and everyone could copy it, but maybe that wouldn't harm sales of the sequel, the oposite perhaps?

I'm assuming this means they'll port the L4D maps to L4D2... which is as I suspected when they announced all the user created content was going to be compatible. Good news if that turns out to be the case!

Why wouldn't you be able to balance it, the versus mode. You can never reach perfection but you can come close.

The fact that L4D and L4D2 are cross-compatible really doesn't help Valve in the whole "It couldn't have been a mod" argument.

"A frying pan that instantaneously kills four common infected and helps you converse ammunition which already is no big feat in L4D1, on the other hand..."

...but is useless against witches, tanks, and boomers, and effectively useless against hunters and smokers more than a few feet away. Of all the complaints you could have made, the balance of the frying pan is an odd choice.

"Why wouldn't you be able to balance it, the versus mode. You can never reach perfection but you can come close. "

You don't need balance. Balance isn't really even applicable to Versus in L4D, you have a go as one side, then the other. There's isn't anything really except a teams skill that changes. How more balanced can you get?

"The fact that L4D and L4D2 are cross-compatible really doesn't help Valve in the whole "It couldn't have been a mod" argument."

To be honest, bloody logic and common sense can't help Valve in half the arguments, because logic and common sense is utterly absent from this whole complaint situation.

Lets make no bones about it, half the people winging about this just like winging about not getting stuff for free, because they live in a fantasy world where games are a right, not a luxury. Valve can never respond, because the ears of the complainers are closed. And imop they shouldn't even try, because the vocal minority don't really matter in the end.

I'm guessing then that cross play would mean that if you own both games, then all the L4D content will be available in L4D2. But if you don't have L4D, then you won't be able to play that content in L4D2. Kind of like the way Rock Band 1/2 work.
Either that or all the L4D content will be included in L4D2 as well.

It's nice of Valve that they are trying to do this. Playing L4D1 maps in the sequel was only a question of time since they already confirmed that the user made content will work with both versions - and the original maps are already available in the SDK so they pretty much already are user made content. It wouldn't have taken more than a week until someone will have used the SDK and adjusted everything necessary to get them to work with L4D2 (if there even is a lot to adjust).

So I applaud Valve for making this official. L4D2 boycotters can only be happy about it because that way L4D2 will not cannibalize the online community of the first one which means that they will at least find someone to play with. I suppose almost everyone will switch to L4D2 eventually leaving the first one competely dead - which would be a shame.

I hope things like this will happen more often in the future - making franchises more of a platform than just seperate releases; Like Rock Band. Being able to get RB1 content into RB2 is awesome, and so is getting the fabulous L4D content into the sequel as well.

All they have to do is put in the old maps from 1 into 2, no extras etc... that way people can still play together and keep the server numbers high.

I like the idea that they are adding more melee type weapons, e.g you can pick up a cricket bat, frying pan etc...as this gives it an even more hectic grab anything to hand to protect yourself feel. Unfortunately its still missing alot of things that I would want to do in the game (thats why I am more excited by Dead Rising 2 - though I think that isnt going to be the perfect zombie game either).

How did Purchese not see the SOTD link? :P

Has the cricket bat been officially confirmed? Because the pics on kotaku look like a photoshopped joke timed to coincide with the Ashes.

I'm obviously reading a different article to everyone else. All I'm seeing is that Valve are considering linking the two games. All the posts then seem to be assuming that this is set in stone.

Did I miss a second Valve announcement or something?

I've been stomping up and down threads like this complaining that Valve are packaging what's essentially DLC as a full-priced game and earning negative karma...I'm not a cheapskate, but thought it un-Valve-like to promise a lot of expansion to the original game and then lump it into a full-price game instead. It's certainly like a lot of other companies, and probably makes sound business sense, but they do wave a flag about saying they treat their customers better (see the news article about their attitude to charging for DLC) so if you do this kind of thing, fine, but don't make out you're any better than anyone else if you do.

I'd probably buy L4D2 if there was a cheap deal based on principle rather than price - since I consider it DLC by another name, I'd pay a DLC price for it. But my worry was that for those who stay with L4D (hell maybe they don't like the new content, each to their own) they would find themseleves on a dwindling number of servers - a game dying out online well before its time, before its maturity.

What Valve are doing will prevent fragmentation of the community and air to breathe for those left on L4D, so well done trying to address our concerns. Redemption is at hand. I have no idea how it will work - will L4D users get melee weapons or will L4D2 players be unable to use them - or will it be governed by what game you have? I guess we'll see.

If it means I can still play as Bill in L4D2 then I'm happy.

With this new karma system, I'd forgotten all about the ignore button for a second there.

@penhalion: You didn't miss a second announcement. But with such big news you can be pretty sure that they would only announce that if they are pretty damn sure it will come in one form or another. You don't need to announce things nobody expects in case you have to tell them "sorry, we failed" later on.

Valve already has a lot of shit to deal with from rabid fans and while most of the boycott threats will go away the second L4D2 gets released they really don't need to stir things up even more. I know that all those boycotts and other ramblings are really harmless and will never amount to anything but still; If Valve would not be sure that they can get this to work they wouldn't announce it.

@Yossarian

Do you have some sort of program you've devised that, as soon as you start up your Internet browser, points out all the L4D-related news articles you can comment on, so that you could bring enlightenment to the Internet? It's really becoming humorous.

The frying pan is actually quite useful against smokers and especially against hunters - something you would have known had you watched gameplay videos instead of rushing to defend a game blindly. It allows you to deal with common infected with little effort and save up ammunition and possibly even grenades for encounters with special infected. Actually falling short on ammo is what helped Special Infected greatly in L4D1. Again, something pretty obvious.

And want me to point out something even more obvious? Few games have a 'quick and powerful' archetype. You have 'quick and weak' or 'slow and powerful'. Quick weapons that dole out a lot of damage? That's just stupid.

...but is useless against witches, tanks, and boomers, and effectively useless against hunters and smokers more than a few feet away. Of all the complaints you could have made, the balance of the frying pan is an odd choice.

I eat all of those for breakfast!

I think this is a brilliant idea.

Good thing! This means that as a L4D2 player I will have access to all the maps that L4D offers. But will I have access to all the characters? (As in, having access to 8 characters rather than just 4.)