Posted

Jul 23rd 2009

Mood

No really, do we honestly need a sequel to a game that isn't even a year old yet? Left 4 Dead was a good title and all that good stuff which we really needed in the gaming world at the time. I personally felt that the first game was far too limited, even if the game was multiplayer. I thought that 2009 would be when we would excpect updates come available to gamers but instead on building on the title like Valve done with HalfLife (and eventually spawned add-ons such as Team Fortress, Day of Defeat and the famous "My first Shooter Title" Counter Strike) They decide that it would be more money grubbing if they just make a sequel. From what I can tell from the footage online, I really wouldn't call it much of a sequel.

First off, there is no graphical improvement/ changes. Now granted, this isn't much of a complaint but nothing more than a little nitpick but that's how I would usually identify a sequel. To me, starting a sequel is like making a completely new title again from scratch. This is why I don't count Megaman 2-6 as proper sequels.

Second, replacing the 4 characters we were used to in favour of 4 new seemingly unlikable characters isn't what I would call a sign on a sequel, these characters and levels could well as be downloaded extras to Left 4 Dead. I really enjoyed the characters we already have now, they were believable as well as likeable. the game guide tells us their brief back story and its all expectable. You had the military Veteran who missed the old days of war, A college student who didnt know what she was doing with her future and spent her days watching horror films, a token black guy who worked in an office but didnt like it and a drifter who actually likes the current situation he is in now.(the zombie apocolypes). Yes, theres new monsters but that could be part of a download as well. You can say "what if people cant afford to go online?" and I would reply, "in this day and age, who isnt online?".

Thats it for a random rant for now.