"Left 4 Dead" Catch All

With all due respect, I think that people who are hung up on the whole "but these are not zombies" thing are, I dare say, missing the point. My understanding is that L4D was never intended to be a "zombie game". The point is cooperation. Not zombies. Legion's mannequins would do just fine, or aliens, or scarecrows. Makes no difference.

When I watched the "hospital gameplay" video, my adrenaline went of the scale. Why? Because, regardless of totally inept teamplay that was on display, I realized that playing this game with three more people who are intelligent enough to at least try and stick together (because that is, so obviously, the entire goal of the exercise) while advancing through this map will be divine.

What is not to like?

You have a bunch of weak, but still dangerous enemies that are being released at you by the AI in the exact amounts, depending on your previous performance, quantity of ammo and various other factors, to create maximum suspense and thrill. It is clearly paced, and well at that, because there are lulls in the action when nothing is going on an then the flood of infected ones burst in.

That "zombie" that jumped and started ripping the guy apart, it's one of those four classes of zombies people can play. Same with that one that exploded and the one who almost choked both the guy that was recording as well as the girl. They are all playable by humans. The only one not featured in hospital video was Tank, or I didn't see him.

I mean, did you see that last attack? Did you hear that guy screaming while he was being ripped apart just several meters away from the safe room? Can you imagine his desperation, seeing that he was left by the other three to die? Can you imagine the feeling of relief that will overwhelm you when all four of you finally make it to that room and lock that thick steel door behind you?

I'm so excited and I just can't hide it.

t0W wrote:

I'm so excited and I just can't hide it.

I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!

I'd love to get a demo of this game.... i need to see whether it's worth playing with the general public...

Has there been any word on in-game voice communication with this game? I know, especially if I'm playing with goodjers, that I'm going to want voice communication, and I'd much rather have it as part of the game, similar to Team Fortress 2. I would MOST especially like it if they add features to it that would make sense in the game. Examples include:

* If someone is getting choked by the long tongue dude, they would be unable to communicate via the voice chat to tell the others that he's being choked.

* If someone is too far away from another player, those players would be unable to talk to or hear each other in the voice chat.

Stuff like this would really help increase the tension, and help reinforce the "always be close to your friends and work together" game play they are obviously going after.

Duoae wrote:
t0W wrote:

I'm so excited and I just can't hide it.

I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!

I'd love to get a demo of this game.... i need to see whether it's worth playing with the general public...

Do you reaaally? Reeeaaaaaally now?

...Reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaally?

Mystic Violet wrote:

I was highly interested in this game but the latest video was a turn off for me. Why is it so fast paced? It was a twitch fest and not once did the pacing slow down a bit.

Slowly building tension may be great for gameplay, but I don't think it's too great in a trailer video.

Has there been any word on in-game voice communication with this game?

It's a Valve multiplayer game. There's voice.

(And yes, previews have "confirmed" the voice chat)

0kelvin wrote:

This video from IGN makes the game look a lot better. I have a feeling this will be a case of the game being as good as the people you're playing with.

I was previously excited for this game but that video just didn't do it for me. Hopefully there is a bit more variety then was shown w/ physics and environments. I'm also just not seeing what will make this stand out from the excellent co-op competition that is already out there.

EvilDead wrote:

I'm also just not seeing what will make this stand out from the excellent co-op competition that is already out there.

What competition? Sure there's other co-op games, but almost none of them are four player. The one other game I can think of that was supposed to have four player coop was Too Human and they've backed out of that and switched to two players.

Which is also to say nothing of the fact that there's a lot of people that do still tend to focus on PC gaming...

Thin_J wrote:

competition? Sure there's other co-op games, but almost none of them are four player. The one other game I can think of that was supposed to have four player coop was Too Human and they've backed out of that.

Which is also to say nothing of the fact that there's a lot of people that do still tend to focus on PC gaming...

Well for the PC their are plenty of mods that add co-op to single player games. For out of the box experiences (console & PC) I have got more then my moneys worth with the GRAW series, RS series, Halo, and GOW.

EvilDead wrote:

GRAW series, RS series, Halo, and GOW.

Good luck finding players on the boards for the first two that aren't playing those games on the Console, most of us did play the Halo series on the console, and Gears of War is 2 player...

I need to bookmark it because this is the second time I've needed to post a link to it but can't find it. Anyway, I posted in another zombie thread a brief summary of the history of zombies showing that zombies haven't always been dead. So, the 28 Days Later zombies can be counted as zombies. Maybe there not the "traditional" zombie, but, technically, neither is the Romero zombie that everyone is familiar with and brings up when they say the fast and/or infected zombie isn't a zombie.

I am thrilled about this game and was the moment I heard about it. I just heard the 1up podcast and, while wetting themselves due to joy/drunkeness, the morons failed to mention what platforms it was on. That they were talking about it I assume that it must be on a console... right?

Pardon, I have to take flowers to the grave of my old gaming computer. *tear*

McChuck wrote:

I need to bookmark it because this is the second time I've needed to post a link to it but can't find it. Anyway, I posted in another zombie thread a brief summary of the history of zombies showing that zombies haven't always been dead. So, the 28 Days Later zombies can be counted as zombies. Maybe there not the "traditional" zombie, but, technically, neither is the Romero zombie that everyone is familiar with and brings up when they say the fast and/or infected zombie isn't a zombie.

Zombies have always been the walking dead.
The main differences between a voodoo zombie and a modern zombie are what does the reanimating and the zombie’s behavior. A modern zombie is reanimated by radiation, a virus, or a chemical, and is uncontrollable; it's only goal is to eat non-zombies. A voodoo zombie is reanimated by a bokor, who is able to make the zombie do his/her bidding. A voodoo zombie wouldn't attack anyone unless it was ordered to.

The first zombie movie was White Zombie, and the zombies were reanimated corpses. Any movie that calls still-living people zombies is misusing the word.

The traditional voodoo zombie was still a reanimated corpse. Sure, there are theories that the victims don't actually die, just go into a death-like state until they're "brought back," but there's no conclusive evidence of it, since practitioners of voodoo aren't terribly open about their methods. There's supposedly a zombie making drug that the bokors use, but modern science/medicine hasn't been able to find/reproduce it. Wade Davis thought it was tetrodotoxin, but his methods were less than ideal, and the scientific community dismissed his claims.

The infected in 28 days later and Left 4 Dead are certainly zombie like, but they are not zombies. The game's official site doesn't call them zombies, but "infected". They're not reanimated corpses, but regular people infected with something that disfigures them and makes them "wildly psychotic". I'm not surprised that people are calling them zombies, but they're wrong to do so. That they can get shot in the chest and still move is no more "wrong" than it is that the survivors can get up after being mauled and still run around shooting things. That said, I'd certainly like it better if they were going to be zombies and you could shoot pieces of them off and have them react appropriately.

TheWanderer wrote:

That they were talking about it I assume that it must be on a console... right?
Pardon, I have to take flowers to the grave of my old gaming computer. *tear*

Wanderer, it's from Valve, and it's going to be available on the PC and the 360, but I'm sure your gaming computer appreciates the attention.

[quote=Stengah]

McChuck wrote:

The infected in 28 days later and Left 4 Dead are certainly zombie like, but they are not zombies. The game's official site doesn't call them zombies, but "infected". They're not reanimated corpses, but regular people infected with something that disfigures them and makes them "wildly psychotic". I'm not surprised that people are calling them zombies, but they're wrong to do so. That they can get shot in the chest and still move is no more "wrong" than it is that the survivors can get up after being mauled and still run around shooting things. That said, I'd certainly like it better if they were going to be zombies and you could shoot pieces of them off and have them react appropriately.

They did a similar thing in 'I am Legend'. It was implied they had zombie like things but with more intelligence (or more basic instincts).

Personally I like the speedy, powerful, enraged zombie becuase it makes it less of a monster closet/zerg approach...
I am SO stoked for this game... hell freaking yeah!

I'm a big fan of the Romero zombies - and Voodoo zombies, as well - but in a game, as opposed to a movie, they are very ill-suited. The only game I've ever played with Romero zombies that worked for me was Dead Rising, and that's an entirely different experience from Left 4 Dead.

Stengah wrote:

I'm not surprised that people are calling them zombies, but they're wrong to do so.

If calling them zombies is wrong then I don't want to be right!

Seriously, the whole zombies vs not zombies argument is ridiculously pedantic and quite pointless.

Stengah wrote:
TheWanderer wrote:

That they were talking about it I assume that it must be on a console... right?
Pardon, I have to take flowers to the grave of my old gaming computer. *tear*

Wanderer, it's from Valve, and it's going to be available on the PC and the 360, but I'm sure your gaming computer appreciates the attention.

Has Valve released any of the new content for the 360 yet? If not, I'd probably give it a pass on the 360, Live or not.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Stengah wrote:

I'm not surprised that people are calling them zombies, but they're wrong to do so.

If calling them zombies is wrong then I don't want to be right!

Seriously, the whole zombies vs not zombies argument is ridiculously pedantic and quite pointless.

Did you just quote Peter Griffin?

And I lean towards voodoo zombies not being dead upon reanimation which is why I allow other zombie-esque movies to count.

I hope they have a level like Day of the dead! Trapped in a mall surrounded by 20 thousand zombies!

The thing about Fast vs slow zombies is that Fast is scarier but Slow Zombies are more horrible because you can stop them, they keep coming one after another untill you can't fight back anymore. It's like slow dead vs a quick death which is worse?

McChuck wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Stengah wrote:

I'm not surprised that people are calling them zombies, but they're wrong to do so.

If calling them zombies is wrong then I don't want to be right!

Seriously, the whole zombies vs not zombies argument is ridiculously pedantic and quite pointless.

Did you just quote Peter Griffin?

And I lean towards voodoo zombies not being dead upon reanimation which is why I allow other zombie-esque movies to count.

This zombie meatloaf is both shallow and pedantic.

McChuck wrote:

Did you just quote Peter Griffin? :)

Not that I'm averse to quoting Peter, but the "I don't want to be right" general saying has been around long before he was first put to paper.

Gameplay-wise, I think they made the right choice by going with fast zombies.

It would have been nice to have some variety among the non-boss zombies - maybe some fast & some slow - as with the lineup used by the Zombie Hunters (great webcomic, btw).

I'm holding out hope that Valve may still add some variety to the basic zombies beyond just the aesthetic.

Of course, I fully expect to buy L4D regardless, because - hey, co-op and zombies!

Between this and Alien Swarm: Infested, it is going to be a great year for co-op games. I can't wait!

Jaunty wrote:
Duoae wrote:
t0W wrote:

I'm so excited and I just can't hide it.

I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!

I'd love to get a demo of this game.... i need to see whether it's worth playing with the general public...

Do you reaaally? Reeeaaaaaally now?

...Reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaally?

It's a question of having no one to play with as opposed to playing with the public. Because this site is so US-centric i can't join in with things you guys do and the one time i did people were just f*cking around on the server. I can't waste time in the night not playing a game properly i just don't have the free time.

Duoae wrote:

It's a question of having no one to play with as opposed to playing with the public. Because this site is so US-centric i can't join in with things you guys do and the one time i did people were just f*cking around on the server. I can't waste time in the night not playing a game properly i just don't have the free time.

That is sadly true, BUT...

First, there is a Euro Goodjer Steam group. It certainly isn't the biggest one in the whole wide world, but it's there and it may help.

That failing, I devised a tactic which is time consuming, but it is nearly flawless. I pick a few full pub servers with lowest ping, bite the bullet and play for a night or three, during a week or so. People tend to have their favorite servers and will usually stick with same ones, if for nothing else, then for low ping. At least for me, it becomes apparent surprisingly quickly who of the people present knows what he's doing and is there to have proper fun, and who is a generic "pubtard". Then I simply add good people to my Friends list. Nothing to lose. If they don't want me on the list, I'll be removed and that's it. If I stay on the list, I can see that person playing next time and I will simply join them on a server, knowing that there is at least one normal person there. With 5-6 contacts like that, it is fairly easy to find a full server with hardly any asshats about, because smart people like that won't stay on pubtard infested servers.

Steam rules.

Think of it from a developer perspective. You can always find a way to slow down a fast zombie, but what could possibly make a slow zombie speed up? It just makes sense people.

Can I get a count on 360 players? *crickets*

I'll be a 360 player, in the UK alas.

If the 360 version is as solid as the PC version, I'll go with the 360. If not, I'll snag it on the pc. Either way, I don't think there's any way I could pass up on this game.

Day 1 for sure for me.
Zombies + Valve + Co-op

How the hell could this not be anything but amazing!

Day 1 PC. I'm sorry, but valve will always be a PC company to me.