Left 4 Dead 3 and Source Engine 2 confirmed - Polidicks

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with zombie games, it's just that you can't do the standard zombie formula anymore since it's been done to death.

[QUOTE=Sift;41757646] Five years later in the E3 Thread "Wouldn't it be cool if Gabe just walked on stage said HALF LIFE 3 and dropped the mic before walking off?" *a million agrees*[/QUOTE] Thats assuming it takes 5 more years for them to say nothing about HL3 which i can guarantee wont happen because why would it.

[QUOTE=Sift;41757646] "Wouldn't it be cool if Gabe just walked on stage said HALF LIFE 3 and dropped the mic before walking off?" *a million agrees*[/QUOTE] Did you know that TF2 took 8 years to make? Assuming its on Source 2, and its Half life 3, they're basically making an entirely new game. You do realize games are hard to make right? I'd rather they actually took time to hand craft it then just shit another game out like... Call of Duty... Mass Effect... Assassins Creed. Just because something "Takes too long" doesn't mean it'll stop existing or simply be terrible. I really don't see the point in being that way. Did you take a class in being horribly blatantly pessimistic? Although yeah some people are really retarded and jump the gun every single chance they get but seriously.

As long as it turns out good, and doesn't turn to shit like most games that spent too long in the oven.

^most of those (Too Human, DNF, A:CM) were put in the oven, taken out, and reheated in a microwave for six years. I doubt that'd be the case here.

The prospect of another left 4 dead game just evokes a tired sigh from me. They were so devoid of content, and I can't imagine a new one rectifying that issue; especially now that there's an even larger amount of samey zombie games.

oh great more zombies

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;41768267]They were so devoid of content[/QUOTE] The content is the people you play with. Plus I just played in a 10 max survivor build mod server fucking up hordes of tanks with bottomless M60s and auto sentries atop a castle made out of chain link fences that let you shoot at zombies straight down through the floor. I honestly can't believe anyone who says l4d is devoid of content anymore after I've had this experience. It's not the experience that was intended out of the box, no, but it's the experience that was built in it. Like I said, the content is the people you play with. The community. Don't be silly. The buck doesn't stop at a few campaigns. Plus, l4d2 has a special place in my heart as a zombie shooter because of how thoroughly you can tear up hordes. When's the last game you could just shoot a zombie's jaw off or shoot their groin out and watch their intestines drop to the floor? Come on. Call me shallow, but that makes the game for me. That alone puts it above all other zombie shooters.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;41730470]For me personally L4D is one of their most boring franchises. Maybe it's because I didn't play it a whole lot co-op, but just in general there's only so many locations and characters you can add to try to spice up the same old boring Zombie Apocalypse. I don't remember any cool mods either. I can't think of a substantial thing they could add without going strictly against the formula. Then again, maybe that's exactly why they want to use it as a Source 2 showpiece, since the new engine could wow people and make them enjoy the game more than they usually would. Then again again, doesn't exactly sound like a Valve strategy. IIRC Half-Life 2 was their last big engine transition showpiece, and it certainly didn't let itself be carried by seesaw puzzles and exploding barrels.[/QUOTE] Imo, co-op is the "tack on to game and sell it" addon of the decade for games. It's been used so many times in so many games that I started to see it as a bad feature instead of a feature of any other nature. L4D never really did well imo. It got extremely boring after a couple of plays on each map, since its always the same "go from A to B" thing, and the goddamn Director AI or whatever its called is praised on being random or whatever, when in fact is the most repetitive AI I've seen. On top of that, its like you said. You can only make it shine a few times before it gets repetitive, and L4D2 was already awfully repetitive.

[QUOTE=dass;41771799]It's been used so many times in so many games that I started to see it as a bad feature instead of a feature of any other nature.[/QUOTE] Wait, so that's the reason it's bad? It's been used a lot? I haven't played coop in any game that has been a bad experience for me. I mean, I always play with really good close friends (which is the whole point of coop), so most of the enjoyment is coming from them over the game. Even games that would otherwise be terrible end up being really enjoyable because I can suffer and talk shit along with a friend (COHGHLostPlanet2COUGH) Not denying coop is often something that's just tacked on. I'm just saying it's seldom not fun because of the very nature of coop. imo.

[QUOTE=xalener;41771840]Wait, so that's the reason it's bad? It's been used a lot? I haven't played coop in any game that has been a bad experience for me. I mean, I always play with really good close friends (which is the whole point of coop), so most of the enjoyment is coming from them over the game. Not denying coop is often something that's just tacked on. I'm just saying it's seldom not fun because of the very nature of coop. imo.[/QUOTE] Imo, co-op is the "tack on to game and sell it" addon of the decade for games. It's been used so many times in so many games that I started to see it as a bad feature instead of a feature of any other nature. Quote the whole thing. It's basically tacked on nowadays. "Oh hey look at our game. It isn't all that cool, BUT IT HAS CO-OP!! INSTANT SELLER!" Kind of like putting in multiplayer because "games must have sp and mp", and on L4D, it just gets more boring the more you play it.

Yeah, but L4D is fundamentally built on its coop. It wasn't tacked on, it was the plan. The game was concieved from Counter Strike for god's sake. The single player is what's tacked on. also [QUOTE=dass;41771955] and on L4D, it just gets more boring the more [B][U]I[/U][/B] play it.[/QUOTE] fix'd, because this does not apply to everyone who reads the post. I've played and enjoyed it with my friends since day 1.

[QUOTE=xalener;41772178]Yeah, but L4D is fundamentally built on its coop. It wasn't tacked on, it was the plan. The game was concieved from Counter Strike for god's sake. The single player is what's tacked on. also fix'd, because this does not apply to everyone who reads the post. I've played and enjoyed it with my friends since day 1.[/QUOTE] Hence the [b]imo[/b]... It's the most repetitive game I've played probably. It's built around coop and IMO, it doesn't goes well.

The only thing more repetitive than left 4 dead is this fucking dispute. "IMO" "No, IMO" "no, IMO" Let's end this right the fuck now. If those of us who want to talk about left 4 dead and its future want to continue, let us do it. Right now you have nothing to contribute to the conversation at all short of "meh, I don't like it." The thread is about l4d's future. If you don't think it can have one despite everyone who enjoy the game here talking about its potential, why pull the conversation down? Just give the thread a rest. Go talk about a game you like. Now, on to conversation about the game's potential. The real conversation. I'm in favor of cutting the Jockey and amplifying the survivor's mobility. I think the game could benefit from feeling [I]less[/I] line Counter Strike and more like a faster paced shooter. Maybe some elements of Crysis 2-- now don't tear me apart. Just hear me out. I'm not talking about ADS and shit, though that might not be too bad of a thing if they go for bigger maps and keep the hip fire accuracy not absolute shit. I'm talking about mobility. Vaulting and ledge grabbing and maybe even more in depth parkour-esque (not full tilt) elements. What I think would be interesting is bigger maps, improved and more modern mobility, and maybe some benefit of splitting up or spreading thin. Not something that makes it the optimal thing to do, but something that breaks up the rhythm of going through whole campaigns as big blobs that gets whittled down to one by the end some times.

All I wish is for something to end the Half-Life story, even if it's a point and click or a book, just let us know the ending already ffs, let me be done with this once and for all.

Maybe they're using Left 4 dead 3 as a way of mass testing Source 2 so they can improve it for HL3?

[QUOTE=xalener;41772178]... [B]fix'd[/B], because this does not apply to everyone who reads the ...[/QUOTE] I hate to nitpick, but is it really necessary to replace the e with an apostrophe?

"Fix'd" is more of a trademarky thing and doesn't have the impact that "fixed" does. imo. imo. imo. imo.. imo... ITT: imo. I'm fucking burnt out on defending the games that I like and explaining why I enjoy what I enjoy. Why are you shitheads trying to challenge people for their taste? If that's not what you're trying to do, then what the fuck are you trying to do? If you don't think Left 4 dead has a future because you do't enjoy it in the present, fuck off of the thread that's explicitly about L4D's future.

[QUOTE=xalener;41777867]I'm in favor of cutting the Jockey and amplifying the survivor's mobility. I think the game could benefit from feeling [I]less[/I] line Counter Strike and more like a faster paced shooter. Maybe some elements of Crysis 2-- now don't tear me apart. Just hear me out. I'm not talking about ADS and shit, though that might not be too bad of a thing if they go for bigger maps and keep the hip fire accuracy not absolute shit. I'm talking about mobility. Vaulting and ledge grabbing and maybe even more in depth parkour-esque (not full tilt) elements. What I think would be interesting is bigger maps, improved and more modern mobility, and maybe some benefit of splitting up or spreading thin. Not something that makes it the optimal thing to do, but something that breaks up the rhythm of going through whole campaigns as big blobs that gets whittled down to one by the end some times.[/QUOTE] Actually, I hope L4D3 focuses on the exact opposite - returning to L4D1's slow-paced, survival roots. L4D2 is a great game, but way too many levels focus on rushing from point A to point B. Campaign is hardly fun anymore, because many players simply speed past each level in order to reach the end. Part of the fun of L4D1 was how you never knew what was coming in the next room - you couldn't take your time, sure, but you also had to be very careful and take it slowly. That's why the crescendos were so fun - it was actually kind of fun to hold down in one place and try to survive a zombie onslaught. L4D2 tried to make the game a little too fast-paced, personally. Especially with finales like The Parish's, and crescendos like the CEDA truck. If L4D3 can return to a more meticulous, slower experience, I think it would really strike the gold that the original L4D1 hit.

Hello wonderful thread! Everytime someone mentions "Jockey" I think the ticker mentions me.

Also, co-op on L4D is amazing. Versus and campaign are two significantly different experiences. Versus is much more fast-paced and competitive, whereas campaign allows players to slow down and take their time looking for items they might need. A lot of games tack on co-op, but L4D1 and 2 certainly did not. Both comp and co-op are extremely well thought out.

[QUOTE=Reimu;41779544]Actually, I hope L4D3 focuses on the exact opposite - returning to L4D1's slow-paced, survival roots. L4D2 is a great game, but way too many levels focus on rushing from point A to point B. Campaign is hardly fun anymore, because many players simply speed past each level in order to reach the end. Part of the fun of L4D1 was how you never knew what was coming in the next room - you couldn't take your time, sure, but you also had to be very careful and take it slowly. That's why the crescendos were so fun - it was actually kind of fun to hold down in one place and try to survive a zombie onslaught. L4D2 tried to make the game a little too fast-paced, personally. Especially with finales like The Parish's, and crescendos like the CEDA truck. If L4D3 can return to a more meticulous, slower experience, I think it would really strike the gold that the original L4D1 hit.[/QUOTE] ^See, this is more fucking like it. There's space in the world for both types of games. Personally what I would like are single campaigns that can fluctuate in pacing from ultra fast to pants shittingly slow. Like an actual zombie movie. I mean, l4d has the spirit of a very specific kind of zombie movie. It's not just some super srs post apocalypse infected movie where it's all "SUVAHV!!! BALENCE WHO U CAER ABOUT VS URSELF AND SURVAAAAAAHV!!@#(R*&%$" It's got the feeling of the ultra-self aware zombie movies like Shaun of the Dead and Slither. I think it should play like those movies too.

Yeah, I think alternating between slow and fast would be great. I love the rushing crescendos - it's just the whole game cannot be based on rushing from one point to another. There needs to be parts where everything is very tense and you need to slow down.

Actually, I always felt that was l4d's biggest problem. The campaigns had their own feel in terms of speed for the most part (especially crash course) but they never had that much variance in and of themselves. I'd say the best paced stock l4d campaign is Dark Carnival. I want more like that.

Yeah, I honestly feel like Dark Carnival and The Parish were more or less the pinnacle of L4D2. All of the campaigns had fun levels - and they were all fun to play - but Dark Carnival and Parish really seemed to hit the nail on the head for what was fun about the 2nd game. And yeah, I would like to see a little bit more of a distinct "feel" for each campaign. I think that's very hard to do, though - they tried that with the gas crescendos, and it really didn't work that well. Barely anyone plays the scavenge comp game anymore (even though it was pretty fun).

I do feel that this could be alleviated with bigger maps, faster characters, and maybe even less frequent zombies. Maybe even a bunch of different completely different paths within single levels with their own tactical pros and cons... And more nooks and crannies for loot and that shit. Trunten, you really seem to want to say something.