I think making the sequel was probably a mistake - Valve should've built on the original game with graphical updates, added campaigns with new survivors, and an eventual overhaul to the Source 2...
I think making the sequel was probably a mistake - Valve should've built on the original game with graphical updates, added campaigns with new survivors, and an eventual overhaul to the Source 2 engine. Heck, they still could - Valve have proven they can do pretty much anything if they can be bothered. If they hadn't chosen to split the audience with the sequel, I think we'd have seen a lot more of those Left 4 Dead 3 concepts make it into the existing game instead of being consigned to the void. They could've beaten other AAA devs the punch again and made a live service to shame all the others.
Looking back, I remember annoyed reactions and at least one person saying Valve was attempting to charge us full price for an expansion pack when the sequel was announced. 12 years before our current-day shitbag games industry, an idea that distasteful wouldn't have made it past the drawing board.
The video that goes along with this article is an excellent breakdown of why Left 4 Dead was so great (especially the sound design and how it cued players to what was coming next). It’s crazy that...
The video that goes along with this article is an excellent breakdown of why Left 4 Dead was so great (especially the sound design and how it cued players to what was coming next).
It’s crazy that there’s still 30,000 people playing Left 4 Dead every day. I used to play it a lot for the first few years after it came out. Even on the 360 there were tons of players online at any time, which is wild for a Valve game.
I haven’t played any of the spiritual successors but I might check out Back 4 Blood, since it seems closest to the original experience with modern conveniences.
I think making the sequel was probably a mistake - Valve should've built on the original game with graphical updates, added campaigns with new survivors, and an eventual overhaul to the Source 2 engine. Heck, they still could - Valve have proven they can do pretty much anything if they can be bothered. If they hadn't chosen to split the audience with the sequel, I think we'd have seen a lot more of those Left 4 Dead 3 concepts make it into the existing game instead of being consigned to the void. They could've beaten other AAA devs the punch again and made a live service to shame all the others.
Looking back, I remember annoyed reactions and at least one person saying Valve was attempting to charge us full price for an expansion pack when the sequel was announced. 12 years before our current-day shitbag games industry, an idea that distasteful wouldn't have made it past the drawing board.
The video that goes along with this article is an excellent breakdown of why Left 4 Dead was so great (especially the sound design and how it cued players to what was coming next).
It’s crazy that there’s still 30,000 people playing Left 4 Dead every day. I used to play it a lot for the first few years after it came out. Even on the 360 there were tons of players online at any time, which is wild for a Valve game.
I haven’t played any of the spiritual successors but I might check out Back 4 Blood, since it seems closest to the original experience with modern conveniences.