L4D2: Expansion or Sequel?

This has been a controversial topic regarding the new L4D coming this month. I was going through the L4D2 demo thread and see a lot of people that don't feel this is a justified sequel and should be an expansion.

I'm gonna compile a list from what I know of things that are new or things there are more of in this game:
- new guns
- new characters (so new voice actors)
- new unique regular zombies
- new melee weapons
- new director that blocks off certain paths
- new campaigns
- new crescendo events
- new modes of gameplay
- new behaviors for existing enemies (wandering witch, etc)
- new powerup's (incendiary ammo, explosive ammo, etc)
- revamped graphics
- more alternatives for existing items (adrenaline, defrib, etc)
- more special infected
- more variety/replayability (since there's more weapons instead of just T1 shotgun/uzi and T2 assault rifle/sniper/shotgun to choose from, more items, more special infected, and path AI)
- more gore
- they're actually making more of an attempt at a plot this time that ties together the campaigns
- more overall content than L4D1

Now, I agree that it is soon for a sequel but should the gap in between sequels be part of the definition? The gameplay and graphics feel more or less the same, but should developers change their games simply for the sakes of changing it? Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Now I could understand if it was something like 2 new campaigns, and some other small changes, but it's not like Valve made us pay for survival mode, final stand and crash course. If the sequel was only that, then I would agree that it should be an expansion/DLC, but this is clearly not the case.

And if this should be an "expansion" rather than a sequel, then why should games like Max Payne 2 be a sequel? The list of new features it has over Max Payne 1 is smaller than the one above. What about Guitar Heroes?? They could just release DLC's with new songs, but instead they wrapped it up together and release sequels with minor improvements just like what they did with L4D2, why are they sequels?

Sorry, I guess I'm just trying to understand where people are coming from and at what point does an expansion becomes a sequel. Do you guys really feel this way or are you guys just disgruntled that you have to pay again so soon for this franchise? Because within a week of L4D2's announcement there were thousands of people that were blindly turned off by its idea simply because its too soon without knowing what new features were included. But eventually most of them were convinced once they tried it instead of judging it based on things that are unrelated to the game itself.

Lastly I want to talk about Valve itself. Early on after the announcement of L4D2 they've considered the possibility of releasing the contents of L4D2 in incremental patches like TF2 but due to the contents relying on each other than it made more sense to release them all simultaneously as a sequel. So it's not like they haven't considered it, as you can see by the survival pack. They've been continually supporting TF2 with updates and new contents for long enough also that they should be considered as one of the better developers instead of some franchise milking corporation. In fact, there are always these deals with valve/steam games, and cool things they do like wrapping several games up into orange box. I'm not even going to mention how much they've done for the community with steam, I could see corps like EA or Activision or Vivendi charging for something like that.

That's all I have, let's hear some civilized comments

 

The demo was nothing new.
Same old l4d in my mind with some polish and treats. I won't be getting it until there is some sale.

 

I thought L4D2 was less enjoyable than L4D. The changed perspective kind of sucks, hopefully it's not permanent. Also not too crazy about how the jumping seems to be hindered for some reason.

I think it's a new game though, not an expansion.

 

agreed and to OP, new graphics? really??? I strongly disagree on that one for sure, and most of the list are things you see in expansion packs anyways...Fallout 3 had a lot of the things on the list...bleh, don't really want to get into it but I still do not see justification for my money as a new game

 

No, not really, I wrote revamped graphics... I've specifically avoided saying "new" in that department.

Yeah that's true, but expansion packs usually adds to an existing game, that worked out for FO3, since you could still travel in the wasteland and still get to level 20, but with the expansion you could do that and travel to new areas and level up to 30. But isn't this a sequel since it replaces existing things? It has new characters instead of the old characters, new campaigns instead of the old campaigns. It adds to certain departments definitely like the special infected, but something as big as levels in a game like this (and in a game like this, that is one of the biggest things you can change to keep the experience fresh) being replaced should warrant it as a sequel rather than an expansion, no?

 

I played the demo, and quite honestly i find the original to be much better, so far.

I will wait for a steam weekend deal for this one.

 

I think it's more of an expansion, but I don't think it's unreasonably priced considering you can play it as a standalone game.

P.S. This is similar to my opinion on ODST.

 

Expansion.

 

in my opinion, the graphics are quite a bit better in L4D2 than in L4D.

keep in mind, graphics include:

infected animation, dismemberment, death animations for zombies (it feels like your bullets actually do something to them instead of them pretty much just dropping), blood and gore effects, environment detail, model and texture detail on the infected and the guns is way improved.

that said, in total it feels like a big expansion pack. i wouldn't buy it if i couldn't get it cheap.

 

I liked it, it was a refreshing change from the same old L4D. But hey, different strokes for different folks.

 

Yeah, I liked the demo as well and can't wait for it to come out. It is indeed a refreshing change from the old l4d. New weapons, new times, new infected and special infected. It will be fun.

 

Hahaha, I don't even want to call it an expansion here in AUS... The demo's just downright depressing atm. Well hopefully it'll get modded up to your level, In which case I will buy (only due to not owning l4d1 on pc). However think of this as ODST is for halo 3. Has the same multiplayer, but a whole new story and general fixes! that and all those new modes I'm salivating over (scavenge anyone?).. Nvm I'm too tired and need sleep (yes it's 10 am here, but exams were coming and studying felt good... Ok I confess It was the f*cking l4d2 demo that kept me up)(hehehe gore work around works well)

 

I think of it as more of an expansion.

 

It's as much of a sequel as COD2 was to COD. People were expecting a Warcraft 2 to Warcraft type sequel.

High expectations.

There is no reason for Valve to change the core mechanics of the Coop Model. People would cry Havoc if that happened.

 

So much for the promised free updates to L4D. They just decide to say screw it! Let's make them pay for a whole new game and disregard our promise for "regular" free updates. =.=;;

 

Granted I have not given it enough play time yet, I did not like the demo. The change in graphics and atmosphere was for the worse IMO. I like that dark grungy feel L4D had and I also liked the character cast a lot more.

Infact I cant stand the character cast in L4D2.

For me I think of it as a new game, but I feel they released a new game in the wrong way. They just released it too soon and it is so similar the old one, its like the patched up version of L4D.

They asked what was wrong with the first one "oh we are lacking enough weapons to keep the game intersting" "oh we are lacking enough stages to make the game interesting" and then before you know it, instead of patching L4D and adding things like they should have, L4D2 is here and will a big price tag for a full game.

This early release of the new game means the death of the old game IMO even if they say they will continue support on it. Half of the players will move over so it will split player groups and teams and force them to move onto the new game also they will not have as much time or reason to give proper support to the old game.

I can imagine if Team Fortress 2 was replaced by TF3 this quickly and they blamed it on some lame reason they had to upgrade the whole way the game is run so that it cant be patched. Look how much has been added to that game to keep it alive and make it worth the purchase, and they commonly sell it dirt cheap. It was $2.50 a few days ago.....

L4D2 is using the same engine and stuff as TF2 now as well.

 

Valve has said that they were unhappy with L4D. They revamped the AI Director, which I think would require either a major update or a complete new game. They have also said that they are much happier with L4D2 and will keep it as a "platform" for much longer, similar to TF2. I think L4D2 is here to stay.

I will be buying this game no problem, but I can't give my opinion on things like whether its worth the money for people that have the original, I never bought the original.

 

no wonder PC games are dying!! you guys cant even be happy when a proper PC developer, puts out a proper new title thats not a 360 emulator!!! dont buy it!! go buy MW2 instead!!! screw valve - they suck!! IW FTW!!

 

sadly, with our gripes, we will all be buying the game.

 

I was able to take down $35 with a 4 pack preorder, but for the full $50 there is no way in heck.

 

I hope you mean l4d2, not that POS other title that we all know about. lol.

 

I'll be buying both games, thank you.

I, myself, don't buy many games. I bought two games last year?? L4D and Fallout 3. I've bought COD4 and Sins of the Solar Empire the year before.

I'll be getting this game and MW2 for sure....

 

you mean, you have a 360?

 

On the PC probably. I don't do well with FPSes and Xbox controllers. Mouse and keyboard owns.