CVG Preview

[squerl]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?i d=190373 (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=190373)

Brief mention of the new mode.

One thing that has gotten to me is they keep saying that the boss infected side is a griefer's paradise. Griefers are there to piss other people off, and the best way to do that is to TK/friendly fire on the Survivor side. And now with no player boss infected in campaign mode, that'll be their only choice anyway.

[Dead Fish]

And now with no player boss infected in campaign mode, that'll be their only choice anyway.

True, but as far as I undestood it, you will not to want to play the Campaign mode with random strangers. That's what the other mode (Deathmatch, whatever) is there for.

[Alexander]

I am pretty annoyed about valve not really explaining the different modeds to us.
"Primarily a cooperative game, Left 4 Dead has its own version of the Deathmatch too; a mode which has inadvertently become the perfect counter to the team-killing idiots who threaten to ruin any teamwork-centric game.

Doug explains: "The multiplayer mode allows you to play as the boss infected, and that to me is a griefer's paradise."

This sounds to me that either the deathmatch mode will be the only online thing and the campaign mode is gonna be singleplayer or that we will be able to play as infected in any multiplayer mode - of course we dont want to play singleplayer as the infected.
And calling the mode deathmatch is pretty strange as well. When talking about a deathmatch I imagine an arena like map and not a linear one and also I image it being all about the score and not about reaching the end of the map..pretty strange this whole thing.

[bumbousdude25]

About the whole "griefer's paradise" thing, I think people who want to be teamkillers will still play on the survivors side to wreck the game, or they will play on the infected side and still wreck the game somehow. I don't think having an infected side is going to change anything as far as griefers go.

It doesn't matter to me, though. I'll be playing with my friends mostly, anyway.

[engagequadlaser]

Some of the leaps in logic around here never cease to amaze.

[Eddy_of_the_dead]

Some of the leaps in logic around here never cease to amaze.
so right...

[Psymon]

I agree, it probably won't solve the game wrecking problem entirely. For a start you will still have all the lameass aimbotters and so on all over again. However, it does give the "normal" griefers (as opposed to "hardcore" griefers) somewhere to go rather than wreck the game.

[darksora2323]

YAY FOR PARADOX

[frogopus]

Some of the leaps in logic around here never cease to amaze.

What leaps do you speak of? There are no controllable boss infected in campaign and the second game mode has not yet been explained but it is very clear that this second game mode will not resemble the campaign. I'm not sure I follow what you're implying.

[hool10]

Why don't you people e-mail Valve about this? It's the difference between single player and multiplayer options btw.

[Alexander]

Cause I've been too lazy to look for the right email adress longer than 5 min.

[globalenjoi]

Wait.. so now there is NOT going to be player-controlled boss infected in the co-op campaign? GAY.

[frogopus]

Wait.. so now there is NOT going to be player-controlled boss infected in the co-op campaign? GAY.
All thats been said so far is that there are now two game modes, one being the campaign that we've known about with non controllable infected and the other is unknown. We can only hope that this game mode more than makes up for the loss of player bosses in the campaign.

One thing that has gotten to me is they keep saying that the boss infected side is a griefer's paradise. Griefers are there to piss other people off, and the best way to do that is to TK/friendly fire on the Survivor side. And now with no player boss infected in campaign mode, that'll be their only choice anyway.
Personally, I've never bought the whole "infected play will give griefers something to do" bit because griefing is doing something outside the expected gameplay to piss someone off. We all expect the bosses to fight the survivors... its just like saying the terrorists are griefing the CT's by killing them. The real system thats going to combat griefing is the demerits.

[Etheallmighty]

"Console testing hasn't gone into external playtest yet, but that'll be going on throughout the summer as we head toward certification," continues Doug."

Oh yes....I would love to playtest for the 360. I remember when I talked to him (Mike Booth) a while back he said it's always nice to check in whenever cause there might be some testing going on around seattle (which is pretty much Microsoft central.

speaking of which, how come we've stopped seeing Booth, he hasn't done an interview or anything in a long time.

[bumbousdude25]

The real system thats going to combat griefing is the demerits.

Definitely. :)

speaking of which, how come we've stopped seeing Booth, he hasn't done an interview or anything in a long time.

True. It's all been Doug, lately.

[Dead Fish]

True. It's all been Doug, lately.

That's because Mike is held captive in one of Valve's basements after insisting that the game has strayed too much from his original vision...

[Waterboy2go]

That's because Mike is held captive in one of Valve's basements after insisting that the game has strayed too much from his original vision...


Meet 1/2 a mile east of Valve HQ, we're busting him out!

[Eddy_of_the_dead]

Meet 1/2 a mile east of Valve HQ, we're busting him out!
i bring the guns nd ammo!!

[engagequadlaser]

What leaps do you speak of? There are no controllable boss infected in campaign and the second game mode has not yet been explained but it is very clear that this second game mode will not resemble the campaign. I'm not sure I follow what you're implying.


This sounds to me that either the deathmatch mode will be the only online thing and the campaign mode is gonna be singleplayer or that we will be able to play as infected in any multiplayer mode - of course we dont want to play singleplayer as the infected.
And calling the mode deathmatch is pretty strange as well. When talking about a deathmatch I imagine an arena like map and not a linear one and also I image it being all about the score and not about reaching the end of the map..pretty strange this whole thing.

[Alexander]

So you tell me what you expect from a deathmatch mode.

[engagequadlaser]

So you tell me what you expect from a deathmatch mode.

My best guess is the reason playable boss-infected were pulled from the regular campaign had to do with the level of disruption possible when in the hands of capable players. People go into the campaign mode with the intent of finishing the campaign. If you had a capable team of boss-infected making the survivors' lives miserable and continually causing them to wipe, it'd be a pretty big downer.

To preserve the playable boss-infected however, Valve most likely implemented a much shorter skirmish mode with modified mechanics to better balance both sides. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if the deathmatch mode plays out on single maps instead of entire campaigns (that way if the survivor team wipes out it's no big deal, you only lost at most the equivalent of 15 minutes of campaign-mode time, and can just restart the map or pick a different one), and things such as horde infected and boss infetced spawning is done differently by the director.

I don't see the need or reason why Valve would make entirely different maps for the deathmatch mode, least of all arena-like ones where the survivors can hunker down and fortify an area instead of having to progress and potentialy be ambushed by the boss infected (ambushing and striking at inopportune moments is the foundation of playing as the infected).

Edit - Oh, and the idea that the campaign is going to become single player is, quite frankly, batshit insane.

[bumbousdude25]

My best guess is the reason playable boss-infected were pulled from the regular campaign had to do with the level of disruption possible when in the hands of capable players. People go into the campaign mode with the intent of finishing the campaign. If you had a capable team of boss-infected making the survivors' lives miserable and continually causing them to wipe, it'd be a pretty big downer.

This is good reasoning...

To preserve the playable boss-infected however, Valve most likely implemented a much shorter skirmish mode with modified mechanics to better balance both sides. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if the deathmatch mode plays out on single maps instead of entire campaigns (that way if the survivor team wipes out it's no big deal, you only lost at most the equivalent of 15 minutes of campaign-mode time, and can just restart the map or pick a different one), and things such as horde infected and boss infetced spawning is done differently by the director.

Well, I'm not sure if this is exactly what we would want or not, but I think they will implement some kind of checkpoint system to combat unbalanced teams (infected being a higher skill level than survivors).

As for the last part, they could do it like Rainbow Six: Vegas. You make a list of which scenarios you want to play (only ones that the player with the least amount of levels has unlocked so far, think DLC in Rock Band). Then, you play them in the order you chose, and the game just repeats the maps when you finish, or stops and goes back to the lobby if you tell it to. Technically, you could select every level, and play the entire campaign (if everyone has it all unlocked).

I don't see the need or reason why Valve would make entirely different maps for the deathmatch mode

I don't either. I don't think they will. :)

Oh, and the idea that the campaign is going to become single player is, quite frankly, batshit insane.

[globalenjoi]

Edit - Oh, and the idea that the campaign is going to become single player is, quite frankly, batshit insane.


If that were to happen, I would probably not buy the game. The main hook for me is co-op that is extremely challenging. If they take it away......

[hool10]

What if you want to go somewhere that doesn't have an internet connection, but you want to play L4D? That is why there is a deathmatch mode or a single-player mode. It's still coop as well because your AI comrades feel very similar to how a human would play.

[globalenjoi]

What if you want to go somewhere that doesn't have an internet connection, but you want to play L4D?

Chances are, you're screwed thanks to how steam works. It's always been a bitch trying to play Steam games offline, like HL2.

That is why there is a deathmatch mode or a single-player mode.

That does not seem like a valid reason at all. The game was created to be a co-op game first. One you would play online, with friends, not solo. In fact, solo play seems like it would be boring as fuck. "DAYUM!!! Did you guys see that horde just rape me?? Oh wait.... you're NPC's..." Doesn't work the same way.

It's still coop as well because your AI comrades feel very similar to how a human would play.

Err... You can play solo all you want, and think it's co-op, but I'd much rather play with a group of my friends. Lots of screaming, laughing, and cursing that you won't get with the bots.

[sidesh0w]

the idea that they're cutting the muliplayer campaign is preposterous

Oh, and the idea that the campaign is going to become single player is, quite frankly, batshit insane.

what he said.

[hool10]

It's how you define coop Enjoi. You can play with your friends online, LAN, strangers online, or just by yourself. Basing from various previews, Mr. Booth did a superb job in making the AI in the game very smart and human like. Also Steam does need work with the offline mode, but you can still use it up to the point that you must need an internet connection. You need it to validate your copy of L4D and you need it to receive content updates and new steam versions. I'm pretty sure that Steam Cloud and Steam Works will also vastly improve offline mode performance.