I was planning on buying Left 4 Dead 2...

[Lionheart]

...until I found out about this.



Yeah, yeah, I know I'm probably way behind the times on this. But still.

Just...what the hell?

I am a huge L4D fan. HUGE. And up until this, I was in a state of steadily increasing anticipation about L4D2.

Sure, I was a little disappointed about the Replacement Scrappy cast...

And I was slightly concerned that a lot of the new gameplay additions seem to have been designed for the single purpose of frustrating players rather than springing from a coherent creative philosophy...

And the Charger seemed kinda lame (So it's kinda like a faster, weaker Tank? MmmmK)...

And the Spitter, from an aesthetic if not a gameplay standpoint, struck me as monumentally stupid (I think it's the pigtails that push it over the edge)...

But the fundamentals of the game I loved were still there, and I was eager to play through the new campaigns and bash zombies over the head with skillets and such.

Yet for some reason, I just can't get past the Jockey. Ordinarily I'm not too bothered by sounding stupid when I try to explain something in a video game to random dorm wingmates who wander in and look over my shoulder or whatever. ("That's the Smoker. He, um, shoots out his tongue like a frog and tries to constrict you like a boa, and...he has really bad gas, I guess.") And I realize that Left 4 Dead has never been been a deadly-earnest (pun intended, kinda) take on the genre...if it had been, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much.

But...but...

He's called the Jockey???

He jumps on your back and you lose control of your character?!?!

I honestly thought this was an internet hoax or a prank perpetrated by Valve upon the players when I first heard about it.

I don't know. I can't fully explain it. What I do know is that I'll save my my $50 for something else and keep enjoying L4D1, which they hopefully won't totally abandon after the token (but appreciated) Crash Course DLC.

[Mozenrath]

Man, what were they on...?



Oh...

[Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action]

Forgive me, but I really don't see the big deal.

[Mozenrath]

Oct 16, 2009 15:11:21 GMT -5 Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action said:

Forgive me, but I really don't see the big deal.

Me neither, I just had that pic already.

[Display Name]

uhhh,really?the idea of "the jockey" sounds good to me.an infected that rides on your back and tries to steer you into a horde,off a cliff,etc...it's sure as hell gonna make the game more interesting.

[Lionheart]

Oct 16, 2009 15:33:39 GMT -5 Display Name said:

uhhh,really?the idea of "the jockey" sounds good to me.an infected that rides on your back and tries to steer you into a horde,off a cliff,etc...it's sure as hell gonna make the game more interesting.

If by "interesting," you mean "aggravating and stupid."

Perhaps in Left 4 Dead 3, the same fertile creative mind which conceived the Jockey will give us more variations on the theme of special infected with sports-themed names designed to make the game more frustrating and difficult while at the same time sapping the player's ability to take it seriously:

The Goalie: Stands in front of the entrance to a safehouse, slaps away any survivors trying to enter.

The Punter: Has a huge mutated foot, picks up survivors and drop-kicks them off of tall buildings.

The (90's baseball-style) Trainer: Force-feeds survivors steroids until they turn into Tanks and kick the ass of their teammates.

I can't wait.

[Display Name]

it's a videogame dude.from what I understand,he doesn't take total control of your character.it's gonna be fun trying to steer your character away from where the infected is trying to take you.as far as the name,it makes sense..would you prefer the piggy-back-rider?

[Viva]

AH MAN A GAMEPLAY MECHANIC THAT I HAVE NOT YET TRIED BUT WILL ASSUME THAT IT'S TOTALLY VAPID AND CORRUPTS GAMEPLAY TO THE POINT IN WHICH THIS GAME IS UNPLAYABLE BEFORE I HAVE EVEN PLAYED IT.

Cry more, dude. I bet you end up playing it and you like it. It's about damn time there was a multiplayer zombie that could actually pull people away from the other humans. The smoker sucks and has been nerfed to oblivion, and you can't move when you're roping someone anyways.

Multiplayer is boring as hell and with the introduction of these new zombies maybe that will change.

[Deleted]

I actually like it

[Lionheart]

Oct 16, 2009 15:59:06 GMT -5 Display Name said:

it's a videogame dude.from what I understand,he doesn't take total control of your character.it's gonna be fun trying to steer your character away from where the infected is trying to take you.as far as the name,it makes sense..would you prefer the piggy-back-rider?

Just "Rider" would have been far preferable, yes.

AH MAN A GAMEPLAY MECHANIC THAT I HAVE NOT YET TRIED BUT WILL ASSUME THAT IT'S TOTALLY VAPID AND CORRUPTS GAMEPLAY TO THE POINT IN WHICH THIS GAME IS UNPLAYABLE BEFORE I HAVE EVEN PLAYED IT.

Damned if I'm paying fifty bucks to find out if I'm right. In days of yore, this is what demos of games were for, but Valve apparently thinks of a demo as just a reward for being at the front of the line of those handing over their cash.

Cry more, dude. I bet you end up playing it and you like it. It's about damn time there was a multiplayer zombie that could actually pull people away from the other humans. The smoker sucks and has been nerfed to oblivion, and you can't move when you're roping someone anyways.

Multiplayer is boring as hell and with the introduction of these new zombies maybe that will change.

Now see, I don't play Versus at all. I guess Versus people will appreciate this addition when they're on the infected side. If only there were a way to turn the little bugger on and off so he doesn't ruin my co-op campaign, though. (Actually, more difficulty customization in general would be a fine tweak in the sequel.)

Maybe if he didn't look like an evil version of Dobby the House Elf...

[Viva]

Also, dude, if you find 3 friends who want to buy it, it's 33 dollars. Which is rad. They are selling 4 packs of L4D2 on steam for 129.99.

L4D1 was far too easy, even on expert. So I'm welcoming the addition of new zombies and better designed campaigns in which you can't just sit in a corner and rape (they've designed maps to be more wide open and less linear.)

[Kroot bringing Justice]

I'm really not seeing why the Jockey is so bad but the Hunter and Smoker are all right. This has got to be the stupidest complaint I've ever seen.

[theryno665]

I think it's pretty cool, though I'd probably come up with a cooler name than the "Jockey". Maybe "The Controller" or something. But that video actually showed the exact purpose of the Jockey, as just when the player was trying to save their buddy from the Hunter, the Jockey hops on and makes them walk away, possibly right into another horde. Sure, it's aggravating...but isn't that kinda the point?

[i.Sarita.com]

L4D was BOOORING after like three days. They could afford to spice things up a bit with this one...though, sadly, I don't see it being all that much more worth the price.

[Lionheart]

Oct 16, 2009 17:29:13 GMT -5 Kroot bringing Justice said:

I'm really not seeing why the Jockey is so bad but the Hunter and Smoker are all right. This has got to be the stupidest complaint I've ever seen.

The Smoker was already pushing the boundaries of credulity, I admit (see my initial post).

The Hunter is probably the most "realistic" or "believable" of the special infected so far. He pounces and rips people to shreds, just like a predatory animal, thus the name. Pretty straightforward.

Sure, it's aggravating...but isn't that kinda the point?

I guess for me this crosses the boundary into what TVTropes calls "Fake Difficulty." I mean, what if L4D2 had random lighting bolts coming down from the sky which you had to dodge or they'd kill you instantly? That would be aggravating, wouldn't it? And that's the point, isn't it? Well, kinda, yeah, but it would be artificially aggravating; it would make no sense in the context of the game and just suck the fun out of it. For me, that's what the Jockey is like.

Really, it goes to what feels like an overall philosophical problem with the game design I mentioned in my initial post, and which a lot of game sequels suffer from: making changes and additions in a reactionary fashion, responding to player behavior from the previous installment in the series without regard to an overall creative vision, increased difficulty made the focus to the exclusion of all else.

I understand some people think L4D1 was too easy; but it almost seems as if all the (major) changes were conceived with the sole purpose of making the game harder. Yes, a sequel should present new challenges, but a balance must be struck between, on one hand, freshening things up and, on the other, maintaining the "feel" of the series and making sure the player can maintain their suspension of disbelief; otherwise every game series slowly becomes I Wanna Be The Guy.

Alright, I understand I'm in the minority about this, as I expected; not surprised that most people don't get what I'm complaining about, and I know I probably sound like a whiner. Just wanted to get this out of my system. Thanks for the discussion.

[Viva]

I'm sorry, but who are you to say that it makes no sense in the context of the game? Why does it have to make sense to YOU in order for it to be good? You didn't write the dictionary on zombies. Zombies are imaginary.

What would you expect them to do? Not evolve? Not elaborate on a rather simple game that is BEGGING to be more in depth? Come on dude.

The infected get a few more zombies you have to learn how to plan against, and the humans get a buttload of new weapons. It's called evolution. Seriously, you are off base here. Big time, and your argument sounds more like a angry fanboy picking at any little thing he can to get upset about (pre-release, mind you) than it does a legitimate concern.

If you want to be concerned, be concerned about Robin's promise of support for L4D1, and then subsequent release of L4D2 not a year later. But you're grasping at straws with your current argument.

You can't expect games not to evolve, and you can't condemn the chances as artificial aggravation. Don't be afraid of what's new.

[Lionheart]

Oct 16, 2009 20:37:03 GMT -5 Viva said:

I'm sorry, but who are you to say that it makes no sense in the context of the game?

Who are you to say that it does?

Why does it have to make sense to YOU in order for it to be good?

Because Valve wants my money for their game?

Yeah, that's right, it's the old "It's my opinion" defense. And I don't apologize for it. This is an internet forum. Expressing opinions is what people do here. It doesn't mean they expect everybody else to agree. Can you contribute anything to the discussion beyond telling me my word isn't law? Because I already knew that. You may as well just ignore the thread. I mean, have you ever seen the Monty Python "argument clinic" sketch?

What would you expect them to do? Not evolve? Not elaborate on a rather simple game that is BEGGING to be more in depth?

Reasonably certain I covered this in my post above.

Seriously, you are off base here.

Well, I guess you told me.

Big time, and your argument sounds more like a angry fanboy picking at any little thing he can to get upset about (pre-release, mind you) than it does a legitimate concern.

What difference does it make that it's pre-release? What's the point of pre-release info at all if I can't make judgements based on them? That's what they WANT me to do; of course they're hoping the previews will sell me on the game, but they take the risk it will turn me off, too. How is it any less valid to dislike the game before it's released, based on the info available, than it is it to say, "This game is going to be great!" and pre-order it? Both ways, I've never actually played the game, so I don't know.

Like I said: this is what DEMOS were supposed to be for.

If you want to be concerned, be concerned about Robin's promise of support for L4D1, and then subsequent release of L4D2 not a year later.

Oh believe me, I am.

You can't expect games not to evolve,

Covered this.

and you can't condemn the chances as artificial aggravation.

I can if that's what they appear to be to me.

[Michael Coello]

I don't see the fake difficulty argument, personally. It's not like a QTE where you die if you don't press a button in time. It's just a momentary freeze, something to make you want to stay together like the game says you need to do. It's like not being able to shake off the Hunter and Smoker, or needing your friends to protect you when you get boomed on. It's more like trying to put faith in your teammates than trying to be cheap.

[Lionheart]

Oct 16, 2009 21:06:38 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

I don't see the fake difficulty argument, personally. It's not like a QTE where you die if you don't press a button in time. It's just a momentary freeze, something to make you want to stay together like the game says you need to do. It's like not being able to shake off the Hunter and Smoker, or needing your friends to protect you when you get boomed on. It's more like trying to put faith in your teammates than trying to be cheap.

Hey, look at that, an exchange of ideas...as opposed to gain-saying and acting butthurt that somebody has an opinion.

[Deleted]

Honestly I say the Spitter is gonna change L4D so very much by destroying corner campers