Should Valve had Finished the Game Before Release?

**sheep58230** · 02-06-09, 12:57 PM

Every piece of software has bugs, but in my opinion Left 4 Dead has very big ones that should have been fixed way before even releasing.

It's not only bugs, 2 maps were missing for the versus mode and they've only just added proper instructions for zombie control.

So, do you think Valve should have done more before release?

**Virally Yours** · 02-06-09, 01:14 PM

I look at it two ways. For $50, it didn't have enough content and wasn't quite as polished as most of their games are on release.

However, they fairly explicitly said it'd get free content patches (per usual since CSS and TF2) and as usual they work on bug fixes right away.

As long as they keep working the kinks out and finish out the original and expand on it without charging, I'm fine with it.

**InkofDeath** · 02-06-09, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Virally Yours

As long as they keep working the kinks out and finish out the original and expand on it without charging, I'm fine with it.

Exactly. I'll keep my faith in VALVe as a company as long as they stay true to their words and promises.

If not, then I'm not really going to continue spending time with any of their games.

However they've held true to their words with TF2 and CSS, so it's hard not to imagine they won't.

**monolith1183** · 02-06-09, 01:34 PM

yea i think the game is lacking a few things, it is great fun but soon runs abit dry with no objectives what so ever and such a limited number of versus maps. I honestly dont see many special infected being added i mean alot of coding must have gone into the smoker let alone all of them put together and for a mod team to make one as good as any of the originals would be a real challenge. But valve do hold true like inkofdeath said in his post. They keep tf2 cs:s up to date. Shame dod:s almost never gets any new content.

**Kenny007** · 02-06-09, 02:13 PM

I look at it (and most game purchases) this way.

I paid $45 for it (preordered in Nov) and played the game hard for a few weeks, took a few weeks break, and played again. I've only got 80 hours into the game so far, and that's with the limited content, bugs, whatever the complaint is.

Given that I paid only $45 for it, it's currently cost me about 56 cents an hour to enjoy this game, and I intend to be playing it for a long while, especially when more content comes. Considering the fun I've already had with the game, I'm happy I didn't have to wait any longer for this great game.

Could it have released with more content and fewer bugs? Sure, but I definitely don't regret buying it the day it was released, and I've gotten a LOT more playtime out of this than in other games I bought around the same time (3x more playtime than COD:WaW and about 20x more playtime than GTA4). A good buy in my book.

**asukhama** · 02-06-09, 02:31 PM

i agree that although the content is per definiton little, but nonetheless i haven't regret spending 50 euros either.

Although, if valve Does eventually switch to charging for pc DLC's, then i'll start doubting if i should even bother. Imo L4D has content, but far from enough content to be charging with relatively low content DLC's like the survivors pack (from what i known about it so far at least)

it's becoming a very annoying and money draining business that developpers are creating contentless short games and start developping tons of DLC's with hardly any significant content more for 1/3 or 1/4 of the original price.

There was a time when i thought MMORPG's were expensive, but i reckon a simple game with DLC will manage to cost up to 2x what i would pay for an MMORPG during 4 months, in 1 month

**razman360** · 02-06-09, 02:59 PM

world at war was cheao remake of cod 4, if u played cod 4, u were bound to have little play time from cod 5. I think that the versus mapos werent a problem, its only the bugs that bug me..hehe..bug

**Red Azurite** · 02-06-09, 03:38 PM

given the huge possibility on valve being under a publishing deadline, it was either l4d as is or a canceled project entirely.
given that i paid $60 for this game, i've played l4d almost consistently, and i don't see myself (nor my younger bro) getting bored anytime soon.
newer content/patches will add to the longevity of this title. i've read up on valve's track record, so i expect great things from them and l4d as a whole.

**Kenny007** · 02-06-09, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by razman360

world at war was cheao remake of cod 4, if u played cod 4, u were bound to have little play time from cod 5. I think that the versus mapos werent a problem, its only the bugs that bug me..hehe..bug

A buddy of mine that JUST picked up COD4 is looking at WaW through that mindset, though he's more concerned with the move back to WWII. Myself though, I actually enjoy WaW quite a bit (Save a few bugs which supposedly have been patched out with the patch that released today). It plays like a modernized WWII, the weaponset is nice, and the maps aren't too bad. My biggest plus for the game is that in the PC version, they brought in Prestige mode, which was abscent of the PC version of COD4. When I hit 55 on PC, I got bored. At least I can level again and again in WaW. I liked 4, and the transition to "5" was more a change of scenery than anything else.

GTA4 though...I'm mad I bought...lol.

**Nijay** · 02-06-09, 05:04 PM

Yeah, I think a game ought to be finished before release. This game wasn't, but it's okay now and looks like in a couple months it will even have user content, so it's definitely a value buy no matter when you purchase(d) it.