Talk:Left 4 Dead 2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clean up attempt of Left_4_Dead_2#Announcement_and_boycott

I attempted a clean up the Left_4_Dead_2#Announcement_and_boycott section. Before all the info seemed to be randomly placed, it is now split in to two paragraphs; 1. the reaction to the E3 announcement from the community, 2. the reaction from Valve towards the community. It's still not great, but at least it's workable now.--Otterathome (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice job Otter, it's definitely constructed in a much more organized fashion now. Sort of an argument, and counter-argument. I think it would be a good idea now to add a mention of the Pro-L4D2 group in the second paragraph, using reference fourteen. PJthePlayer (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Real-Valve-Fans-Form-L4D2-Enthusiast-Group-18231.html is a reliable source for the 37,000 figure, but will leave it as you may disagree and may be able to find a source for another figure. It seems unreliable because the Cinema Blend article says "combines gossip from anonymous and unverified sources as well as news and reviews." the article reads like a blog and contains many strong opinions. I also question the notability of the Cinema Blend article.--Otterathome (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, even though it doesn't mean much as far as evidence is concerned, I can confirm the accuracy of that number. Consider the nature of the article (it's obviously anti-boycott), they have no reason to lie about it. PJthePlayer (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR.--Otterathome (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to say, I am quite suprised and confused at all the coverage it is getting. 40,000 users joining a group on the steam system of 20 million (feb) users is nothing. But due to the amount of coverage it's getting thanks to Valve's recognition of it, it has to be covered here too.--Otterathome (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My feelings exactly, Otter. Especially considering that the boycott is not a legally binding document. While this is entirely speculation, I predict that most of those self proclaimed boycotters will buy the game anyway. PJthePlayer (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Otter, if you could some how add in a mention of the Pro-L4D2 group (a group formed in response to the boycott), that would be great. You obviously have a neutral stance on this issue, and many people would doubt mine at this point. PJthePlayer (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering how many people actually get involved with the development of the game rather than just buying video games, it's a pretty big number. Anyway, the boycott is significant because it got mentioned at a lot of reliable websites. If the pro-L4D2 got mentions as well, it could definitely be added. But just from that website, I don't think it would be notable enough.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the trouble of gathering a few sources for the Pro-L4D2 group... is this enough, or do I need to find more?

http://360.kombo.com/article.php?artid=16681

http://www.l4dnao.com/top5/l4d2-enthusiasts-group/

http://www.gamegazette.net/?p=392

http://www.n4g.com/News-348802.aspx

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92506-Valve-Fans-Form-Left-4-Dead-2-Support-Group

PJthePlayer (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we are talking about such a major game it really needs to be quality sources, so The Escapist is the one to use. The Kombo article is a derivative of this CVG article, which is much better to use. I'd stick with those two. If you can find any more sources of the same calibre then drag them back here, the more the merrier. Perhaps Otterathome would do the honours, please? I really think that Cinema Blend one should be shown the door. Someoneanother 01:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be hard pressed to argue against that, someoneelse, that article is pretty biased lol. But yeah, I would appreciate it if Otter, or someone else of a neutral standpoint would write this in. I feel that too many people suspect me of bias, and any action by me in this ordeal is likely to be complained about, haha. PJthePlayer (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've add this using the escapist and the CVG articles. N4G is maybe the only other source that's reliable in the list, but Escapist and CVG are moreso. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you will all be relieved to know that I am now happy with the section, haha. I'll leave you all alone now. Thanks for writing that up for me, Masem. PJthePlayer (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good job to everyone that help contributed. It was a very long and difficult discussion :) Napalmdest55 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Prose or bullet points

imo an extended list like the Special Infected is ugly as sin in an article and should be avoided, but that is my opinion. Is there a consensus on what style should be used? Wikipedia policy seems to be to avoid lists like this. Skeith (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm following the precedent of Left 4 Dead which has been assessed as GA, and personally feel it is much more readable than a block of prose with the same information. BlazerKnight (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead got the GA rating when the survivor and SI list was prose, I will revert those later. Skeith (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall a hard and fast rule, but WP:EMBED has some advice regarding prose vs. lists. —LOL ^T/_C 03:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We should avoid lists. If TF2 can list out its 9 classes in prose form, there's no reason we can't outline the 8 special infected via prose as well. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I like how to avoid lists and bullet points, we decided to just omit the new weapon and infected, I don't see how removing information in any regard (unless it's incorrect) is a good idea, if you don't like formating, change it but don't remove information ---Justicezero (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it too, I don't see how adding gamecruft is a good idea, see point 6 in that link, none of the new specials were omitted —LOL ^T/_C 19:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Scavenger

What is this new "Scavenger" mode? It's mentioned once in the article and doesn't say what it is. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

http://store.steampowered.com/news/2916/ 58.170.125.143 (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

PEGI rating?

The article says that the PEGI rating is 3+, sounds unlikely. Tchernobog (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to fix it. Thanks for the tip. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Fly Gabe Newell"

I have removed this section from the article, as it pertains only to the boycott, and isn't even necessarily a big part of the boycott in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.29.216 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the removed section, which I also removed:

===="Fly Gabe Newell"==== Shortly afterward, a Left 4 Dead modder known by the handles "Joe W-A" and "Lacabra" sent a joking email to Gabe Newell, prompting the following exchange: Why the hell haven't I been flown to Valve? I mean, you guys need to preview my campaign. — Joe W-A We are boycotting your campaign. — Gabe Newell Does... does that mean I have to fly you here? — Joe W-A Me and Erik. — Gabe Newell Joe W-A then started an online campaign on Blogspot to raise funds for air tickets. He rapidly received over USD$3000 in donations after several gaming news sites carried his story. Valve then announced in a press release that Gabe Newell and Erik Johnson were heading to Australia, presumably on their own money, as Joe W-A gave the collected donations to the charity Child's Play.

I removed this because:

1. It is not written in an encyclopedic manner.
2. It is an unimporant event, a sub event of the boycott.
3. the sites listed as references are blogs.

Ikip (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the above is way too much for a minor thing - though this event is not so minor as it did get coverage, but it only needs a sentence or two. FWIW, the only true blog in the refs above is the flygabenewll one; Kotaku depends on authro, and Rock Paper Shotgun is considered reliable. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that the previous version was too long for a minor event, but I thought I wrote it in an encyclopedic manner; could you be more specific so I can make better edits in the future? Also, I used the campaign blog itself as a primary source, but used secondary sources to back it up. I have gone and copyedited for accuracy, too. BlazerKnight (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to assume the reader has no clue about these things, and thus explain the gross details, not the specifics. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, revert my edits, call them unencyclopedic, but at least fix the information about Newell saying: "offered that if Joe was to pay to fly him to the country, he would take a look at it." He never did. Joe started the campaign on his own initiative. BlazerKnight (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If I read the above portion of the email chain that was removed, it certainly sounds like that Newell told Joe to fly them to Aussie to review his mod. It could have ended at that but Joe then went and started the funding campaign; that was the initiative you refer to. It is important to note that the email chain was all jokingly done, and only once the funds got close to $3000 that it became serious. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Newell joked about flying them to Australia. The way it's worded now implies that he asked, with seriousness, for Joe to pay for the flight. At least rephrase that. BlazerKnight (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Newell today (Oct 7) is apparently in Australia now, but reported as part of a press conference to discussion the rating issue with the AU Office. (just added this to article). My feeling (not yet supported) is that when the classification occurred, shortly after Joe announced he had $3000, Newell made plans to travel to AU to appeal to the board directly, and thus this is more a business trip for him , with a stop to see Joe. If we can affirm that these two events are related, that will help. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Youtube has footage of a press event he held, and the way he tells it, when he saw the speed with which the community raised the money he realised they wanted him to visit Australia... so he decided to make it a useful trip by doing other things while in the country. The campaign began before the censorship thing blew up, so it doesn't seem like it began as a business trip. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Boycott Section too long?

Is anyone else noticing this? It's just way too long and seems that a few sentences are just basically saying the same thing. I'd shorten it up, but what do you guys think? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The boycott was significant and influenced another aspect of the game (Gabe's trip to AU) so it's still necessary to include. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole Pre-release reactions section is unnecessary and should be broken up into information dispersed throughout the article, except the boycott which deserves at least a subsection. I'm hoping that as the game nears release this page will be cleaned up because it's pretty dire right now. Smurfy 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, with video game articles we're usually struggling to add real-world reception, and we have a gold mine of it right here (before the game is even released, too). If anyone thinks it can be trimmed for conciseness, go for it. BlazerKnight (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BlazerKnight. We actually sourced most of the stuff in the Boycott section too.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Banned in Australia

Aparently l4d2 has been banned in australia as can be seen Here Sir Fritz (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just updated the page to include the banning in Australia. Bagginators (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? Left 4 Dead 2 "failed to gain a MA15+ rating" and that means it is "unsuitable for persons aged under 18 to play." ... Would someone like to help me understand what the Australians teach in their maths classes? Seriously, is this right? Because it just sounds... bizarre doesn't quite cover it. MA15+ should mean that it's suitable for those 15 and up, surely? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but the game did NOT earn an MA15+ rating (it earned a higher rating). And, evidently, if it's not suitable for 15+ (just 18+) then it doesn't get released. The section seems quite clear to me. Ie: the next rating up from 15+ is 18+, thus 'failing to acquire MA15+' means that it is deemed suitable only for 18+. DP76764 (Talk) 16:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But... if the game earned a higher rating, then that rating exists... which means it should be coming out under that rating and... my head hurts. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no higher rating. It's a crock. MA15+ is the highest the ratings can go for games, thanks to a backwater politician. --118.208.107.100 (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(headdesk) Very well. But I vote that the part about it not being suitable for under 18s is deleted to avoid confusing others who are unaware of the Ozzie's bizarre ratings system. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps an explanation of Australia's video game rating system would be appropriate. Hon Michael Atkinson, the Attorney-General for South Australia, is the one responsible for vetoing changes to the video game rating system which would have included an R18+ rating. The way the system works means that all Attorney's-General from every State (6 states) must agree to the changes in order for the changes to be made. While Atkinson continues to oppose the changes, there is no way of putting changes through. It is funny to note that the Board consider the game to be "unsuitable for for persons aged under 18 to play"; which also means that it IS suitable for those over 18 to play. And given that the average age of gamers in Australia is 29 or 30 years of age, it seems counter-intuitive to deny the game to all.202.89.183.233 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We probably don't want to provide an explanation of Australia's rating system for every game that was banned in Australia. I think that info belongs more to Office of Film and Literature Classification (Australia), and perhaps this article can link to an appropriate section of that article. —LOL ^T/_C 03:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This section seems to be the best choice. By the way, thanks. I've now got a more informed opinion of the world's stupidity. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite ridiculous, really. I've gone and added the link to the section. Incidentally, I wonder what Australian boycotters think of this whole shenanigan, haha. BlazerKnight (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Likely, the two things that always happen with moronic censors and/or moronic DRM. Importing for the first and piracy for both (though Valve is very intelligent with DRM and is one of the few companies I can think of that I respect in that department). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a status update of this section- A censored, resubmitted version has been classified MA15+, while a review of the classification of the original submission has confirmed that it will remain RC'ed. In all likelyhood the censored one looks like it will hit Aus shores. Sad moment in Aus gaming history :( The censored version will have bodies removed and no dismemberment.203.28.251.101 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, it has the bodies removed? But... there were bodies in the first game... I totally give up on the Australian censor board. Thanks for the links. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't Australian players just buy the unedited version via steam? EvilHom3r (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the law also prevents digital downloading. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Steam would block AUS service to the game. There's always going to be SOME people that pirate it though. I can guarantee that.71.233.198.166 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually EvilHomer is partly correct - if Australian players have it bought for them by international players, or buy it overseas, they will have the uncensored version. The restriction is that the uncensored version cannot be sold in Australia, not that it cannot exist in Australia. The determining factor of which version is purchased on steam is the location of the purchaser. Australian IPs receive the censored version, while international IPs receive the uncensored. So for instance, having an international friend gift you a copy means you have the international version. But we can't include that in the article unless there are sources. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if that is common knowledge about how Steam works, we may be able to put that in. Wait for a bit though in case someone believes otherwise. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

UK Cover

I suggest the cover shown on the page be changed to the UK cover so the article doesn't appear doesn't appear offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.51.173 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Valve is a US company, so we use the US cover. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't censor for any purpose, potentially offensive or not (see Autofellatio). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, not many people would find it offensive anyway, just giving a heads up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.51.173 (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I'm from the UK though, and I can tell you that a game cover on Wikipedia isn't going to offend anyone when they can simply look outside to see said gesture. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's just a front cover. The fingers are meant to show that it is the second game in the Left 4 Dead series. Plus, who cares about front covers? -Anonymus 9 November 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.79.247 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section actually has nothing bout the actual critical and commercial reception to the game. Anyone wanna add this?

Possibly because it's just come out? It'll come soon. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that an online videogame news site "Destructoid" gave the game an 9.5 out of 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.187.131 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The reception section contains this quote: "Left 4 Dead 2 received strong positive reviews from game journalists, praising ... the details of the southern locale and individual campaigns compared with the generic city-scape of the first game." But Death Toll is mostly outdoors and small town America and Blood Harvest is entirely rural!! And several of the areas in the sequel are just as generic. It's really just Pennsylvania vs. the deep South near New Orleans (presumably around Louisiana and Mississippi). Given that, I think we need some RSs on this. Argel1200 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the end of the sentence to compared with the campaigns of the first game. Hervegirod (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Box Art

I think that the picture have been misplaced, the U.K one shold be on the top of the page and the U.S one at the middle.15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)(usmc22) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmc22 (talk • contribs)

New sections go at the bottom. Secondly, I'm from England and I still have to ask the only logical question that I can think of. Why? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Release date

Bit belated, but the release date for the EU was actually the 20th. i.e. Today. 194.83.84.16 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Software Bugs

The company admits there is a problem which will repeatedly kick the user out of the software without warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.170.131 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What a tragedy... I mean I've been kicked out of an application before but being kicked out of the software... well holy crap. Anyhow, do you have a source? —LOL ^T/_C 23:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section suggestion, opinions?

I propose we remove two sections from Criticism; Racism accusations and Australian ban. The racism incident was just some nonsense from a single journalist and is not notable at all, while the Australian "ban" is something that happens with a lot of games and deserves a quick mention somewhere else in the article, not a large section of its own. As for where, I don't know, but it certainly shouldn't have its own section. -- Love, Smurfy 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of those are notable. The racism incident for being so bloody stupid (just like RE5) and the Australian ban brought up a lot of issues, both with the censoring system and also with the game itself (the Australians aren't even really playing Left 4 Dead 2 anymore. The modified version appears to be just downloadable content because all the stuff that meant Valve couldn't add it in like that is gone). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of the events doesn't change the weight of those incidents. The racism issue had an official response from Valve. You're confusing the notability of a journalist with the potential weight of what they say. If I made a statement about L4D2 and it became as widespread as what he said, it should be on this page, too. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncommon Commons

Should we list all of them? Usually, I would say no to listing everything, but I think (though I haven't played L4D2 yet) that they're an important enough part of gameplay to warrant a sentence each at least. After all, the Specials all have descriptions because they affect the game in horrible, horrible ways. The Uncommon Commons were designed to be, essentially, mini-Specials. Therefore, I think that we should at them all into the article. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the special infected are very different. They're playable, given prominence in both intro videos throughout them, etc. They're on a different level; if a Smoker incapacitates or kills someone, or a player kills one, a notice is given. However, if a clown infected is under the same circumstances, it is treated as a regular infected. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Given they are tied to the specific scenarios, and the fact that this means Valve (or another third-party) could add more uncommon common with new content, this could become a bit too unwieldy. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

True, I'll admit I hadn't thought of either of those. Never mind then. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the "Hacks" section

I vote for the removal of and strongly dispute the "Hacks" section. I find it as unencyclopedic and highly controversial content. The next best thing to removing this section, which I find rediculous, since it apparently can get peoples Steam accounts VAC-banned, which means they essentially irreversibly get their whole account blocked, is to add much clearer warnings of this and moving it to the Australian ban section. — KodakYarr (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the section was removed as I was writing this. Which I find quite odd since the time of the reverting edit says 6:10 this morning, and I was never on before that time, so I shouldn't have seen the Hacks section when visiting. — KodakYarr (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoof of FEMA?

The organization CEDA (Civil Emergency and Defense Agency) and the military play a huge part in the plot of the game. It appears that CEDA is a spoof of the United States' Federal Emergency Management Agency, who received much negative press following the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. In this case CEDA has plastered the game world with warnings, many of which are fairly nonsensical or even sinister, and has clearly mismanaged the outbreak as well. (Of particular note are instructions to cover windows with tape and plastic, and warnings against storing firearms in the safe houses.) Is this noteworthy? Atypicaloracle (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be noteworthy if it's backed up by a reliable source; otherwise, it's just original research. —LOL ^T/_C 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New release date.

FYI I changed the release date on the page to the 16th. See http://store.steampowered.com/app/550/ Crazydog115 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What the heck were you looking at on the page? I Ctrl+F'd my way through. The number 16 isn't mentioned anywhere. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It says the 16th there for me as when the game unlocks, but as this is a retail title too, we'll stick with the published release date, the 17th. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the source, the game will unlock at November 17, 6:00 am UTC, which would be November 16 for those at UTC-7 or less. At any rate, I think the press releases take precedence over this fact and timezone differences aren't significant in the release of a game. —LOL ^T/_C 02:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'd forgotten that Steam unlocks around the world together. I'd presume it would unlock whenever the specific country hit the time. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see on Amazon and Game's website the release date for the xbox 360 version of the game is 20th November in the UK, should this be included in the article as the stated EU release date of the 17th could be misleading (as it was for me!) Handlezone (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)]

At the time, the European release date was uncited in the info box, so I changed it to the 17th, believing it to be vandalism. It also wasn't mentioned in the article anywhere, supporting my theory. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The release date was supposed to be Nov 17th at midnight Eastern Time. So that would would be 11PM Nov 16th for Central time, and so on and so forth. However, it wasn't actually released until over an hour later (I think it was roughly an 1:40 minutes late). Though some people still would have ahd access on Nov 16th (West Coast and beyond) Argel1200 (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

good summary article of the boycott

[1] Will try to work in what we already don't have covered when time. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good article, but the boycott section already tends to bias the corporate side a bit. Gabe's original comment that started the stir isn't even mentioned. That is:

"...we'll have the initial release and then we'll release more movies, more characters, more weapons, unlockables, achievements, because that's the way you continue to grow a community over time.". [2] The boycott wasn't for more content, it was for promised content. I haven't seen any new weapons or characters. Even if we don't agree with the boycott, this section is slightly bias. Is there any way we can work in that quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyline (talk • contribs) 10:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception of Australian Version

All of the reviews shown on the page right now are positive reviews about the uncensored version from American and European reviewers. If anyone else can help, I think any reviews of the Australian version would help. For example, despite IGN US and IGN UK giving L4D2 a 9.0, IGN AUS gave it a 5.0, mostly because they were reviewing the censored version. Link is http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/104/1047522p1.html. 74.101.104.241 (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

system requirements?

i WAS READING THE ARTICLE AND IT GOT ME THINKING, SHOULDN'T THERE BE A TABLE/SECTION OF THE INFORMATION AREA WHERE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MENTIONED? It would be helpful to the people who want to get the game so they know how good their pc needs to be.--Master1001 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

YES, THERE SHOULD BUT THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT. KEEP YOUR FINGER AWAY FROM THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON, THANK YOU. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, being partially blind I did not notice that a lot of my post was in capital letters. I asked about requirements because there are so many people saying different requirements and the average gamer would not know what one to go with. Some say "3.0GHZ", others say "2.4GHZ" and those who sent the game to me from Hong Kong say "2.0GHZ" so it would be nice to get that cleaned up. Master1001 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Steam or a game box would be the best bet. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Steam is out of a question for me as my PC that I play on does not have net capability, the game box would be helpful however in some cases I have read a game case and the requirements seem low, however when I actually play the game it is higher/slower then expected. Master1001 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm too busy to search right now, but someone else will probably have the requirements up soon (or at least a link to them). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[3] --Mika1h (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, though I have no idea what Vista64 is. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Vista64 probaby refers to the x64 version of all Vista Editions. --80.144.72.226 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is such a low resolution box art needed?

My main issue is that it's ugly and bordering on unreadable, but it's also inconsistent with practically every box art or poster on wikipedia which are allowed without such measures. Can we reach a consensus on it? Skeith (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the changed made to the image; in an attempt to adjust its size and remove the "PC" logo, the user had shrunk the image then resized it, causing all the artifacts. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

dev notes to add later

[4] if someone doesn't get to it first. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Piracy paragraph

Over the past few days, there has been a bit of back and forth in the "Sales" section, particularly over a paragraph relating to piracy of the game. The section is reproduced below.

Piracy

Ironically, the sales figures exclude piracy. Like its predecessor, Left 4 Dead 2 is also a popular game subjected to major piracy on private server networks like Garena, Hamachi and other non-Steam servers that depend on donations and other perks in exchange for money to continue running. Such servers utilize standalone patches or cracks to avoid Steam authentication and allows the client to start without original installation. Piracy is rampant at such private websites and chatrooms whereby members freely distribute game updates or even full game download links. Senior members or moderators of such private forums provide step-by-step tutorials, troubleshooting and instructions regarding non-Steam play.The latest non-Steam version is 2.0.0.9. However, due to feedback on people reporting on their piracy, such private networks are making their most recent forums open to members only.Currently, Garena's non-Steam version is led by a senior moderator named Ganesh or Gani.

I do not find it ironic that sales metrics do not account for the theft of the product (I struggle to call it piracy, because that involves ships). My more Wiki-actionable problems are that the entire paragraph is cited to a single forum thread, which fails to meet the Wikipedia:Reliable sources content guideline, and contains posts by the person attributed as one of the thieves, it may be classified as a self-published source. Most of the content in the paragraph does not appear to appear in the thread, which means we have problems meeting the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.

If reliable, published sources describing this activity (even something as simple as this news article discussing the illegal copying and distribution of Super Mario Bros Wii) can be found and presented, there will be a case for the content. But at the moment, its going to keep being reverted for not meeting Wikipedia policy. -- saberwyn 10:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Software piracy doesn't involve ships, foo! But yes, piracy is arguably "rampant" for every other major Steam title, so even if there is some reliable source for this, the piracy would still be very trivial to me. —LOL ^T/_C 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a lot more referenced impact of piracy before we can include this statement. Piracy happens for every PC game, but only a few does it actually make a significant news impact (Assassin's Creed, I think, was one, but that's off top of my head). --MASEM (t) 16:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge: Plot/Campaign sections

I suggest merging the section Campaign into the main plot; They honestly talk about the same stuff, and ultimately the campaign section is poorly written anyway. 129.97.174.78 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the campaign section. It doesn't need to be there as you say, duplicating the plot. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

It is ridiculous that someone thought that adding pictures to the article constituted vandalism. I'm glad someone has cleaned them up but it is irresponsible to assume that adding screen shots somehow counts as malicious intent. (Die Snack 2.0 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

Weapons

Does anyone know what the weapons available are called. Would be good if they were listed.--English Bobby (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.223.78 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lists of weapons are strongly discouraged in game articles. We're not Gamefaqs. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian A-G Atkinson retires the same time L4D2 is on Steam for 50% off

Valve celebrating in their own way before they resubmit the game (after April hopefully sees the R18 rating come in)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.224.34 (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Before we can mention this in the article, I think we'd need a reliable source that explicitly ties the sale with Atkinson's resignation, and then we'd need to establish that this is a notable event. —LOL ^T/_C 18:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence link in the 1st paragraph

Artificial intelligence link in the first paragraph points to Artificial intelligence: since the so called "Director" is more an AI surrogate, wouldn't it be more accurate to point to Game artificial intelligence? 79.22.129.199 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

DLC : the Passing

"The Passing is the first Downloadable Content (DLC) campaign for Left 4 Dead 2. It was released on April 22, 2010[1][2]. It includes a new campaign and "new co-operative challenge modes of play." It also introduces a new firearm, the M60; the Golf Club, and a new Uncommon Common Infected called the Fallen Survivor.

The Passing takes place between Dead Center and Dark Carnival, in the suburban town of Rayford, Georgia. One of the main features of this campaign is a meet-up between the Left 4 Dead 2 Survivors and three of the Survivors from Left 4 Dead. Note that the original Survivors are not playable. The original Survivors appear in the campaign's first chapter, where they meet up with the new Survivors. They appear once again near the end, to help Coach, Nick, Rochelle, and Ellis escape. The campaign is playable in all of the current game modes, as well as the newly featured ones. It is free for PC, and 560MSP on the Xbox 360[3].

The DLC is called "The Passing," which could be interpreted in several ways. It may simply be referring to the passing of the two parties. It could also refer to the idiom "The passing of the torch", which is referenced in the achievement unlocked upon completing the campaign. But it may refer to the passing on, or death, of Bill, who gave up his life to save the others. The death of Bill and the appearance of the Fallen Survivors are also why the tagline is "Nobody survives forever." To explain how this happened, Valve will be releasing DLC for Left 4 Dead, in which the players play through a new campaign, leading up to the event, ending with one player giving up their life to let the other three Survivors escape. A digital comic book will also come out to show what happens to the original Survivors after the events of Left 4 Dead. " http://left4dead.wikia.com/wiki/The_Passing

Vmaldia (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mod Community

I felt it was time that a mod community section be added to the game, due to the heavy nature of popular mods and servers to the game. Specifically my reasoning for citing the ZombieCC server as an example of a popular modded server / 20 player server is due to it's worldwide ranking in the top 10 more traffic'ed servers. If anyone feels it would be more proper/impartial to include a list of modded servers (as there are hundreds), that'd be fine too, but it really was inaccurate to specifically state "4v4" as the cap for the title when that isn't the case for the PC version. Given thousands of people traffic the "large scale" and modded game servers I thought it was a big enough of a detail to be mentioned.

Likewise, I avoided citing examples of specific campaigns that have reached popularity such as Death Aboard and City 17 as I'm unsure how people here would feel about listing specific well known campaigns. But I did think it was at least notable that there is new, independent content for this game out there so that a reader might decide to google it up or make an informed choice between the PC/360 version.

In short if the article's purpose is to inform people, including the wealth of 3rd party content available should be considered.

EDIT: I'd like to ask that people stop undoing these revisions based on a "bad source." The previous source (the updated one is far more clear about this fact) simply display the most popular current Left4Dead 2 servers, with IPs, and player count. I have no affiliation with ZombieCC, but used it as a point of reference as the #1 L4D2 server, which is 24 players (10v10 + 4 Spectators). As for not being notable, the wide majority of servers in the top 50 are modified to support over 8 players with similar mods. At any given point in the day, almost a third of the player base can be found on these servers, not the standard 4v4 ones. I think that qualifies as definitely notable. This is also a major difference between the PC and 360 version of the game.

Feel free to connect to any of the servers on the list, I have no idea how you could get more clear, provable and reliable than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlazingOwnager (talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Mod communities exist for most games, so there's no special need to call it out here, unless the mod itself is subject of notable coverage (otherwise, we run into everyone putting in their self-created mod). There may be a few maps/campaigns between LFD 1/2 that meet this but not to the point where they have to be called out. As for servers with larger numbers of players, we need reliable sources to say that such serves exists. A server browser is not reliable because that information is transient - today there may be 50 servers, tomorrow there may be none. We need a source like IGN or Gamespot - not a forum post but an article - to discuss that there are >4 player servers out there for L4D for us to properly include this information. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Previously, the reference linked to specific servers, but that was too narrow; so the major list was referenced, and that also doesn't seem good enough? Also I believe the fact that, at any point during the day, a full third of the active player base of the game will be found on servers OVER 8 players is major enough to warrant this - something that has been the case for multiple months now, this isn't a recent thing. Saying the top is 8 players in this article is flat out wrong and I'm beginning to think you only have the 360 version, and are thus heavily biased in this regard.

The bottom line is citations exist to prove information being said is true. From the current reference you can press one button and see hundreds of servers support exactly what I said they can. Hundreds. Among those hundreds, the vast majority are in the top 50. You can join them, and see them with your own eyes and to be entirely honest if suddenly the community STOPPED playing on the top servers, the overall server list would still show a huge number of them. Anyone hosting a PC server can configure one of these servers very easily. It verges on not being considered a mod at all for the simple player count aspect.

Regardless, I added several more citations now, including a Destructoid article WITH a video, so I don't know what else I could provide at this point.

Are they going to be there a year from now? 5 years? 10 years? Highly unlikely. The server list showing this is happening is not a reliable source, a requirement for sourcing on Wikipedia. We need an article from a reliable source that says this is occurring, not the presence of such servers. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources were included, for one. As for their endurance, given this is a simple change to the settings file that can allow this, yes, they will exist until the end of the game's existence. I could set one up, right now, without downloading anything at all (and thus is NOT A MOD, despite your edit) in about one minute. That's also why they are popular.

Again, you do NOT need to modify the game in any way, shape or form to start a server with more players outside of having an already standard set of hosting tools that nearly any server admin will have. Adjusting a settings file with standard admin tools is hardly an "unofficial mod." End users need not download anything at all - merely open your server browser and double click, or choose an IP. This shows on the official server list. You can connect to any one of these from the in game server browser, if you choose to open it (rather than the lobby system).

I highly suspect you own the 360 version of the game and don't understand what's going on here.BlazingOwnager (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have both, I know exactly what it is. However, the game officially is only designed for 4 survivors and 4 infected, regardless of what cvars you can change. We don't include unofficial hacks or similar types of information inside the info box which is basic needs to remain the equivalent of the box specifications.

Now, I did see the destructoid ref to it, that's a reasonable valid source. Because of that I've put in a "Modding community" section at the end of the article to mention custom maps, etc. including the 16 player mode since we can source that. But that's all we can say about it. Any more and its undue weight on a fan-created aspect. --MASEM (t) 02:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will say adding the information to a secondary category is an acceptable compromise, if it'll provide the information and end this tug-of-war. Honestly the only reason I never felt it worthwhile to put this information in before is, previously, this WAS a niche part of the game. It's expanded to become one of the most enduring parts of the current player base in recent months, however, which is why I've been so determined about it now. BlazingOwnager (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because it may be the most popular way to play L4D2 now, doesn't mean it is the type of thing we can document through reliable sources. The server listing is only a temporarily source that has no permanence, something we need in sourcing. The server instructions is also not from a reliable source so we cannot include them. The Destructiod source *is* reliable to establish that more than 8 people can play on servers, but without any more coverage from reliable sourcess, that's all we can say about this fact. We cannot document what we know to be true, only what reliable sources say are true. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to add more to justify this point. The sources you are using are not reliable - please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and so on, and understand that we are looking for high quality sources that have editorial control. And while you may feel that saying 24 players can play, the point is that we can establish more than 4-on-4 can be done by players, and that is all that matters to this article. This doesn't prelude if there is more coverage of the extended player mode in future sources, but right now we cannot say anything else without engaing in original research and biased viewpoints. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to bias this. You're basically saying that something that is real, that you and I both can see is real, that is unquestionably tangible (the existence of a large number of servers that support between 9 and 24 players) cannot be so much as mentioned here without first getting someone in a game industry website to write an article on it. I'd completely understand this minor point and agree that some of the extra citations are unnecessary, but the fact is you are basically stating that an incorrect bit of information should be here instead of a correct one - a minor point as you mentioned, but a valid point none the less - on the sole fact noone happened to have written an article about 24 player servers, while they did write one about a 16 player server. I'd even give you this if these were some rare, niche thing, but they're quickly becoming a key issue to longevity in this game as witnessed by the number of people playing on them.

Honestly it just boils down to that, arguing that unless an article on the internet states it's true, it has to be stated false, even though anyone can see it's unquestionably true (more so with the citations - some of which are informative, if not merely just evidence) and there's no real arguing against it being true. That's rapidly approaching some spiraled dogma on what is, as you said, a pretty small issue. BlazingOwnager (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As it states in WP:V, "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in quote). The section on sources additionally stresses that claims must be referenced by "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So ideally we should not mention these capabilities unless we can provide a top-notch source to back up the claim. And yes, this could stray into mistruth/lie territory, even if we know the truth. In practice, however, editors change articles all the time without citing their sources, which is fine until someone challenges, reverts, or removes the information. At that point, per WP:BURDEN, the editor who wants the information included must provide a reliable source or we don't include it, period. I think that WP:UNDUE also applies here, because it appears that only a handful of reliable sources (out of hundreds or thousands) are mentioning this capability. Since we should report details in proportion to the available sources, a mention could probably be justified but any extensive coverage should probably wait until more sources appear. Just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sacrifice release date

Where was it said the release of The Sacrifice would be on October 6? It came out on October 5 on Steam.--141.217.63.165 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The sacrifice came out on the 5th fine.I was PLAYING IT.

It was just not released as soon on xbox live as the pc version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.210 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is it ever specified that the survivors are, in fact, carriers? I know the game seems to implicate such, but it is never explicitly stated that they are carriers, if my memory of this game serves. YuriKaslov (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, unless you're requesting this to be added to the article, which in that case you'll need a reliable source, try a gaming forum, such as GameSpot or IGN. --George2001^hi 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I asked was because it states in the opening paragraph of the article something along the lines of "...the survivors, immune carriers...", so I was actually thinking it should be removed. YuriKaslov (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote; "...Left 4 Dead 2 introduces four new survivors—Coach, Ellis, Rochelle, and Nick—who are immune carriers of the disease..." under the Ploat section. YuriKaslov (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable question; the sentence you mentioned is fairly ambiguous. Immunity v carrier is presented as either/or before that, so combining the two terms is slightly confusing. I've tagged the sentence with a {{which}}; hopefully someone can find a source to clarify it. DP76764 (Talk) 15:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"immune carriers" is exactly right - they carry the virus that caused everyone else to become zombie-like but are immune to its effects. (The comic for The Sacrifice addresses this, but it's also mentioned in the L4D2 bridge finale by one of the troops you contact before starting across; the trooper specifically says "carriers". The proper medical term appears to be Asymptomatic carrier. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For example, here's at least one page that id's them as carriers, [5]. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But they're referring to the L4D1 characters, not the L4D2 chars. 69.140.162.126 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Playstation

Shouldn't this mention why there isn't a PS3 version?

why isnt there?86.40.179.77 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Valve Task Force Re-vitalization

Attention, all contributors to the Valve Task Force and the articles it constitutes!
I am here to announce that I will be re-vitalizing the Valve Task Force, aimed at universally improving articles constituting Valve Corporation, their employees, associates and products. This specific task force has been dormant for quite some time and with two very notable releases coming out this year, I feel like this is the appropriate time to re-stimulate the general aim of this group. For those who are not already members of the Valve Task Force, feel free to add your name to our members list and contribute to whatever articles you feel your contributions may prove beneficial for. Valve, its products and notable employees have proven to be essential to the progression of the video game industry, so I'd like to make a call of arms for this cause. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:08, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy article?

I feel that with a little more expansion and cleaning up, the controversy section could stand as a pretty strong article (without hurting this article with its removal). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not Free

The free offer Valve made for left 4 dead 2 is not permanent, unlike team fortress 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.141.209 (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)