Valve Admitting L4D Single Player Mediocrity Through Multiplayer Piracy Moderation?

From "As many of the people who have Left 4 Dead will know, Valve did not include Digital Rights Management (DRM) onto the disc(s). While this is rather good given the way the DRM controversy has exploded in the wake of the Spore debacle, it doesn't mean Valve is just letting piracy happen. In fact, there is something they are doing about it that is kind of making it seem like they are conceding something to the public. That is, if you know it's going on. It's a way that really doesn't make much sense to us, though it could make sense when you think about it, because it's only happening to those that want to play multiplayer through the cracked L4D copies floating around the torrent sites. This could mean one of two things: Either they think the multiplayer is the key seller of the game (it's what's getting the game these high scores on the reviews so far), or....

....maybe even they think that the single player campaign in L4D sucks total ass."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Timesplitter143519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

For the last time, L4D is a multiplayer game and the single-player mode is only for people who don't have internet. You're not even SUPPOSED to play the story mode.

It's like Counter-Strike. CS had a single-player mode. How many people knew about that? I bet there aren't too many. I knew a hardcore CS player who didn't even know it. And there's a good reason for that : multiplayer games like this don't need a single-player mode.

JD_Shadow3519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

Then why not just make it (and CS, for that matter) a MP-only game like Warhawk or WOW? If we're not supposed to play the story mode, then why the hell include the mode to begin with?

@1.2: If that's how it worked, then WoW and Final Fantasy XI would've had a single player mode included within it. If it's just going to be an afterthought, then don't waste your time and don't include it. I don't think they are as different, as well, because they are in the same boat as L4D. Warhawk and Socom: Confrontation are two more games we can use as examples of those that don't have a SP campaign yet do rather well (Socom is beginning to pick up a little bit of steam and it IS MP-only).

Plus, to me, anyway (not saying you're to blame of it), that is just an excuse as to why the single-player mode sucks.

@2.1: MGO is another game entirely. It is treated as a game that was in MGS4, and wasn't MGS4's MP component. That and you're in the minority with that opinion (though you have every right in the world to think and express it just as someone in the majority would). Alot of people enjoyed MGO once they got through some of the hoops to actually get to the game itself.

So I think you're comparing two different things here.

@ZEEBO4LIFESTFU:'re in the Gamer Zone with that half-assed reply...WHY?

Judging by your comments on 4 and 6, your bubbles (as well as your Gamer Zone residence) isn't going to last too long on this site.

Timesplitter143519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

Because that's how PC games work. I dunno. It's just a convention.

Hardcore PC games are never as ''ready for the masses'' as console games. They always have this kind of ''home made'' feel and I like that.

The problem with WoW and FF11 is that they are MMOs and they are casual games. That makes a big difference.

BRACHATTACK3519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

Good game, single player sucked.

ps3king3519d ago

Left For Dead's single player campaign mode is the Multiplayers's Internet-Less luxury. Valve does a good job of making your friend-bots work well though. They do funny things that try to replicate mistakes like what a human players might do. Then again, buying Left for Dead to only play the single player campaign is like buying a PS3 just to watch movies on.

cmrbe3519d ago

but you are not suppose to play it?.

Aclay3519d ago


MGS4 didn't have the best multiplayer, but the core gameplay in MGS games have always been the single player. Metal Gear Online was a separate component from MGS4 and I don't think that reviewers even included MGO in their review of MGS4.

But honestly, if L4D is so focused on multiplayer, I think that it should have been a multi-player only game.

Andras843519d ago

What do you mean we are not suppoesed to play the single player??? If we are not supposed to than it should be blocked or not even made. It takes a very long time to create that single player. Valve just f-ed up with it. Don't try to protect that lazy @ss Gabe.

Timesplitter143519d ago

ok, just take another example, then.

Like singleplayer only games.

I guess I know what you'll say and why you'll say that. (that singleplayer games stay focused on what they're good at) And you're right. But when you look at it in a very rationnal way, getting this bonus multiplayer or singleplayer just can't be a bad thing. It's a bonus. It doesn't really matter if it's good or bad.

TheIneffableBob3519d ago

Left 4 Dead was designed as a multiplayer game. Single-player was included because, well, why not? They already created the bots to use in multiplayer to fill up empty slots, so why not just have them play with you offline? Single-player is good for laptops where you might not always have an Internet connection. It was an addition that took little effort but made it much more accessible in more situations.

Tony P3519d ago

Prime reason why I did not purchase the game.

I'm probably one of the few left who prefers a good single-player campaign over cooperative play. Many games have managed both adequately, but L4D doesn't seem to be one of them.

Time_Is_On_My_Side3519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

With XBOX 360 games they have to incorporate single player campaigns because you pay for online. The PlayStation 3, PC, and Mac have free online this is their advantage. With persistent online games the network topology it's expensive to maintain so people pay to keep the online going. This is very similar to XBOX Live it's expensive to keep going so they have people to keep it going.

Shadowrun is the only XBOX 360 game that I know of that forces you to play for XBOX Live. As Timesplitter14 that's just stupid they have a campaign but it isn't suppose to be played. It's like saying Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots has online but you're not suppose to use it. This game is like Unreal Tournament 3 the campaign is just second thought. You're suppose to play it but not spend most of your time on it the downfall of a paying service.

In the end it's because PlayStation 3, PC, and Mac players play for free we can have online only games without forcing anyone to paying a fee. It's that simple and will be the ideal platforms for persistent online games since we don't pay a fee on top of a fee.

pixelsword3519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

...I say that because if L4D, a console exclusive for the 360, specifically made single player because some 360 owners don't have access to the internet, then they should've assured a great single-player experience.

That's just plain sloppy to do otherwise... tack on a single-player mode touted for the consle then make excuses when the single-player sucks.

poopface13519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

of course playing with bots isnt as fun, but there are still people who might want to use it. Out of every multiplayer focused game Iv played with bots, Im glad they were still there as an option. You can probaly play with one friend and 2 bots if you wanted a full team, or play the game in the event your internet goes out, or you dont have internet.

Do you think annyone ever said the UT was better with bots that online, NO!!!!! Woo wooo to you fanboys.

Do you realy think not including bots is better than including them for the heck of it. you people are really blind.

kwyjibo3519d ago

We have arguments claiming that if the single player is not as accomplished as the multiplayer, then Valve shouldn't have included it at all.

Well, you're totally wrong - you do not have any sound backing for that argument. Left 4 Dead includes bots, AI controlled teammates which means players can seamlessly drop in and out of the match. These bots are an integral part of the game, if you would like to play with these bots alone, then you can. Valve have rightly included that option for those who choose to play with bots.

The argument that because playing alongside bots is not as satisfying as playing alongside friends is true, it's also blindingly obvious, and does not mean that single player botmatch should be dropped. Do you think that including a botmatch mode in Unreal Tournament or Quake 3 was a bad thing? Bot support in Counter-Strike should be dropped, so you can't, even if you choose to, to play offline?

No, of course not. Those arguing that it should have absolutely nothing to back up their stance, other than QQ, QQ.

Legion3518d ago

Your statement "Shadowrun is the only XBOX 360 game that I know of that forces you to play for XBOX Live" is incorrect. Do you even have an XBox 360? You can play the game solo with bots. Or you can use system link over a network even. Which may of us do so in the desert when deployed.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3518d ago
GWAVE3519d ago

I love how so many games that have excellent multiplayer but hum-ho single player are massacred by video game reviewers. Yet, there will always be a select few games (like Halo 3 and now L4D) that for some odd reason are allowed to dodge this bullet.

Timesplitter143519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

I agree

But I think they should give this free pass to every game, and in both scenarios : ''singleplayer only'' games like MGS4, and ''multiplayer only'' games like L4D.

If the game's awesome, just give it a good score. Sure MGS4 had an online mode, but it was really bad. Just like L4D's story mode. That didn't prevent it (and SHOULDN'T prevent it) from being awesome and deserving AAA scores.

likedamaster3518d ago (Edited 3518d ago )

Piracy is that exactly, piracy. Why would they not protect their product? Another misleading title FTL. Xbox fans don't defend Valve, they make great games...period.

JD_Shadow3518d ago

This is worthy for discussion, though. You're talking about it, though. See, I didn't say that Valve said this, but they might be implying it.

I am happy that I'm getting people to talk about something that would've never even been brought up if I hadn't said it and submitted it. I'm thinking it's a thing that if I don't bring up these topics, not many people will.

Spike473519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

that's why I say anything higher than a 9.0 or a perfect 5/5 is not correct.

Timesplitter143519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

How would you rate MGS4, then?

MGS4 had a really crappy multiplayer. Does that mean it should've been rated 7 or 8/10?

I think not. If a game's awesome, it's awesome.


MGS4 had great online, too complex for your small brain

MGS4 - amazing single player AND multiplayer

L4D - crappy single player, amazing multiplayer

Timesplitter143519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )


MGS4 is my favorite game ever. You don't need to pump out fanboyish arguments to convince me. But I just don't think MGS4's multiplayer is ''too complex for my brain''. That's just... no.

It was made by a completely different team and Konami ruined it. Subsistance was better.

ps3king3519d ago

The game is great. So much fun. I will be playing this game for a long time I hope, as long as the dedicated server continue to run.

After Playing this game, some parts of me really want a full fleshed out FPS Single player story involving Nothing but fast Zombies. But then again that would undermine what great the Multi-player is.

I hope they make more episodes though. One in a Mall...

callahan093519d ago

No, it's not that there is such a thing as too high of a score for this game because it's multiplayer is the focus of it. The real issue if you want to talk like that is the double standard in reviews today. They talk about Resistance 2's single-player sucking (and, by the way, that's a load of crap, because it doesn't suck) and then dock points because of that, then they praise the multiplayer aspects but barely delve into discussing them, as though they're not important. But with L4D, they don't judge it on its single-player, they judge it on its multiplayer (as well they should, it is intended to be a multiplayer experience). My point is, why don't reviewers rate all games on the same sort of basis?

Time_Is_On_My_Side3519d ago

All components of a game must be counted in the final review it doesn't make sense to just look at one aspect of the game and call it a day. You call that bias the only downfall of Metal Gear Solid 4 was the signing out for a Konami account other wise an amazing multiplayer experience. You do everything that you can do in single player.

Example: Lets say Halo 3's campaign is amazing but the online was so laggy that you couldn't play. This should be counted in the review otherwise it's bias because you only looking at what's good in the game. They call it confirmation bias because they're only looking at the aspects the confirms their choices.

callahan093519d ago

I think they should just start reviewing the single-player & multiplayer portions of games separately. I mean, do it all in one review write-up, but give the two components separate scores. They already break it down like:


Or whatever. They shouldn't have Gameplay... they should have Single-Player and Multi-Player scores in place of that. If a game is single-player only, then obviously they shouldn't give it a multi-player score, and vice-versa.

Because if I'm about to buy the new Halo game, I don't really give a damn if they give the Single-Player a 5 out of 10, as long as they give the multiplayer a 10 out of 10. In other words, I'm looking at the review to find out if what I want out of the game is good. If I'm looking for a multiplayer game, I don't want to see a 7 for gameplay because they thought multiplayer was perfect but singleplayer sucked. That doesn't represent the fact that WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR should be scored a 10 for gameplay, because I'm only interested in the multiplayer. So, separate the scores, and you'll make everyone happy. Seriously.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3519d ago
TrevorPhillips3519d ago

guys not every game is perfect


just wondering why a ps3 fanboy took the time to post a story about a 360 game?

garbage site

Timesplitter143519d ago (Edited 3519d ago )

Since when is this a ''360 game''?

That's just laughable

ps3king3519d ago

He is stating a fact isn't he. Left for Dead is on the XBOX 360. Therefore by process of association: IT IS A 360 GAME!!!

Man so dumb.

TheIneffableBob3519d ago

Well, yeah, but it was designed as a PC game first and foremost.

Saying Left 4 Dead is a 360 game is like saying Gears of War and Metal Gear Solid are PC games when referring to them because they're on the PC.