What is the point of L4D's single player campaign?
Survive or troll.
Why do they even have that as an option when the multiplayer is the EXACT SAME THING
Cooperatively with friends in one sitting, all 4 campaigns which are designed to be played repeteadly, would take, as you say 4 hours, If this was a compulsory run of every single map each playthrough, it would be too time consuming, demanding too much for a "well done" pat on the back. It's a design decision.
How is your point factual
"factual based"
The original dispute itself was money's worth, which is the point you still seem to be arguing, it is 4 hours, it's also a game designed to be played repeatedly, on the demo alone, if you I am getting 16 hours out of it, 60 hours out of the full game, that's testament to the Ai director and how well the replaybility and general design overall works. as opposed to giving you "IMO" you were giving personal fact based experience. There was no claims that it would be the same for everyone else.
I will throw out a statistic...Halo 3 and CoD4 remain Xbox Live's biggest multiplayer numbers one and even 2 years after their initial release. If L4D is such an awesome multiplayer experience with innovative everything that has met critical and commercial success...why does it not surpass either of those?
To answer that wouldn't really be very simple unless you are equating innovation to popularity, wich is a flawed argument to make in general, system shock 2 was a wholly innovative game, more so than either of those titlles ever were, it sold a pittance, not even 1/20th.
That coupled with PR machines, new IP launch wich can go either way, media coverage, console launch, and a whole host of other niggles.
Other accountable factors such as, the pc, which valve games sell better on. Establishment, to which on the console market Activision and Bungie have a more established base, for example, steam has 16 million users, with left4dead on average being the second the third top played multiplayer game just behind counterstrike, call of duty 4 along with call of duty world of war are there, however, they do not surpass it and such are played by far less people.
Zombie shooters are new to this planet?
Cooperative, AI director driven zombie first person shooter are new to the planet, correct.
You yourself said that you could deduce any game down to a certain level
The previous being simplicity and the latter innovation, there's a difference.
It seems to me you were introduced to what previously existed beforehand and took it as new.
L4D hasn't really got anything new, barring probably the "enemy spawn points"....
That coupled with the music director, visual cue's and audio interaction, I agree.
Yes...so Team Fortress should be 60 dollars. Why is Valve not doing this!
If Team Fortress 2 shipped with 20+ maps along with bot support, it would be worth it, imo.
Besides, it doesn't really negate the point....
If you get 60 hours out of single player gameplay from this game then once again I say you must suck at playing games.
I don't recall mentioning single player?
Expand upon how playing a game more means
" you must suck at playing games."
Currently,even as an insult, That doesn't seem to make sence..
As I was saying, a good multiplayer only game like this should be priced less because that is all it is when in comparison you can spend the exact same amount of money to buy a game with a good campaign and a good multiplayer as well.
)
