Talk:Left 4 Dead

AI

Here's a possible citation for the AI segment of the Wiki, but I don't know if it qualifies as one: [1]

"The developers are working on an AI system that tries to make the two indistinguishable from each other - at least in the context of Left 4 Dead - and I have to say that they have done a great job so far."

Plot section?

Should we add a Plot section? The game has its plot seeded throughout. For instance, writing on the wall of the church in Death Toll indicates that the game takes place in October 2009. It's probable that we'll get videos as new maps are released which explain more of the backstory, maybe from each survivor's point-of-view. Smurfy 22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree to this idea. The game has subtle hints of the back story, and a compilation of that information would make for a great article. Although, backing up the information would be difficult if there is a lack of sources we can use.--Hooligans (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Valve is known for the hints at backstory in their games, but especially in this one, there's not much to say except little snippets here and there. It's not really encyclopedic to mention it.  Xihr  06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be possible (and maybe better) to have a new section entitled backstory. Valve people have hinted a lot of things about this in various interview. Hervegirod (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• "hints" are no good. We need: clear, verifiable, reliable sources reporting on it, otherwise it's original research. DP76764 (Talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

he he, sorry if I used this word, Valve people have said a lot of things about the games backstory. Hervegirod (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They're hinted subtly in the game, not stated outright in a referenceable way. Without a reliable, third-party source articulating the backstory in a useful way, as Dp76764 says, it's original research.  Xihr  05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's screenshots on the internet of the writings on the wall.We can use those back the "hints" up,if the copyright stuff will let us.Besides,sometimes the survivor talk about stuff in the beginning of the campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.197.62 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, you can't use screenshots posted on the Internetz. Those would not be reliable sources, and drawing any conclusions from them would certainly be original research. What is needed is a clear statement (in an interview or such) from someone involved in making the game. DP76764 (Talk) 21:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how there could be a real Plot section. This is pretty much the whole concept of the game: "Here diseased zombie-thingies; KILL THEY ASS." Groundlord (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not put it in the main article, because I can't source it, but was it not confirmed that the HUNTERS are/were members of the guild of assassins that were shown in the game ASSASSINS CREED, how one of the programmers from that game came to Treyarch to work on LEFT-4-DEAD ,and how essentially the Assassins' guild was in town when the outbreak hit and for some reason, they were turned into HUNTERS instead of common infected?

As to the Plot....well, the fact is, this game is about Survival, not a Resident evil game where we find out exactly whom and why was behind the outbreak. This game is about Surviving, although yes, the religious implication of the game is certainly there. 69.230.169.210 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? Assassins Creed? Valve only created one type of hunter. I think your idea is completely wrong.

One of the points of the game is not to focus on game play. A infection happened, the US sent rations to people, as you can see in death toll a lot. There is no cure, and the four survivors have little background. You can see the background by looking in the game manual. You are just trying to survive and get to the next safe spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.59.58 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone recently added a plot section (diff), but it is arguably WP:GAMEGUIDE material that goes into excessive detail. For that reason, I'm moving it here and perhaps we'll get some feedback on its appropriateness in the article.

Although there is minimal dialogue plot, graffiti can be found mainly at safe-houses which describe what has happened.

No Mercy

The survivors are walking through an alleyway before they find a ruptured Boomer corpse among zombie bodies. Bill examines it before Francis makes a comment and Bill smears Boomer blood on Francis. They hear a cry and Zoey and Bill investigate. They slowly open a door before crouching with flashlights-on, before lightning strikes elsewhere and reveals that the person crying is a witch. Bill tells Zoey to turn flash-lights off. Louis spots a small group of zombie silhouettes running at them before shouting then quickly going to Bill & Zoey accidentally shining the flashlight onto the witch. Louis quickly closes the door before a hand bursts through and he fires his SMG at it. After dispatching the zombies, Louis hears a helicopter and quickly runs out onto the streets. He waves to the helicopter and shouts before it leaves and he says "Damnit". A hunter pounces onto him and Zoey shoots him off. Louis fires a pistol bullet onto the hunter and he dies on a car. The car alarm goes off with a horde of zombies coming along with a Tank. The tank smashes through infected and flings cars. They go back-into the alley-way with the tank incapacitating Francis before Bill shoots it before it can kill him. The tank is killed while Francis and Bill attempt to go up to the top of a building. Zoey kills it. At the top, Louis says "We made it! I can't believe we made it" before Bill says "We just got off the street. Lets not throw a party until we're out of the city". The camera then shows zombies around them on the streets and alley. This is where the intro ends. The helicopter searches again for survivors with a survivor (mostly Bill) telling how they can get to Mercy Hospital (the evac point) via subway. They reach the evac spot on top of Mercy Hospital and holds out until the helicopter, News Chopper Five arrives. In the middle of the defense, on the radio, the pilot says "Just had an incident...", before saying "Survivors, you are going to be my final run". He arrives and the survivors get to him on the other side of the roof. They get in and the copter flies away. The commentary says that originally Left 4 Dead was going to have a continuous story, however, the end of this campaign was "that the pilot would tell them how he had just done a street pickup and was not feeling well." The chopper was going to go down, however the ending was "kept more upbeat". The second campaign is called Dead Air and is set in the same city, hinting that some of this is still apparent.

the tank in no mercy was never confirmed dead, neither did it look dead--Ronnie42 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead Air

Death Toll

Blood Harvest

—LOL ^T/_C 11:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfinished, unnecessary, unsourced, unencyclopedic. I don't think L4D needs a big plot section, since it doesn't have a big plot. --PenguinCopter (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Poorly written, very speculative, very crufty. DP76764 (Talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Zoey doesn't kill the Tank. It rips the fire escape off the wall (Zoey starts to fall and Francis has to reach out to grab her; the Tank's still alive when Zoey is saved) and ends up falling to the ground. And there's no proof that it died from that. Groundlord (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...if it was still alive it would still attempt to attack them, since its mindless... also, this appears to be decently written, and most is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgoINAgo (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 June 2009

You have a really low standard of writing because that is just one large paragraph that consists mostly of "X does Y", "X does Y before Z", and "X says Y". But given the fact that you commented on an archive with "Fuck, Wikipedia is a fuckhole full of idiots", I'm not surprised. —LOL ^T/_C 13:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

D -- I'm not the one who wrote it, simply because I also have Telstra... Also, does it sound like I'm commenting on my own work? And there is false stuff in there... many people think that these IP detectors that Wikipedia have are very bad...this is kinda like racism...again, I'm not the one who wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.75.169 (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

But, would mine merit an inclusion? If you are allergic to detail, here it is:

4 survivors have to kill zombies and survive and find rescue. Perfect, not a block of text, not detailed, nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.104.45 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2009

Yep, and all of that is already covered in the article. —LOL ^T/_C 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an essay for not to destroy unfinished content, plot summaries in WP are usually sourceless, and then whether its unnecessary is arguable. Also, simply saying 'hinting some of this is apparent' isn't something to hate something about... not very speculative, I think.Moaners (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Light House

There's an article on IGN that says there will be a new campaign level for the Xbox and PC called "Light House" in the new update.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/959/959549p1.html

I think some one should add the info about Light House into the dlc section, I would my self but I don't know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.151.198 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. Modul8r (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, looks like someone already had Lighthouse-related info in the Game modes section. Feel free to revert my recent change, or remove the other one, or whatever. Just trying to help. Apologies for any confusion. Modul8r (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.59.58 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A class nomination

It seems about that time. The B class assessment recommended we go through GA to improve the article in some smaller ways and we should be good for A-class, which has been accomplished. Two independent editors who haven't contributed to the article must agree on the assessment with no significant opposes Skeith (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait a few days after the DLC because I expect the article to become unstable around its release. —LOL ^T/_C 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When will the DLC be released? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

April 21st I believe. LOL is probably right, I had forgotten about that. However all of the information about the upcoming Survival Pack has already been added to the article, unless there are surprises waiting we'd just need to do minor rewrites to reflect its release.Skeith (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more worried about the volume of inexperienced users chuming in to edit the article, which would probably require frequent maintenance. —LOL ^T/_C 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are many anon IPs making bad faith edits then you can request permanent semi-protection for this page. Extremepro (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I know about WP:RFPP, but I expect to see many good-faith edits that are poorly written, get into excessive detail, or violate policies (especially WP:GAMEGUIDE); I would prefer to take my time with managing the influx of edits over trying to patch everything up during the nomination. —LOL ^T/_C 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the wave is pretty much over; according to these statistics, the number of hits on April 21 almost doubled, but it's almost back it normal now. I tried to fix some of the inaccuracies that resulted from the update, but I definitely recommend that an experienced* L4D player scan it as well. * And by experienced, I mean preferably somebody who's gotten a few gold metals by now ;) —LOL ^T/_C 10:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Prose/Style/Layout

Lead

• Are those inlines required in the lead and lead infobox?

  Removed. —LOL ^T/_C 07:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• In the infobox, "Steam download" is listed under Media. Could it simply be "download" or "digital distribution" because Steam is already mentioned on the infobox as a distributor?

• I'm not sure the system requirements need to be in the infobox. If they do, could it be auto-collapsed like the release dates?

• The critics' choice and Windows download release dates have no region listed, are they worldwide?

Gameplay

• Some information in this section isn't strictly gameplay related. "Over 1000 unique lines have been recorded for each Survivor," for instance, could be somewhere in Production. Rearranging lines like these may also help trim the Gameplay section, which is kind of big.

• The Survivor characters and Infected characters subsections could be slightly rewritten to form a Plot section, which the article doesn't currently possess.

  Disagree, the game purposefully avoids a plot to go with the B zombie movie theme Skeith (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• The AI subsection could be fitted into Production.

  Took a stab at this, I tried to make a condensed version and added it to developmen tSkeith (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Game modes is a good addition, but it sorely needs references. A handful of reviews, or even one comprehensive review, is all it would need.

Demo

• This subsection could be merged with Introduction movie to form a "Promotion" subsection instead.

  Done. —LOL ^T/_C 07:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

After release

• There is no information given, besides the infobox, about the game's release. The dates at least could be included here, along with downloadable content and planned additions, and the subsection could possibly be renamed "Release and beyond" or something similar. Also, there is no information about the "critic's choice" release mentioned in the lead infobox. The single-sentence paragraph in Production could also be added here.

Reception

• The second paragraph here should maybe be moved to the top, followed by a "Critical reception" subsection.

• There's only one decent-sized paragraph with commentary from reviewers. With such a high-profile, popular game, it could support another paragraph or two. There's little mention of the game's multiplayer, graphics, and audio, for instance,

• Consider using {{Video game multiple console reviews}} and providing specific scores for both the 360 and PC versions.

• There's only one reference for the Gamerankings score in the reviews infobox, despite both platforms being listed.

  Ref added. —LOL ^T/_C 07:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Awards

• Make sure all inlines follow punctuation marks.

  Done. —LOL ^T/_C 07:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Many of the references need to be cleaned up. Wikilinking publishers, adding missing information, etc. The 1UP afterthoughts article is written by Thierry Nguyen, for instance, but the reference doesn't mention that.

Images

• There are quite a few images in the article, maybe an excessive amount. The AI one doesn't add much, honestly.

• Could the two survivor pictures be stacked, like the cinematic one?

  Are you referring to File:Left 4 Dead Revised Cast.jpg and File:L4DP.JPG? The latter belongs only to the Production section because it shows old versions of the characters. —LOL ^T/_C 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just making suggestions for reducing the number of images. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good. It just has some issues with layout mostly, as described above. If it can be trimmed down/consensed/rearranged I'll have no problem supporting A-class. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Skeith (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just let me know when you've finished everything and I'll take another look. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a condensed version of "AI and the Director" under development, but every time I try to remove the subsection a bot reverts it and yells at me. How do I stop this? Skeith (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AI and the Director fits under gameplay more than production I would have thought (by the way, none of the three who reverted your edits were bots). — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I'm gonna keep it as a GA-class article. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

I know valve recently enabled the stats for L4D, is it worth mentioning in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmansan (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is if you can find a reliable, notable source to prove its notability, though I don't see it as likely. --PenguinCopter (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Patton?

Pretty sure he has better things to do than lending his voice to video games. Removing that vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.234.73 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's backed up by IMDb, so I'm not sure it qualifies as vandalism. —LOL ^T/_C 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Added back in and cited Skeith (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Pretty sure he has better things to do than lending his voice to video games." Yeah, because he certainly didn't do voice work for The Darkness and the new Bionic Commando game. Oh, wait... 66.207.82.96 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead Authoring Tools

Any thought of a mention of the newly released Left 4 Dead Authoring Tools? [2][3] Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Diabled archive

the archive is messed up, archive 2 to 6 only has one entry.

I disabled the auto archive, and moved all of the one section archives to archive 2, redirecting archives 3-6 to archive 2. Odessaukrain (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead 2

Please cease adding multiple redundant notes about Left 4 Dead 2. This is the article for Left 4 Dead. Left 4 Dead 2 has its own Separate Article. Information about it should be posted there. Not here. The most that should appear here is that it was announced, when it was announced, its possible release date, and a link to the article. All of that is covered here in the proper section. It does not need to be placed in about 4 different other locations at the same time across the article. Please stop doing so. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But Surely it's better to have a sentence at the top just saying it's been announced as opposed to a note somewhere on the page that readers cannot find? - Ancodi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.192.85 (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I added {{For-text|the sequal| [[Left 4 Dead 2]]}} which creates:

For the sequal, see Left 4 Dead 2.

This way everyone can easily be informed and go to the sequal. I agree with the anon that something should be at the top of the page alerting readers to a sequal. Odessaukrain (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This type of dab is completely unnecessary as there is no naming conflicts; such hatnotes should only be used if the user could accidentally end up on this page if they are looking for the other article. That said, there should be a pointer to the sequel in the lede. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Durability of the Infected

After viewing the trailer for Left 4 Dead 2 I think it is apparent that the (common) infected are more than just disease-induced psychotics. Several infected--including one with most of his jaw missing, another missing his left arm, and yet another that seems to have part of his abdomen ripped away, revealing his ribs--show wounds and trauma that would kill any ordinary person in moments, yet the infected are able to stand and move around. Furthermore, this damage is so heavy that it cannot be explained away as simply "they can't feel pain." It's far too severe for a simple explanation like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.100.133 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We can't say any more until the devs release more info about the infection. Any speculation would be original research. —LOL ^T/_C 01:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No one cares, original research is the truth [but I know that you just want sources], and can be backed up with a video and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.36.94 (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2009

According to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." —LOL ^T/_C 10:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of you. The pictures for L4D2 have confused me about what the Infected are. Admittedly, even if this rabies-like thing can create Tanks and Smokers etc, I still think that normal Infected should be subject to human restrictions. Obviously not, so that's got me wondering again. However, as LOL says, we can't say anything without a source saying something else. I'm sure someone will get around to it one day soon, however as I've noticed this conversation elsewhere. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a horror game

Because it stars zombies, it doesn't mean its a horror game. Lets see one person say its scary, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.36.94 (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2009

There was already a long discussion about L4D and the survival horror here. In brief, there is a sufficient number of reliable sources that establish L4D as a survival horror game, and none that refute it. —LOL ^T/_C 10:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sources" just make the same generalization that other people do: that zombies = survival horror. If this gets to be survival horror then so is World of Warcraft because there are zombies in that game too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.5.82 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Except these aren't 'zombies' in this game; they are 'infected'. It's not a case of 'does it have zombies? therefore it's survival horror'; the other aspects of the setting contribute to it deserving that cat. DP76764 (Talk) 20:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have proof that reliable sources make the "same generalization"? If so, Stubbs the Zombie must be the epitome of survival horror. —LOL ^T/_C 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Many, many reliable sources describe Left 4 Dead as belonging to this genre; even if you consider this a simplistic generalisation, it seems sufficiently widespread and verifiable. This could only be trumped if we had a very strong source saying that it didn't belong to the genre (such as a Valve interview where they objected to the label, or a huge swathe of reviews that all happened to make a big deal of how the game wasn't "survival horror"). --McGeddon (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say they are both (The) (I)nfected and zombies. One quote is "They're not vampires Francis! They're zombies!" from Bill. Also, could you check if some websites say they are zombies...? But indeed, I've also seen a same philosphy that I believe in, on the Talk:Defense of the Ancients page. That they are simply paid people who don't care to the limit, and additionally you judge critics by the site they are writing for, not by their actual resume/bio etc. On one of the archives, Valve says its ACTION. But LOL just goes "oh noes! I can't be wrong!", and goes on a self conclusion. There was a good idea for what to say on the article, on that archive. Etc.� Moaners (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Valve say that it is an "action horror game"[4]. Hervegirod (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly is this quote, Moaners? I couldn't find it on a quick flick through. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's from one of the random dialogs in-game (I think it's Bill's answering Francis saying "I hate vampires", but I don't know if it's quoted in a reliable source (in the game it can "randomly" appear or not, depending on the situation). Hervegirod (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been specific. I meant this: "On one of the archives, Valve says its ACTION." I've heard the vampire thing before. It happens in the lift in No Mercy. Are in-game lines regarded as citable things? Because Bill's full name is William according to my last playthrough with Zoey. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The full name for Bill is William, confusingly yes. So actually Bill Gates should be named William Gates. The vampire line I heard provoked in Blood Harvest, where I waited a few minutes and the radio kept repeating so... Francis initaliazed the first of the two lines...blah blah blah.... Also, LOL specifically said that Steam is not reliable. Also, thats not a head at Valve or anything that is writing that.Moaners (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, not every Bill is a William. It's a name in its own right now. However, the manual and the rest of the game refer to him as Bill. So is it worth mentioning that he's actually a William. Also, for posterity:

Francis: I ain't gonna let these goddamn vampires beat me.

Bill: They're zombies, Francis.

Francis: Whatever. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2009

I'd like to see where I "specifically said that Steam is not reliable". The quote above proves that Bill thinks they're zombies, but not that the Infected are zombies per se. —LOL ^T/_C 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...I made a (minor to moderate) mistake; "Valve's labels aren't completely reliable" ~~ LOL, but that is on Steam, and they label it as action. Moaners (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did say that[5], but please don't quote me out of context. I simply reasoned that this page can't be used to refute L4D's place in the survival horror genre, because Portal's page failed to mention that Portal is a puzzle game in the "Genre" field. —LOL ^T/_C 02:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

One simple way to figure it out. What does 28 Days Later call its things? Are they zombies or Infected? I can't remember and I can't check any time soon. P.S. Thanks for the typo and signature. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I lost what I was saying, due to an edit conflict. So I'll tell you it summed up a bit; I had different dialogue then you JadeFalcon, but the concept about vampires was the same...Also, why will 28 Days Later's naming of zombies resolve what Left 4 Dead's naming of zombies argument... huh? Also, I forgot the other things that I wrote.

Moaners (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I brought up 28 Days is because, barring the Special Infected, L4D is identical. A virus of some sort that acts quickly (seconds in 28 Days, 2 and a half minutes being the lowest known time in L4D (that could mean that everyone has different immunity levels and that even the survivors will eventually succumb (but that's original research))), the "zombies" have no interest in brains, just murderous rage, and also run like hell. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care at all about original research, thats just a paranoia that editors here develop, like sources. Where does it say that the survivors will succumb to the infection? Aren't they immune, not just having a resistance? Moaners (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say anywhere about the Survivors immunity/resistance (that I know of). That's something I came up with myself. The graffiti in the saferoom at the beginning of No Mercy's finale talks about how long it takes to change once Infected. The highest time listed is five days. The lowest is two and a half minutes. That, to me, screams resistance rather than immunity. Everyone had a different level of resistance to the infection and the Survivors were just lucky enough to have an extremely high resistance. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does say that they are immune. I forgot some places, but Zoey says that she hopes she is immune to another disease. Etc. Moaners (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Never heard that line. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is more of a survival-horror game than, say, Resident Evil 5, but I'd call it more on par with Resident Evil 4 than a survival-horror paradigm like the RE1 remake.

When you consider categorizing something as survival-horror, you have to look at all of the elements and how they work together. Resident Evil 4, for example, appears to be survival-horror, but its weapon/health upgrade system and item drop mechanic nullify pretty much any inkling of horror. The only thing separating RE4 and RE5 is that the partner character is co-op and RE5 is set during the daytime; they both use the same weapon upgrade system, the same aggressive emphasis, and the same animosity to all enemies (even if they did empathize with them, the fact that the player character is bombarded with them forces an aggressive stance).

In L4D, the player is presented with an overwhelming number of enemies and a relatively low amount of a health, which, for all intents and purposes, characterizes a zombie survival-horror game. However, the game balances out that weakness with impossibly large amounts of ammunition (the Colt .45 sidearm can be dual-wielded alongside its infinite ammunition; the shotguns can be equipped with more than 40 shotgun shells, which is damn near impossible with what the survivors have on them, plus the pistol magazines that never run out); additionally, the enemies always swarm the player once a weapon is fired (making it virtually impossible to use evasion tactics that would turn up the tension; imagine hiding under a desk while an Infected scouts the room after a gunshot). Since the players are given powerful weapons and large ammunition capacities, emphasis is placed more on shot placement than ammunition conservation; sure, you could say that in that situation, one would bring tons of ammunition, but the game should have been paced slower for a horror effect. On higher difficulties settings, this advantage is canceled out, but only as a linear progression; your health is decreased, enemy health is increased, stockpiles are fewer, but the enemies do not become more intelligent or use complex tactics such as scouting, baiting, pincer movements, etc, as a hive mind (we can extrapolate this from the fact that Infected do not attack other Infected and that Infected attack when other Infected are attacking; those that do not attack while others attack are not close enough to interact with those Infected) would.

Essentially, none of these measures place a greater emphasis on evasion tactics that characterize survival-horror, and they follow more along the lines of standards within the FPS genre than that of survival-horror. Survival-horror games like RE1 remake actually decrease the abilities of the player in harder difficulty modes; on Hard mode, you can only refill your Fuel Canteen twice from a kerosene tank. That means that you cannot prevent the appearance of V-ACT advanced mutations by burning corpses once you "kill" a zombie, and given the fact that ammunition/health item placement is severely restricted, you cannot afford to kill zombies, much less the V-ACTs which require more than four Shotgun shells without a headshot; in short, you are forced to evade enemies instead of shooting them, and take every measure possible before killing. In Real Survival Mode, you do not have auto-aim (you have to manually aim at enemies using the up/straight/down controls), nor the benefit of instant-access Item Boxes; it becomes extremely difficult to engage enemies, thus the player avoids enemies at all costs except where they would impede passage to Item Boxes (this coincides with the number of enemies present around item boxes and their placement). In L4D, the game FORCES you to fire, and on harder difficulty levels, if you do not fire, you cannot survive the onslaught. Without the benefit of so much ammunition, the game would be impossible to play.

You could say that L4D is in the same vein as Dead Space, but that game is closer to survival-horror because of its "surgical-precision" emphasis; you can't just engage enemies with a trigger pull, because then they'll mutate into something even worse. The semi-RPG upgrade elements prevent Dead Space from being a true survival-horror game because currency is used to strengthen the character (as opposed to exploration and object investigation seen in pre-RE4 Resident Evil games; knowledge is power, as opposed to strength is power), but it is much closer to the ideal. You cannot take the definition of horror (anxiety or uneasiness), combine it with the simplistic definition of survival (the will of the player to keep playing a game and advance), and call it survival-horror. By that definition, every game from Pac-Man to 3D chess is a "survival-horror" game. The definition of survival-horror has never changed; only the market for it has. The link below discusses this further:

http://traxus4420.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/survival-horror/

This is what makes L4D an "action-horror" or "action-shooter with survival-horror theme" instead of a true survival-horror game. As a rule of thumb, all games that can be defined as "survival-horror" should have some mechanic that encourages evasion tactics and some mechanic that de-emphasizes combat. After all, the Night of the Living Dead would never work out with ample amounts of gunplay, would it?

P.S

Within the context of the whole "there is no debate about defining L4D as survival-horror", I agree, there are no "reputable" sources that define L4D as not survival-horror. However, the majority of gaming magazines have absolutely horrendous bias toward action-shooters; almost all of them quantify "Controls" as fluidity of combat, and despite the fact that the controls in RE1 GC were designed specifically to pace the game (the problem actually wasn't in the controls themselves, which remained virtually unchanged since the first release on PS1, but in the camera; the camera changed as the player crossed an area in order to visually and psychologically pace movement, just as a horror film would), RE1 GC received lower ranking than RE4 while using practically identical controls (other than the knife button, the ENTIRE layout was carried over from RE1 GC).

http://kotaku.com/5056008/does-survival-horror-really-still-exist

Also, this "action-horror" sentiment, while of a minority opinion, should be noted under the "fringe theory" policy; the definition of survival-horror has not changed, just as the definition of zombie-horror has not changed with the inclusion of 28 Days Later or the Dawn of the Dead remake. The definition of a phrase should not be wiped out simply because a majority says different. I don't see why we can't have an "action-shooter/survival-horror" label instead of just straight "survival-horror".

• EDIT*

Just noticed that it does, in fact, have the two genre labels.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.150.170 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC) 

72.189.150.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC).

Disambigous added

After all of the reversions of information about the second Left4Dead on this page, I added on the top:

{{For2|the sequel|[[Left 4 Dead 2]]}}

Which creates:

For the sequel, see Left 4 Dead 2.

There is no conversation on the disimbagious talk page or actual page about sequals being listed.

Without this information, the first mention of Left 4 Dead 2 is buried in Left_4_Dead#Release_and_beyond section, half way into the article. Odessaukrain (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above - using hatnotes to do anything but name confusion (which this is not) is not appropriate *but* it is important enough that a sequel exists to mention in the lede. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is currently in the third paragraph. My mistake. Odessaukrain (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I have brought this page on the Wikiquette alert page here, due to the ongoing dispute here. I'm just letting all of you know. Thanks. [mad pierrot][t c] 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Crash Course

Will the Crash Course campaign be available on Xbox? Because I've heard (though can't see anything on the page) that Valve have had to argue with Microsoft to release Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead releases for free. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The links in the citation have finally loaded. *grumbles about Microsoft* --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea they should put somthing about the new DLC crash course. Release date sept 17 a two chapter campaign, survival and Versus--Bk burger shot (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

no news watsover to confirm date for crash course except september, thats it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.35.25 (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The realease date (Sept. 29) was announced earlier today. I'm not sure if it's reliable so I'll just post a link to the article here for the more experienced members to judge. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Left-4-Dead-Crash-Course-DLC-Release-Date-September-29th-20008.html Dancehallqueen123 (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of mention of boycott/poor support

While this article is happy to heap praise upon the game, the inconspicious lack of any mention towards a boycott which hit several games related news sites is interesting. Perhaps a part regarding the questionably slow and underwhelming support for the game would better educate a person reading this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.185.127 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2009

There's extensive coverage of the boycott on the Left 4 Dead 2 article. The boycott is not about boycotting L4D1 but L4D2 by the way. Hervegirod (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

rather keep this off since its offensive, will only start arguements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.35.25 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Paramore?

Is it really important enough to mention in the "after release" section that the band paramore will be playing it for only one night on xbox live? No. It isn't. Will someone remove that because its just a few hour long event thats already been done with a dozen other bands, and or, people(referred to on xbox live as a "Game with Fame" event"). Thank you! Let's try and keep this page relevant and clean! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.65.96 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2009

I removed it because it appears to be more of a news item than a notable event. —LOL ^T/_C 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

8 bit

What about this? // Liftarn (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A fan project, not needed to be mentioned unless it attracts more attention in more reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Francis (Left 4 Dead)

Why is that character split from the rest of the page? 79.2.52.49 (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing links to it, someone just thought it was worth creating. Since it has no content beyond "Francis is a biker", "a reviewer made a joke about Francis's name" and "Francis is one of the four characters who appears in the forthcoming Left 4 Dead 2 DLC", I think we can lose it. --McGeddon (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Louis is NOT an Addict!

does anyone really believe this is anything more than vandalism?while I play the game,I admit that he usually gets the pills faster than me,but I don't think its because he's fiending...69.244.20.68 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorted - JeffJonez (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism, or at least an unproductive edit.71.48.8.136 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 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)

PC vs Windows

Please use the term Windows when yhou mean Windows. The term PC has a much larger scope, and includes dozens, maybe hundreds of other operating systems that run on that hardware, such as Linux, OS/2, BSD, QNX and so on.88.131.91.2 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2010 (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 22:07, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

TMI?

The article has the line, "After waiting for the horde to disperse, the three remaining survivors are taking time to mourn Bill's death when they encounter the four survivors from Left 4 Dead 2, who need to cross the bridge to continue to the west. Zoey, Louis, and Francis help the four to get across and fend off another horde as they lower the bridge, and then set sail for the Keys." This all takes place after the events of the first game. Should this info be part of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.101.236 (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Left 4 Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121112180143/http://media.giantbomb.com/video/vf_tnt_081111_1500.mp4 to http://media.giantbomb.com/video/vf_tnt_081111_1500.mp4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Left 4 Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140305195104/http://www.rergroup.co.uk/aruna/ to http://www.rergroup.co.uk/aruna/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Left 4 Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/games/l/left4dead/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117013042/http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/npd-nintendo-drives-08-industry-sales-past-21-billion-/?biz=1 to http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/npd-nintendo-drives-08-industry-sales-past-21-billion-/?biz=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Left 4 Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67GrVVokU?url=http://www.1up.com/features/left-4-dead-afterthoughts to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3172298
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.next-gen.biz/opinion/gabe-newell-writes-edge
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/663Y2xIs7?url=http://www.play.tm/interview/17853/valve-software-s-doug-lombardi/ to http://play.tm/interview/17853/valve-software-s-doug-lombardi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006200800/http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/112006_left4dead.x to http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/112006_left4dead.x
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222054918/http://goty.gamespy.com/2008/multiplayer/10.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2008/multiplayer/10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219071725/http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/nominations,664,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/nominations,664,BA.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Left 4 Dead (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Left 4 Dead (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)