Talk:Left 4 Dead/Archive 1

Nobodys looked here in several years, its wonderful to look back and see the speculation and the figuring out of things. The community is much much smaller now than ever and is likely only shrinking. I've spent years and years playing. Its been a blast. Here's to you Bill,RIP.

Boomerwaffle

Dawn of the Dead Remake

I checked the provided source and it had no mention of the dawn of the dead remake, although it did give mention to 28 days later, i suggest that the supposed inspiration from dawn of the dead 04 be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.248.125 (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead and Half Life Template

I have removed the half life series template as the half life series has nothing to do with left 4 dead. See discussion here: Template talk:Half-Life series--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to add this the hte HL2 source stuff... add it to the btm of the page menu with HL2, CSS, TF2, and the other source games... I'm just passing through and leaving a note.

Fansites?

Looks like an anonymous editor has added a fan site already. Should we leave it? Or remove it? I know some wikis like Crysis prefer not to have fansites. --Gamer007 04:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC) They don't provide any reliable sources for information (mostly mirroring other sources) so there's really no reason to include it in the article. IrDewey (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been undoing edits by 86.3.236.221 that adds an unofficial forum link to the article. I agree with IrDewey that fan sites aren't needed so I will continue to remove these links unless anyone thinks the links should stay. Noneforall (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with adding fansites in the "External Links" section. It's all related to the game itself and we can't just assume that each fansite is just a mirror of other sources. I'm sure each site seeks out their own exclusives for information when it becomes available, thus making it an asset to the community. Why limit that?? It's also up to the people viewing the links which ones they visit, not up to random Wiki users if fansites should be added or not (and then removed...). Just as you can undo changes to links added, we (the people who enjoy having them here) can undo your changes. It can be an endless, pointless, cycle, you know? --Chemicalduck (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can see why you would want to keep fan sites that has information in one place, but I still don't see why we should keep unofficial forums. According to WP:EL, links to discussion forums should usually be avoided so I'm going to remove the link to the unofficial forum but keep the other link. Noneforall (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus is that useful fansites should be allowed. I've tried adding back Left 4 Dead 411 but user SkyWalker removed it because of "spam". I'll continue adding it back until good reason is given why it shouldn't be allowed. Deadsquerl (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

360

Can anyone cite where this is confirmed as coming out for the 360?

It is 100%. This game looks awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea it has been confermed for the xbox 360 and pcConquer59 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Valve themselves confirmed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.180.36 (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Youtube trailer link

Why did someone remove the link to the trailer on youtube? Is this not aloud? If so please say so. --Black_Mesa | Talk 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Smoker

I'm going to add to the smoker part of the article that it can strangle survivors when it's above them, my source:[1]--Sherk 03:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead Hands-on Preview at left4dead411.com

I added some info from this article, who get theirs right from Valve themselves. There's probably a bunch more to add if someone wants to comb through it all. --HertzaHaeon 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Retreat?

"The Hunter An agile Infected who can climb walls and jump over rooftops, similar to Half-Life 2's Fast Zombie. It can pin a Survivor down on the floor and slash at them with long claws, rendering the victim powerless unless The Hunter is killed by a team-mate or knocked off its victim. The Hunter can also retreat."

Can someone clarify what it means for the hunter to retreat? As far as I know anything can "retreat"

Retreat could be implied, it is not meant to denote a special ability. You could say it has the ability just stand and heal itself, though that would be rather ineffective in my opinion. It may also be the one that has any real reason to back off or retreat because of its ability to heal itself. That is a good enough reason to denote the fact that It can retreat because it would be a tactically useful and viable option. Brokenscope 13:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Hunter is faster than the survivors so retreating with anything else would just leave you being chased down; it's probably the only class capable of retreating successfully. LikuX 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that the demo is actually out this is a bit clearer: the Hunter, unlike the other classes, sometimes retreats when taking damage, and prefers to attack in ambush situations. So where a normal zombie would run at you getting hit and then die, the Hunter would break off and wait somewhere for a better chance to attack. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Awareness

This is listed under awareness: "The game will feature full body awareness in which the players will be able to see their own bodies when they look down, this feature was first added in F.E.A.R."

As far as I know, you could see your own body with the option enabled in Tribes 2. F.E.A.R. wasn't the first.

EDIT: You could also see your own body in SIN I believe, other games too probably, FEAR was definitely not the first.

I removed the fear reference but left the rest of the section intact. Halo 2 let you see your feet, it came out before it 2004 vs 2005. Not really all that relevant either. I'm not even sure if the whole section is worth mentioning, partly because it reads like a back of the box "feature" blurb, partly because I doubt your going to be wasting time looking at your feet, partly because I doubt they will make you fall if one foot is walking on air next to the ledge. We really don't have that level of interaction or realism in games yet. I also doubt you will be very concerned about where your body is facing when you are downed. It might be helpful when trying to hide by checking if part of you has light on it but that is about it. Brokenscope 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tons of games have this feature, it's been around for years. I'm not sure why it's notable. -- MisterHand 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's notable for being the fist Source engine game to feature this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.53.232 (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This feature isn't in the full game it seems.--76.208.16.171 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This feature is disabled in the 360 version for some reason. Don't know why Certain Affinity would dumb down the graphics, the 360 can definitely handle it. 168.169.63.128 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The 360 could handle it, but you'd have one less zombie in your graphics budget. I'd rather have the zombie, myself. 72.248.137.205 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin

Why is there no mention that the origin of this game comes from the zombie mod for CS? 90.192.92.47 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Source please? Just because you played CS and saw a zombie server mod doesn't mean that its inspired by CS admin mods.Brokenscope 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was accualy developed because the founder of turtel rock studios saw that the guys from valve loved to play agianst his bots. And they found out that 3-4 people agianst 30 bots limited to knifes was a hell of fun. thats mainly the reason. =D

Source that, because I really doubt that is true. Also, I don't think that bot knife fights really would have anything to do with this game... After all, you don't seem to rely on beating back the zombies so much as shooting them to hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milskidasith (talk • contribs) 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious Turtle saw how much players loved zombie mod and made a great move to make a whole game on it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, i think Jurassic Park Tresspasser was the first to show the players body. It showed the female characters breasts with a health meter when the player looked down, previous to that i believe all you got was feet on certain FPS games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.250.27 (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference of the 30 bots with knives is from the developer commentary. 68.39.99.22 (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

xbox360 alright

Its coming for Xbox 360, its notifed on many sites, but i've seen it on www.gamereactor.no < this is a norwegian site so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.34.250 (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Character last names

There's no source for the character last names, just wanted to let you know before I remove them (new at the wiki editing thing). Squerl (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with article

Wikipedia is not a game guide, and this entire article is essentially a game guide -- list of weapons, list of characters, etc. Furthermore, most aren't even cited. If someone wants to edit the article I'll give them a week or so, but if not I'm going to remove a lot of content that contributes to the article simply being a game guide. Enfestid (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that. Wikipedia is for giving people information, this article gives people information. Stop breaking the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamesMaxter (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia is for giving people information that falls under its guidelines and policies, and game guide material is prohibited under WP:GAMEGUIDE. —LOL ^T/_C 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is fine. If you have a problem with something being uncited, then cite it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.8.132 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2008

Content that cannot be attributed to a proper source should be deleted, according to WP:PROVEIT. —LOL ^T/_C 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but we should not do it without warning, there's a tag for that. Then if nobody was able to find a source after some "reasonable" time has passed (say one week for example), we should delete it mercilessly. I am not for deletion without notice. It happened in controversial articles (which is not the case for this one, I think, but we never know) that people removed sources, knowing too well that other people would delete the corresponding unsourced statements without notice. Hervegirod (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Anybody notice the age of this thread? The article has no lists anymore. BJ^Talk 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(This is old, but...) The keyword in my previous comment is cannot. {{fact}} would be suitable for content that does not have a proper source. —LOL ^T/_C 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

Both IGN and Gamespy say the game is going to be released in February 2008. I'm not going to edit the article until there is any agreement on the release date. What do you guys think? Here are the links to where I found the release date. http://pc.ign.com/articles/760/760290p1.html http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/turtle-rock-project/787896p1.html Noneforall (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it looks like it'll be release 2Q of 2008, since Valve just recently bought TRS. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Shacknews article saying "late summer": [2]. HertzaHaeon (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Interview on the show XPlay says Fall I think... --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just watched the xplay clip, it said nothing about a release date, Fall or otherwise. --CitrusFreak12 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article contains some good information, especially concerning the release ("Valve's Chet Faliszek told us to expect the title in August or September") and gameplay scenarios, and the current reasons why the release has been delayed. http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=745 --CitrusFreak12 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Update*

As of recently there has been a release date set for October 15th 2008. (Courtesy of GameStop) This date is subject to change, but I'm sure everyone is glad that there is one now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Residentevilfan3d (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that qualifies as an official source-CitrusFreak12 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "Q4 2008" sounds more relyable than an estimated month or date. Cypher00 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That Gamespot article doesn't make sense though, as it says that it has already been released in Europe and that's not true. I don't think it would be a good idea to base it on that October release date. Spirallingspirit (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Individual Level Descriptions

What do you guys think about describing the individual levels (hospital, cornfield, airport, and "murky countryside")? I think there is enough information on the hospital and cornfield levels that can be garnered from previews and hands-on videos and articles (eg, the cornfield features a farmhouse with boarded-up windows and barbed wire where the final stand takes place, the final stand of the hospital level takes place on the roof of the hospital while waiting for a helicopter, etc). --CitrusFreak12 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PlayStation 3

Has it been confirmed for the PlayStation 3 or will this remain a Xbox 360 exclusive? Does anyone know? Have Valve confirmed this? Damien Russell (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you add PS3 as a platform before knowing this? Even your references show it's only speculation and hasn't been confirmed. Nothing's been made official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.93.142 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A spokesperson from Valve confirmed this. This isnt enough? Hmm - yeah you're right. //sarcasim Damien Russell (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not looking good for a PS3 version: [3]. No official word from Valve yet, however. HertzaHaeon (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm too lazy to update the article myself, but this ([4]) article from 4th August claims that EA are porting Left4Dead to PS3... No mention of a release date though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.233.35 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Article introduction

I just realized the intro says nothing about what the game is about, and also gives a lot of unnecessary details of what exactly happened at the first con viewings. I took it upon myself to correct that. Hope you like it. I guess a few more important details of the game could be included in the intro, such as the AI director system. HertzaHaeon (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong

The "AI" and "The Survivors" sections are messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.179.39 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It was caused by someone who didn't know how to write ref links. HertzaHaeon (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

NPCs?

It says in The Survivors section that: "Although there are only four playable characters, as you progress in the game players will encounter NPCs who will help you and your team out." Can some please put a source for this because I have not read anywhere that there are friendly NPCs. I know there are people like the Helicopter pilot and such, but those don't really count.--99.243.5.157 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

M21 or Scoped Mini-14?

In all of the screenshots I've seen, it appears the sniper rifle is a scoped Mini-14. There is also a reference to it on the news page ([5]). Right now the article says M21; just curious which it is. Thanks. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks to have been corrected. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A black guy?

Surely there is more info available on the Louis character... it seems unlikely that with the detail in the backstory of the other characters Louis' story is literally "A black guy". So I am guessing the lack of detail is an omission? Condolini (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we even sure the guy is black? --Fussbett

Open your eyes? Of course he is. -24.171.124.156

How do you know he is a black guy?

Believe it or not, but I have interacted with these dark pigmented humans known as black guys and I can identify who they are. Louis sure looks like one from my observations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.124.156 (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

by his apparell we may assume that he has some sort of office job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.180.36 (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the games strategy guide,Louis is a manager at a electronics store.--76.208.16.171 (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New Survivors

Shouldn't we put more emphases on the fact that the survivors are going to look different in the final version of something? --81.156.26.22 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. The new information should just replace the old, unless the old character designs somehow remain in the game. Otherwise, knowing that the characters once looked different during development isn't a very necessary fact, save perhaps in a Development section. HertzaHaeon (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No PS3 version

I believe the PS3 version has been nicked. Absolutely no mention of it anywhere anymore, and completely absent at E3. Changed article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeeeeeep (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I don't see anything about the PS3 version in the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.201.23 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

EA listed Left 4 Dead as a PS3 game during E3 2008, but that's all I've seen about it. It's not solid enough to include, IMO. I say we wait for an official, explicit confirmation. HertzaHaeon (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it's official. 83.131.59.226 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Duxer

No, it's still a rumor since there is no official confirmation, just an blurb in a magazine without any backup. It's likely we'll get official confirmation soon, so let's wait until then. HertzaHaeon (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. 89.172.19.19 (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Duxer

http://forumplanet.gamespy.com/in_the_news/b48785/19871585/p1/ --Barnz (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I made a major overhaul, following WP:VG/GL and a similar cleanup of Team Fortress 2. I especially tried to simplify descriptions, remove details and lists, and make the article more accessible for non-players. I'll try to keep the article clean until release so it hopefully can be submitted for assessment soon after. I hope I wasn't too aggressive with my edits. If I was, please tell me here so we can work it out and get a good article for what is sure to be a great game. HertzaHaeon (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BrainBread?

Is it just me, or does this game sound a lot like BrainBread, aside from gigantic leaps in AI coding and the apparently lack of a "become infected" gameplay feature? Then again, a lot of "survive a massive zombie invasion" games sound similar when you think about it... ~ Joseph Collins [U|T|C] 19:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"survive a massive zombie invasion" Is every zombie game... --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Even this one? ;3 ~ Joseph Collins [U|T|C] 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok..Almost every zombie game.. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It does have a LOT of resemblance to brainbread, Including throwable gas canisters and Miniguns. 209.29.174.89 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Bill NOT Gabe.

For bloody sake stop changing his name to Gabe. Look down around the middle of the thread. and that's the official forum... --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That guy didn't make the bloody game you fruit shop owner! If you don't believe me then go to game trailers and look it up. Thee Vet (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at any recent screenshot and you'll most likely see different names (In-Game screenshots.) During PAX they had PlayTestX (X representing 1-4) and http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t280/left4dead411/screenshots/pcgde-louis-forest.jpg ... --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup that makes sense. I was watching another video where "gabe's" name was "Dark Presence" while the others had their regular names.Thee Vet (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the full game and his name is Bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.59.189 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

System Requirements

"Pretty Much the same as Orange Box" Why not just put Orange Box's specs there then, with the above in parenthesis for the time being? It was rather wasteful to have to read that, then go to Orange box's page and look it up.Tayandre (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OFFICIAL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ARE POSTED! CHECK OUT THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.52.46 (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The minimum system requirements need a 3.0Ghz /single core/ processor, but recommended is 2.4Ghz /dual core/. This should be added somehow, as you do not neet 3.0Ghz or more to run the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.122.223 (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Are they really going to use source?

Isn't it time they unleashed a new game engine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.182.27.56 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Source was created to be easily upgradeable. There won't be another engine for a very very very long time. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it, Valve made Source so they can continually extended one engine instead of making a new one every few years. Just look at the facial animation and lighting over time.Skeith (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the engine?. It is one of the best engine out there it is highly moddable and scalable. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, having played the demo I can say that L4D looks beautiful. It's not Crysis but it certainly doesn't look dated. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In many people's opinions it is the very best game engine to date because of its capabilities including facial animation, realistic light rendering, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.180.36 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cover art updated

The cover art has been updated at Amazon.com. Now it features the LEFT hand to complete the "Left 4 Dead" pun. Get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.104.153 (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC) ya, but it's not been updated on the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.1.66 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Aquirirng of Turtle Rock Studios

The link points onto the general news site, not onto a specific entry. --90.146.29.6 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Steam Powered website was changed in the last few months and as a result the link became redundant. I have now fixed it to point to the correct news posting. --193.1.96.36 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Tri-State; Setting?

Or more Strongly, Pennsylvania, is likely the Setting of the game due to Allegheny National Forest being in the game during the "Blood Harvest" Champagne. [6] Champagne. I LOL'd. 68.84.23.145 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, now that the Demo is open to the general public, it should be noted that the vehicles with license plates are Pennsylvanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.160.248 (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Achievments for 360 version

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/left-4-dead/achievements/ has an achievement that references one of the Acheivements from Dead Rising http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/dead-rising/achievements/

The reference involves the Zombie Genocider Achievement from Dead Rising that involves killing at least 53,594 zombies. Left 4 Dead references in their Zombie Genocidest acheivement which requires the player to kill kill 53,595 Infected; one more zombie than what Dead Rising reference. Just wanted to let you people know in case some one cared about refrences to other games.--67.169.238.124 (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Achievements aren't only for X360, L4D (Obviously..) uses Steamworks, therefore achievements are built into the PC Version as well. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good sir, this section was made on the talk page to point out a clever refference to another game, NOT about "Talk about if the pc version has achievements". That comment pointed out that you only read the title and not what it was made for.--99.154.145.70 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Screamer

As far as I know the only official information about the Screamer is the concept art and a few variables found in the game files http://www.left4dead411.com/news/2008/11/1up-show-lost-boss/ . I have not heard of any official response what his function is or why he was scrapped, so the specific information "scrapped due to its redundancy and difficulty of use" seems to be pure speculation. (Feel free to correct me)

Should the Screamer totally be removed or only the unconfirmed information about him? --90.146.43.64 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the screamer should totally be removed, the only info I can find about him is the picture of him in the article, and some speculation on different forums. Gulfy32 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add: In the commentary mode of the game the screamer is explained: Early in developement, the boomer had no direct attack, he just exploded when dieing and hurt everybody near him. The screamer worked like a mobile car alarm, attracting the horde. The idea was, the survivors have to fight through the zombies in order to kill the screamer and stop him from attracting more zombies. However he was hard to track and in general no fun, so they scrapped him and gave the boomer the ability to attrack zombies instead.

While this is official information (although difficult to cite), I still think he should be left out of the article, since we can't document every stripped feature of the game. --90.146.43.64 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CjMdYm4M-o -- track from the official commentary - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 15:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Trivia isn't allowed, so I've removed it. Here is what was in that section:

"One of Left 4 Dead's achievements, "Zombie Genocidest" requires you to kill 53,595 Infected, exactly one more than the "Zombie Genocider" achievement in Capcom's Dead Rising."

Yea thats the right move since it isn't allowed and plus, that's not even interesting trivia. Noneforall (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Tank

Added info on how players are able to spawn as him. I wrote "Players cannot choose to be the Tank; infected players are randomly chosen to spawn as one." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.218.252 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fake image

I just removed the image Image:Director8574b.jpg from the article. The origin is unclear, and it seems a fake to me. The terms like "sustain_peak" that are used in the image result in no hits on Google whatsoever and no similar images have been seen anywhere on, otherwise well-informed, websites and sources. I'd love to be proven wrong though. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

'I'd love to be proven wrong' -ok, here we go: The AI Director in Left 4 Dead creates the gameplay experience/intensity by spawning weapons/health/enemy's, sets the music/visual effects etc. In order to do this, the game monitors the players health/how good he aims/etc; based on that, the AID creates 'dramatic game scenes' like spawning a boss enemy (for eg. a Tank) to create a 'exiting and thrilling game experience'.

The statistic that is shown on the images are the live result of this AID work: It shows how the intensity is build up for each player (>spawning lots of zombie mobs), going to the climax/peak (>spawning a boss zombie) and then let the players relax (>stop spawning any enemy's for the next minutes or so).

This behavior of the AID can be shown by starting the game (PC of course) with "-console", then starting a singleplayer game and set "director_show_intensity 1"; the known statistic from the image set I posted'll be shown. >>> The Console rate this command as a 'client cheat'; it works only in SP afaik.

I thought this was an interesting way to show how the AID works for the normal wiki reader, so I made and added the image. Unfortunately it was not clear enough what theres shown; my bad. May others decide if its interesting or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.76.141 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So indeed the image turns out to be not a fake. Unfortunately, the description of the image was not making clear what the source was and (at that time) hardly anything about it could be found on the internet. Finally, the image was uploaded on Commons, where it was deleted because it was a copyright violation (a screenshot from a game) and Commons does not allow fair use images. I agree that it could make a nice way to show how the "director" works, perhaps you can reupload the image on Wikipedia itself, with a proper description and fair use tag and we add it again, with a good description to the article? --Reinoutr (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I added another similar image to the article, hopefully with better fair use rational so it won't be deleted Skeith (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cross-platform

I can't find anything about this, but will players from the Xbox 360 and Windows be able to play together as with some other multi-platform games???? StaticGull  Talk  16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Cross platform play between PC and X360 is only available at GFWL. Only few GFWL games supports cross platform play. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that Microsoft has stated that they were not going to make anymore games with cross-platform, for a number of reasons. --unsigned 00:04, 30 November 2008

Is there a way to cite developer commentary?

It's available in the games directory in .wav, could we give the name of file and a hash? I can't find anything about citing audio files on wikipedia

The commentary is a goldmine of information about the games development, design decisions and technical information straight from the developers. Being able to cite them would be invaluable to the article.Skeith (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not if in the cite you include a link to a website that has the developer commentary and just include what part of the commentary you are citing from. Noneforall (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Use {{cite video game}}, and shove who is speaking and what they're saying in the quote field. ie:

<ref>{{cite video game| title = Left 4 Dead | developer = [[Valve Corporation]] | date = 2008 | platform = PC| level = No Mercy (developer commentary) | language = English| quote = '''Gabe Newell''': We put the coffee machine here because we thought that once in a while, the smoker might want to relax from all that killing and enjoy a nice social chat with the hunter and the tank.}}</ref>

This will create the following citation:

Valve Corporation (2008). Left 4 Dead (PC). Level/area: No Mercy (developer commentary). Gabe Newell: We put the coffee machine here because we thought that once in a while, the hunter might want to relax from all that killing and enjoy a nice chat about their work with the smoker and the tank.

That would be sufficient. You don't need it to be web-based, just cite direct to the commentary. -- Sabre (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Merits and Demerits

This isn't in the full game in any way that I know of. ZuljinRaynor (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I only have the 360 version,but it seems they cut that part out.--76.208.58.137 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bio Quarintine?

There a section of the article that says that if you beat the game twice you unlock a new mode. I think it is false seeing as I could not find out anything about it and nothing was cited. If you can prove me wrong please do because that would be a cool gamemode. 68.39.99.22 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have'nt finished the game,but no one said anything about this(including people who beat the game)and it's not mentioned in the strategy guide, so it's probably fake.--76.208.59.189 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Leagues etc section

Anyone know the purpose to this section? Seems like possible spam/self-advertising of that site. And I don't see any other articles with links like these. Removing for now, here is an archive of the text:DP76764 (Talk) 17:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Leagues etc.

• Game Battles League - GBL PC Left 4 Dead League
• Game Battles League - GBL XBOX 360 Left 4 Dead League

Added game locations.

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the following sentence to the gameplay article.

"The game takes place in Pennsylvania, 2009, the four phases of the campaign mode are: No Mercy (Philadelphia), Death Toll (Riverside), Dead Air (Philadelphia), and Blood Harvest (Allegheny National Forest)."

Before you ask for sources, I have none to show right now, but I can get some later. Until then you must take my word for it. My edit is supported by several small clues in-game. These are:

Pennsylvania plates on most cars scattered throughout all campaigns.

Philadelphia's area code written on a store signing No Mercy.

The town of Riverside is featured in Death Toll.

The Allegheny National Forest sign in Blood Harvest.

A car carrier with "Philadelphia" written on the side in Dead Air.

204.14.12.35 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I havent looked at the liscene plates on cars, I don't really feel the Pennsylvania feel. I like a few minutes outside of Philadelphia and the Airport there does not feel remotely like PHL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.179.180.178 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a legitimate source to back up these claims, and Wikipedia has a no original research policy. I'm going to revert the changes until there is official proof that the game was at least inspired by all these locations. I appreciate the in-game research you've done, but it doesn't quite conform to the policies here. —LOL ^T/_C 02:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand. And although I do not have photographic proof that Blood Harvest is set in Allegheny National Forest, Death Toll is set in Riverside PA, or that Dead Air is set in Philadelphia (which I am no longer sure of, it may be a separate city, Pittsburgh perhaps?). I can prove that the game IS set in Pennsylvania.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/8732/l4dsmalltown03ranchhousrv2.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c167/SuburbaniteHunter/27b664ab91d11a2c70c0f817438b8479e3a.png

I will try to get further evidence as I play the game. 69.136.90.97 (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

At the exact beginning of Blood Harvest,there is a notice board that say "Allegheny Forest".--76.208.58.137 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

Article remains C-class, mid-importance. It's coming along, but there are some key problems in various parts of the article.

• Make sure the lead section effectively summarises the entire article. Its a little wishy-washy at the moment. -- Sabre (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• A lot of the prose in the gameplay section assumes the reader is already familiar with aspects of the game. Some significant copyeditting and rewriting is needed here to ensure that readers who haven't played the game can follow it. Always write with the idea that the reader has a basic clue as to the genre, but no further knowledge of the game.
• The survivor and infected character subsections border game guide content. Merge them into the gameplay section as subsections, and summarise them briefly and concisely in prose. You don't and shouldn't need to list every weapon in the game, just give the reader the idea of what sort of weapons are in the game. ie "the player can choose from a submachine gun and shotgun at the beginnning of the level, and can acquire more powerful weapons such as an assault rifle, sniper rifle and an automatic shotgun." That's cut down two sections of game guide information into a single sentence. Do that to both infected and survivor sections. You don't need to list the infected in that style, again, summarise concisely in prose.
• Ditch every single last comparison to other films and games in the whole article except 28 Days Later. The 28 Days Later one is referenced, whereas every other is simply original research and speculation.
• Development section has some structure problems. Get rid of the single sentence sub-section, merge it into the main bunch of development information. I'd merge the "development" and "history" subsections under a subtitle of "history" or "production" as well (you don't want a subsection that uses the same title as the overall section anyway). The rest of it needs a thorough copyedit, the prose isn't that great in this section.
• The reception section has significant problems in weight. It relies primarily on 3 reviews, and disproportionately on IGN. Use more reviews and adopt a more issue driven rather than review driven approach, see articles such as Halo: Combat Evolved, Doom 3, or StarCraft for how to approach a reception section. Make full use of the reviews in the table, don't just shove them there and forget about them. Make sure to highlight any differences between the PC and Xbox versions of the game. -- Sabre (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mid importance

Is there any particular reason to rate this game as mid?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminology, "Boss Infected"

"Special Infected" is incorrect

http://www.l4d.com/game.htm
http://store.steampowered.com/app/500/
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/l/left4dead/
http://left4dead411.com/news/2008/05/l4d-video-interview-and-previews/ (Doug Lombardi interview portion)

All the official material for the game refers to them as being "Boss" infected or zombies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeith (talk • contribs) 04:51, Dec 4, 2008

Not all. The achievements call them Special Infected. One of the achievements, Nothing Special, is even named after them being "Special" Infected and not Boss. 69.234.122.142 (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus there's the little thing at the end of each mission stating how each Survivor performed; one of them is based off the number of "Special" Infected they killed. Groundlord (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A Dev's nickname doesn't really count, if it did everything in oblivion is called a "Billy".(124.179.43.86 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Server operators vs. Valve

L4D is unusual in that it introduces a very console-oriented system for setting up / joining games, but retains the very PC-oriented need for dedicated servers (in fact even the console version has them). Lobbies are set up, and when everyone is ready a DS is searched for by Valve's master servers and joined by the players' computers. More details (and the initial fallout) here.

This is notable because of the conflict that has been rolling on between the third-party server operators, who want to run their own community servers as they please, and Valve, who want servers to be homogeneous so that when they are blindly connected to by a lobby players know what to expect.

I'm holding back on adding this to the article because I expect it's new territory for a lot of editors (including to a certain extent myself). Does anyone have any particular feelings about the subject? --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of that has been fixed or is just untrue. I run a server for a small group of friends and making my server private but accessible to a group of friends was literally 3 cvars changed. Valve is not actively fighting people creating private servers, while it wasn't supported at launch it seemed to be an oversight and was quickly fixed. Since then Valve has patched in support for private Steam community servers and other things. I would be very against adding this to the article.Skeith (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's one end of the scale, but at the other are the ops who want to run open servers (and who either struggle to or who have simply given up). Then there's the recent locking of Versus difficulty to normal which affects everyone. Even if the issue is historic now that doesn't mean it isn't notable. --Tom Edwards (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Notable or not (and it probably isn't, unless discussed by other parties), you'll need reliable, 3rd party sources for something like this. Developer mail would be a primary source and should not be the only source for something like this. DP76764 (Talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"A primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." That's all that's needed. Also, you'll find plenty of third-parties discussing the matter at my links. --Tom Edwards (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• "without specialist knowledge". How many people are going to really understand these nuances to server hosting? That's a pretty specialized segment of the gamer field (a specialized field in and of itself). Also, be careful of the first part of that sentence "used only to make descriptive claims"; depending on how you want this written, primary sources might not be appropriate (especially if there are any conclusions suggested or drawn in the writeup). It would be nice to see a proposed writeup of this material. DP76764 (Talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A compromise might be easier, while the problem isn't notable enough to need it's own subsection it should be mentioned. Something like

"Unlike many PC games Left 4 Dead uses a matchmaking system, similar to the Xbox 360 version, in order to simplify the process of finding other players. This new server management system was met with a negative reaction from server operators, who, with this system, had very little control over their servers. This lead to Valve releasing a series of patches that allowed server operators to remove their server from the matchmaking "pool" of servers or make private servers. "

It could be phrased better, but that's the general idea Skeith (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the proposed text; I've added {{fact}} tags in all the places that I feel will need GOOD sourcing to avoid being original research. DP76764 (Talk) 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cited and added to article under development Skeith (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Media References

Obviously any zombie game will have references to other zombie movies and games, so I was wondering if we should put a list in? For instance in one of the first few saferooms there's a kill count on one of the walls, with the highest one being 53,365 (from memory). This is the amount of people who live in the city from Dead Rising, and it unlocked an achievment if you killed that many zombies in game. Do you think this is noticable enough for the article or not? --Shaoken (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, just trivia. DP76764 (Talk) 16:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Critics

Please, restraint to put and link to self called "critics sites" such ign, gamespy and such, to link a source will not magically convert this information into a non-original research or verifiable information.

Also, just clean up all the trash, this section MUST talk about this very specific game, not about Valve and not about the developers, and while is important the number of sales or another trivia information (tips :it is not!), people want to known about the game, nothing more and nothing else.

--201.222.132.73 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)--201.222.132.73 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome

any other information must be deleted. And about history is related with the history of the game, history is not pre-production.

--201.222.132.73 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)--201.222.132.73 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here Skeith (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

B Class

I don't want to change this without a quick consensus, should this article be moved up to B-class? It is reasonably well written, and most claims that are easily challenged are sourced. See B class criteria for more info. Rtyq2 (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I request a VG (re)assessment about a week ago and it looks like this article is next. Let's just wait for that Skeith (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro is NOT Machinima

By Machinima's very definition, there is nothing Machinima about that intro. While its purpose is to define and explain a variety of game mechanics, it also:

• Is obviously rendered
• Features many events that can't happen in game, such as :

1. A tank grabbing onto a staircase and deforming it because of his weight.
2. Characters running one direction while shooting in another (not to be confused with running backwards and shooting).
3. Characters jumping onto and climbing over ledges (not to be confused with falling off've a ledge and holding onto it)
4. Characters simply turning their heads in directions other than the ones they're facing (left/right)

• Features effects not remotely possible on the game engine, such as the liquid that Bill wipes off on Francis's shirt.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MukiEX (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not sure what technically is Machinima or not, the intro video is similar to the TF2 Meet the Class videos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TF2#Marketing). Done in engine using the Source Filmmaker with touched up models. It seems to fall into a middle area, using a mix of things available ingame and tailor made for the video Skeith (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's original research. I think it's pretty clear from what I know about the subject (there's a Wikipedia article on it after all!), the intro is clearly not Machinima.  Xihr  06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I began this section, and I was me who wrote about the movie being Machimina. You are right, plus they never said it was Machimina after all. However, they obviously used the game engine to render it, then added effects and other stuff (as Skeith said). We should explain it like that I think. Hervegirod (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mukiex here. I think what happened is they used the game's assets (models, environments, textures, etc.), but I still can't agree that they used the game's engine. I mean, it probably would've been somewhat wasteful to do so, as the animation is essentially entirely different from the game. (e.g. facial expressions, the way Francis disposes of a pair of zombies in front of Bill, practically every animation features movement not in the game, even though it's showing off gameplay elements) My guess is that they used XSI, especially given how tightly integrated the Source engine workflow is with that program(plus XSI is good for a lot of animations that look like they use simulated physics but don't). Even in terms of rendering, the intro doesn't use the same effects that the game engine does to achieve the film-like look. Well, to the very least, it uses them to a degree that's far more subtle, works a completely different way (e.g. a completely different set of most-likely-not-realtime shaders following the same principle) , and is substantially more computationally expensive. However, as I'm not really all that good at editing wiki info, and I don't have verification on this from Valve, it's completely your call, Hervegirod. —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

I changed the text to "Valve chose to develop a pre-rendered intro movie, constructed using the game engine and slightly more detailed character models". It is based on the text used in Team Fortress 2 (which use exactly the same technique), but I added the "pre-rendered" stuff (which could apply to TF2 also). I'm OK if somebody still think it is not very good, there's only one think that might bothers me: If we only write "Valve chose to develop a pre-rendered intro movie", readers might think that the movie looks very different than the game, which is not the case. Hervegirod (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this qualifies as mentionable in the article at all. It is not exactly rare for intros and cutscenes to be rendered in-engine these days, after all.  Xihr  05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

yes but the argument was that the movie was not in-engine but pre-rendered (not just rendered). The Cut scene article says this about pre-rendered scenes: Pre-rendered cut scenes are generally of higher visual quality than in-game cut scenes, but have two disadvantages: the difference in quality can sometimes create difficulties of recognizing the high-quality images from the cut scene when the player has been used to the lower-quality images from the game(...). It is not the case with this game, it is obviously of a better quality than the game itself, but they are still easily recognizable. Hervegirod (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

All I can say to that is, don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. In-game rendered intros and cut scenes are routinely in common in games today. I fail to see how this case is worthy of note, even if if the intro cutscene has higher quality models than during the game itself. I mean, seriously, so what?  Xihr  06:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pump-action shotgun model

There's been a lot of models for the pump action shotgun that have been edited in and out. It looks something like either an Ithaca 37 or Remington 870, but it's very hard to tell. Adding to the confusion, the model name on the side of the in-game gun model says it's a "Renegade Rangemaster", which is a fictional gun. That name may be an allusion to the Remington Wingmaster, but the foregrip on the in-game gun looks nothing like the 870's foregrip, and instead looks like Ithaca or Winchester models. Because of all this conflicting information, and the fact that naming all the weapons in the game is kind of game-guidey anyway, I propose that we just simply keep the description as a generic pump-action, rather than specifiying a model. Barring some in-depth analysis of the gun model comparisons, or a comment from the devs, it looks like it's a fictional, generic weapon. --LogisticEarth (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If there isn't a reliable, third-party source that says what it is, then Wikipedia has no business trying to identify it in the first place, since that's original research.  Xihr  08:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Innaccurate "Reception" Section

I think the reception section is being distorted by the reaction of whoever wrote it, rather than being based on the reviews. It suggests that the game has been criticised for out of date graphics but from two of the reviews linked, the graphics were actually praised:

"They both look excellent and run smoothly" is the only line on the GameSpy review that relates to visuals. (Referring to the PC and 360 versions)

"The Source Engine isn't as cutting-edge as it used to be, but it still impresses with detailed environments, amazing lighting, and the fact that it can throw zombie hordes at you with ease." is from the summary of the IGN review, and a paragraph of the review is dedicated to how good the game looks:

"The Source Engine that powers the game may not be as cutting edge as other graphics engines anymore, but it does a great job at rendering a variety of environments that are packed with detail and clutter. And the lighting system is incredible; this game has some of the best flashlight mechanics since Doom III. You'll be in a pitch black dark room and the only illumination comes from the small cone of light from your flashlight. The light is attached to the muzzle of the gun so when you reload the cone of light shifts to the ceiling. Another nice lighting effect the strobe light effect that occurs from the muzzle flash when you're firing in the dark; all you see are the faces of the zombie horde in flashes. Then there's the excellent facial animation that lets conveys so much emotion on each survivor's face, as well as the typical Valve sense of humor in some of the graffiti in the safe houses."

That doesn't sound like the game is being criticised for looking out of date. It sounds like they're saying: - the environments are detailed - the animations are realistic and emotive - the lighting is amazing

So I'm reworking the "reception" section, if anyone has references to reviews saying the game looks out of date, they can put that back in as a counter-point. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While I was doing it I read the reviews a little more and it seemed that the negative was being given undue weight: all the reviews spend nearly the whole time praising the game, so perhaps it is worth going into a little more detail about what critics liked. I'll leave that to someone else's judgement though. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I also thought the reception section could use some rewriting. Things like "...while GameSpy found the lack of background narrative "disappointing" and felt that the Xbox 360 controller was not ideal for first-person shooters." How is that all that relevant? That should be on the X360 wiki page, not L4D's wiki page. 122.148.180.136 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So I checked back to see how it was coming along and I have to say I'm much impressed with the reception section now, it has an impressive range and is much less dependent on a small number of reviews. Cool. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No Plot?

There's a total lack of a plot section for this game...is there even a storyline? I feel like if there -is- a story, it'd be relatively important and should be added. 24.2.184.175 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This game use the Valve way of telling stories, so there is no cut scenes and no explicit story, but rather the details in the game (graffiti, character talking, etc...) are telling possible stories about this universe. We may find references about that. Hervegirod (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Blood Harvest mission, there is writing on the wall in the second (or maybe third) safe house that talks about the army still taking "immunes." I would assume that this means that there are people that are immune to the virus (which explains how you can be bit, puked on, scratched, and even killed, without turning into a zombie) -- Unsigned 00:13, 30 November 2008

• Indeed, and one of the audio lines from one of the characters is something like "we might not stay immune forever", iirc. DP76764 (Talk) 06:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Each "scenario" is like a movie. When the level loads it shows a movie poster with the characters being "played" by the gamers (ie: Bill as "Jblacq"; Zoey as Herself). So I would say there isn't really a story line for the entire game, while the story line for each movie is, "stay alive and get yourselves rescued". --Jblacq (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the campaigns seem to be related if you look at the writings on the wall.--99.52.197.62 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead backstory

Doing a little of my own searching in-game I discovered a few details. The first is that L4D takes place during or after late 2009. You can find writing on the wall in level 4 of 'Death Toll' in the church with dates of death, most in 2009 (I haven't taken a close look at them all). 'Blood Harvest' takes place in Alleghany Park, which is in Pennsylvania. 'Death Toll' takes place in Riverside, which is also in Pennsylvania. Additionally, most of the cars have Pennsylvania plates. Unfortunately I don't have a reliable source to put this into the page, but anyone can take a look for themselves. Would a screenshot suffice? 75.173.227.130 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm these details (just through playing the game recently, screenshots can be taken if needed at high graphics quality and resolution), except it's spelled Allegheny National Park. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how notable it is to the actual game, especially since that information is well-hidden (much as it is with most Valve games).  Xihr  03:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not well-hidden - the intro cinematice (or camera track or whatever) to Blood Harvest focuses on the sign when the level loads. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania is a common reference in Zombie related movies/games. It was started because George Romero always inserted references to his home-state in his movies.67.111.137.227 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's clearly original research. (And you meant ~~~~.)  Xihr  23:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It takes place in October 2009, given that the death dates in Death Toll is October 12-15 2009 and it's 'Two weeks after first infection.' I'm not sure how important this is.98.199.58.211 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also in Pittsburgh,there's a hospital called "Mercy Hospital",although the city in No Mercy is called Fairfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.197.62 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rabies Virus as source of Infection

Recent edits have taken out the mention of a "mutated rabies virus". It really should be added back in. As a reference I provided an interview with Mike Booth, the games director, where he expicitly discusses the teams descision to use a "super-rabies" as the basis for infection. This is echoed in numerous previews that you can find with simple google searches. I think an interview with the game's lead designer, published by a major gaming new website, is a pretty solid third-party source. For now I'll edit in a compromise as a "rabies-like" virus. It's important to make the distinction as the Infected aren't supposed to be supernatural "undead". -LogisticEarth (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• $0.02 here: The answer Mr Booth gives in the interview isn't entirely unambiguous. The interviewer brings up the 'super-rabies' term, but Mr Booth never directly says "yes, that was exactly our inspiration". He seemed to be thinking more of a "mind-destroying, civilization-collapsing pathogen" then anything in particular (it's almost as if 'super-rabies' is copyrighted, lol). Why don't we use a direct quote from Booth to describe it? That seems reasonable to me. DP76764 (Talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me also Hervegirod (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Mike Booth's quote to the "Infected Characters" section. It seemed to fit better there rather than cramming it into the Gameplay intro section. Take a look and see how it fits. -LogisticEarth (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That was BEFORE the game came out.In the game there is evidence that the infection came from cows.In Dead Air's finale,you can a note saying to contact security if you have handled livestock in the past 48 hours.Also in Blood Harvest,there are dead cows that are in small piles and they don't look like a normal dead cow.But in a safehouse,writings claim that the virus was made in a military lab,followed by a claim it was made by aliens.--99.52.197.62 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• And all that is original research. DP76764 (Talk) 21:36, 3 February 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)