@A-Rude-Hero: @WarlordPayne: For the PS3, yes. For the 360, unfortunately not.

@Dangeresque: Moustaches or GTFO: I agree about the controls, but you wouldn't need text chat if people used their headsets.

@the-hypnotoad: Exactly. It means visible or noticeable brushstrokes.

@pandafresh: I sent this to Crecente in an email and thought I'd post it here, too.

@1ncorporated: 1) Their logic is somewhat faulty. Yes, it contains more content than L4D. But that's completely ignoring the fact that L4D was light on content when it shipped. Nothing else they said really made sense, other than they wanted to the 5 campaigns to make a story. Okay. Then release them as priced DLC.

@Megaman LXIX: Get a PC. It's better on the PC.

@Jolan: How about, "I demand the DLC that you guys promised and should have released instead of making a 1.5 sequel."

@Jolan: We put down money on a woefully light content game on the promise that there would be regularly expanded content for the game. Now we find out that content that very well could have been put into L4D was rushed into a sequel.

@kiddoblivion: Not really. There's a good deal of new additions. The shitty thing is, these are all additions that should have been rolled out for the original L4D.

@ncprime: Indeed. This is something that a lot of the "stfu you whiners!" crowd seems to conveniently overlook.

@IMarcus: There were dawn/twilight levels in L4D. Not every level was during the pitch black of night.

@solosith: Not really. People are excited about more L4D, but they feel shafted by the decision to make what should be a large DLC rollout (over the past 6 mos and further 6 mos) into a sequel instead.

@492b2 3b5t5k4mk3 3ñx39: And with the announcement of L4D2, the internet raged for 40 days and 40 nights. Upon the aftermath, they still begrudgingly bought L4D2, but were very disgruntled about it.

@roflwaffles is actually made of cheese: Usually expansion packs are [Game Name]: [Words]. This is [Game Name] 2. The "2" part strongly implies that this is a sequel and not an expansion.

@Ratosai: They were talking about possibly including the campaigns from the first one. There's a big difference between the two.

@roflwaffles is actually made of cheese: Considering it is called "[Game Name] 2" and not "[Game Name]: [Words]" I think it's safe to assume this isn't DLC nor an expansion, but a "new" game. A sequel. And I think it is safe to assume they are going to charge a "new game" price for it.

@Sir-Lucius: The one new map (Last Stand) is barely even a map! It's a teeny tiny lighthouse area. There's barely anything to explore. It's smaller than most of the other Survivor maps!

@The_Goddamn_Batman: But you'll get new and improved matchmaking! Soon! Whenever they finish L4D2 and finally decide to do something for L4D!

@Mister Jack contains Potassium Benzoate (That's Bad): Not to mention the shitty new music. I get it, it's in the south. Fiddles and such. Har, har. Thing is; it's not suspenseful, it's not scary, it's not foreboding, it's just pure hokey bullshit. It's like their mocking the idea that the game should even be scary at…

@Jolan: Maybe because they should have added a campaign or two to the current L4D and worked on, oh, I don't know, Half Life 2: Episode 3.