Metareview: Left 4 Dead 2
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Nov 20th 2009 at 3:00PM } 
- Eurogamer (9/10): "Whereas once we treated Left 4 Dead as a stopgap between Half-Lifes, this is no longer a weird little side project with modest expectations, and Valve is confident enough to play around with it, safe in the knowledge that you can trust your players. Left 4 Dead proved it. And whereas that game had a personality, this one is overflowing with it."
- IGN (9/10): "It remains one of the most distinctive co-operative titles out there, and allows for some of the most nerve-searing team-based multiplayer gaming on the market."
- GameTrailers (8.7/10): "Though not an astounding improvement over the original, Left 4 Dead 2 successfully rekindles that magical zombie-hunting feeling with great new content, and a cool competitive multiplayer mode to boot."
- Giant Bomb (4/5 Stars): "The core of Left 4 Dead may have lost some of its newness in the last 12 months, but the wealth of additions in this sequel ought to keep you blasting zombies and munching on brains for a good long while."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Victor @ Nov 20th 2009 3:04PM
First!1!1!!one!!111! Now give me my beta code!
I kid, I kid.
Nice to see that this game had nice reviews, now I'll just wait for one of those famous special offers from Steam and buy it :D
Taylor @ Nov 20th 2009 3:05PM
You may be kidding, but the damage is done.
MowDownJoe @ Nov 20th 2009 3:12PM
You HAD to do that reward the trolls contest, Joystiq... you just HAD to...
Olicon @ Nov 20th 2009 4:03PM
Hey, lookie me, I replied to first!
I wouldn't expect anything less from Valve. Not for a few years anyway.
I'm so looking forward to getting back home and playing TF2 again. My damn laptops doesn't play a thing--I'm about 3 updates behind!
Victor @ Nov 21st 2009 10:56AM
Wow, I was actually poking fun at the contest, not trying to participate in it, but ok...
ravenshadow @ Nov 20th 2009 3:06PM
My friend and i tried it on the xbox 360 , the co-op demo, and it was really choppy, so choppy the zombies jumped around and made it hard to hit. We both have good connections and play other games just fine on xbl. Anyone else have this problem with the demo? we only tried it a couple times before we both deleted the demo in frustration.
Anyone else experience this? is this present in the retail game also?
Royal @ Nov 20th 2009 3:12PM
The game is really laggy on xbox live. Hopefully it gets patched (again) soon.
Then a White Kid Said @ Nov 20th 2009 3:11PM
This was because it was a demo and the server's got overloaded, also this was fixed if you hosted it yourself, learn to experiment.
XBL: xGeneral DEATHx PSN: Deeth82 [Planeteer | Power of General Hostility and Angst] @ Nov 20th 2009 3:20PM
There's an option to host the match yourself (and no, that's not the default setting when you start a MP game); you have to set it and your lag issue will be fixed. I had the same prob too; had to figure it out OL' SCHOOL.
Xizer @ Nov 20th 2009 4:03PM
That's because you're a dumbass and didn't use the option to use a LOCAL SERVER instead of the overloaded dedicated servers.
Thanks to people like you, Left 4 Dead 1 is getting shit up with insane amounts of lag too, and we don't get any option to host the game ourselves in the first one. Really. Thanks a lot.
TheCoats @ Nov 20th 2009 3:08PM
gamesharks made me feel like a leet hacker in Jr. High! lol
What a pathetic kid I was
Reuben @ Nov 20th 2009 3:16PM
I felt the same way. I had Gameshark Pro (or something) for my Gameboy Color. I felt like such hot shit.
whylekat @ Nov 20th 2009 3:39PM
Yeahh the good ole' days... I had 4 game genies for NES. you plug them all in To each other and It let u put in 4 pages of codes! Haha only drawback was It made the actual game cart extend out like 1foot. Ahh good times.
.royalboyle @ Nov 20th 2009 3:10PM
L4D2's difficulty = bad. Demon's Souls difficulty = greatest thing since sliced bread.
???
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 20th 2009 3:18PM
One is due to bad design, one is due to good design based around a decision to actually make the game hard.
Although I personally didn't find it hard from what I played of it, but I am a child of the NES/SNES eras.
Royal @ Nov 20th 2009 3:50PM
@tmac
I know there's no use in arguing with a troll, but to claim that L4D2 is badly designed is really off the mark. It's designed to be punish poor teamwork. If you go off by yourself, you'll be killed. If you stroll slowly though the level, you'll be killed. I've never played Demon's Souls so I can't comment on how its designed but any game that is difficult enough for me to feel like I've accomplished something after beating it is good in my book.
Filthy Assistant @ Nov 20th 2009 4:01PM
No, the campaigns in L4D2 are just really badly designed, sorry.
sonicspike41 @ Nov 20th 2009 4:02PM
I can't wait until you get a Wii and start offering more... informed decisions on Wii games and get called a Wii fanboy.
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 20th 2009 4:12PM
Of course it's poorly designed. Poor developers had to crank it out in less than a year, more likely closer to 7-8 months.
Vcize @ Nov 20th 2009 4:17PM
Give me a break dude. I've played hours upon hours of both of them, and love them both. You've played only 1, never played the other, and clearly have a bias towards it before it was even released.
MW2 is a great game. I love it. But to say that it's more different from MW1 than L4D2 is from L4D1 is one of the most outrageous statements I've ever seen you make.
MW2 didn't even fix the annoying little things that people complained about (party leader backing out doesn't back out the whole party, match settings reset after every map in private MP matches, etc).
MW2 has more in common with R6V2 than L4D2 in terms of how much it evolved from its predecessor. That's not a bad thing, because MW1 was awesome and even the small changes in MW2 make it a lot better. It's not a bad thing, it's just the way it is.
Vcize @ Nov 20th 2009 4:24PM
Doh, I clicked the wrong reply button.
samueltehg33k @ Nov 20th 2009 4:31PM
Yeah I agree I think most journalists prefers FPS to be easy but not RPGs. I think we are lacking good difficulty in FPS'. lol I love the little PS3 cheerleaders "bad design"
Bane @ Nov 20th 2009 3:10PM
Only people who think this game sucks are PS3 owners, because they can't play it.
max @ Nov 20th 2009 3:12PM
i've got a pc and x360 and no ps3 and i think l4d is a horrible game.
Tom @ Nov 20th 2009 3:12PM
But we can play it on our PC's
Bane @ Nov 20th 2009 3:14PM
Judging by your grammar, I think you've never played it. That or your parents bought it for you but it wasn't like Hello Kitty Island Adventures so you didn't like it.
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 20th 2009 3:14PM
Oh according to Bane, that makes me a ps3 fanboy again! That didn't last long this time.
Solace @ Nov 20th 2009 3:14PM
guys just report him, he was trolling in another post so don't even respond
TheDeviant @ Nov 20th 2009 3:17PM
I'm a PS3 and a PC owner and I do play l4d..sigh* people these days *Tactical Palmforehead*
Then a White Kid Said @ Nov 20th 2009 3:17PM
"Judging by your grammar, I think you've never played it."
Judging by your comments how the hell did a 9 y/o get his hands on L4D2, let alone a 360.
And his grammar is fine, so what he didn't use capital letters. Build a bridge and get over it.
eeeeeeeeeeefe @ Nov 20th 2009 3:51PM
[banned]
Filthy Assistant @ Nov 20th 2009 4:01PM
I just finished all the campaigns and I think it's a bad game. And I really liked the first one.
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 20th 2009 3:13PM
Couple of my friends bought this despite my warnings not to, and a day later they bitched that it was basically the same game again. Well, what did you expect from a game made in less than a year after the first!
Seeing these reviews though make me sit back and wonder what the media's thinking when they say "game x is a rehash and the series needs to innovate or die" but don't do the same with game y. I also think it's a by-product of the media's huge hardon for anything Valve.
Jonathon @ Nov 20th 2009 3:18PM
It really is a completely different game and experience...whether or not it is better/worse than the original is up for debate...but to continue calling it the same game with different people is just...wrong.
Bane @ Nov 20th 2009 3:18PM
Putting my fanboyism aside, I agree. L4D2 came out way to soon, and the media gives any Valve game a handjob when it's released.
Then a White Kid Said @ Nov 20th 2009 3:21PM
Can we move past this?
The good thing about games is that you have a choice whether you buy them or not.
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 20th 2009 3:24PM
get past what? Did I miss some fun in the l4d2 review article?
I'm just saying what some people's reactions were that already played it. I already knew it was going to be a rehash, so I made the good choice by not buying it (not that I was ever going to, not really a fan of Valve games).
ducttapeBigSexy (PSN&XBL: ducttape12) @ Nov 20th 2009 3:40PM
So I'm not the only person who's annoyed by the gaming media (and most gamers) shooting their wad to everything Valve does.
Vcize @ Nov 20th 2009 3:52PM
L4D2 plays quite differently from L4D1.
Besides, sequels SHOULD be very similar to their originals. A sequel should be an evolutionary improvement over the 1st game. Take what made the 1st game good, expand on that, add new weapons/maps/story/enemies, fix the stuff that people complained about in the 1st one, and add a couple cool new features.
Trying to totally redefine a game in its sequel is beyond stupid. You may as well just make a new IP at that point. By making something completely different you're only going to piss off fans of the 1st. They're buying the sequel because they liked the 1st and want more of it, with some improvements, not because they want something totally different.
Head on over to Epic's Gears 2 forums for 5 minutes if you need an example of how the community reacts to the game totally changing what class it's in in its sequel.
But then again, how can you even comment on this stuff Tmac when you don't even play multiplayer games? I guess the rest of us just aren't "gamer" enough to keep up with you.
Vcize @ Nov 20th 2009 3:54PM
And besides all the new weapons, weapon types, enemy classes (which you get to play as, don't forget), all new strategies brought into the MP, etc we get Scavenge mode which is good enough to be an entire game on its own, and fixes the biggest complaint most L4D1 fans had (minimum 1 hour plus just to do one multiplayer match, with no option for shorter ones).
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 20th 2009 4:01PM
I play MW2 online, which is all I need. See, unlike these strange casuals that need multiplayer in every game, I realize that there's no point having deathmatch in every game when it's the same thing. So 1 great online game is all I need.
Vcize @ Nov 20th 2009 4:05PM
Obviously every game doesn't need "deathmatch", but it's idiotic to say that because you like one multiplayer game no other game should have it. There is all kinds of different multiplayer gaming out there, and what you're saying is no less ignorant than me saying "I have Mass Effect and that's enough, there's no need for every other game out there to have single player".
Even just within shooters there are all kinds of different types, and they're all very different. MW is a ton of fun, but a lot of people don't like the campiness of it. L4D is more edge of your seat intense, Gears is more laid back, have a beer with your friends style. They're all different, and they all bring unique experiences.
But really, how the hell can you say that L4D2 is too similar to L4D1 and then go on and on about MW2? MW2 is exactly 1,467 times more similar to MW1 than L4D2 is to L4D1. And that's not to say anything bad about MW2, because I love it also, but to complain that L4D2 is too evolutionary and then talk about how much you like MW2 is beyond hypocritical.
kojo87 @ Nov 20th 2009 4:08PM
"I play MW2 online, which is all I need"
well now it all makes sense.
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 20th 2009 4:09PM
"MW2 is exactly 1,467 times more similar to MW1 than L4D2 is to L4D1"
faaaaaalse. That is the most false statement I've read this year. The multiplayer alone has more new stuff added to it than the entirety of L4D2's "additions". They cranked out a rehashed sequel literally less than a year. They're only getting a pass because people slober all over Valve for some reason.
Vcize @ Nov 20th 2009 4:23PM
Give me a break dude. I've played hours upon hours of both of them, and love them both. You've played only 1, never played the other, and clearly have a bias towards it before it was even released.
MW2 is a great game. I love it. But to say that it's more different from MW1 than L4D2 is from L4D1 is one of the most outrageous statements I've ever seen you make.
MW2 didn't even fix the annoying little things that people complained about (party leader backing out doesn't back out the whole party, match settings reset after every map in private MP matches, etc).
MW2 has more in common with R6V2 than L4D2 in terms of how much it evolved from its predecessor. That's not a bad thing, because MW1 was awesome and even the small changes in MW2 make it a lot better. It's not a bad thing, it's just the way it is.
Vcize @ Nov 20th 2009 4:26PM
And FWIW tmac, I don't like any other Valve games except for Portal, so this isn't just me getting on a loved developer's jock.
johnnynumber5 @ Nov 20th 2009 4:38PM
Well I thought the competitive MP in MW2 was terrible if it's worth anything. I hated the first L4D with a passion and I wouldn't touch the sequel with a 10 foot pole. Charging $60 for a HL2 mod without a campaign or story is beyond belief in my book. Still, I can appreciate new ideas and concepts and L4D2 looks like what the original should have been from a content perspective. I'm primarily a campaign gamer but I can enjoy a good multiplayer mode as much as the next guy which is why I thought Horde Mode in Gears 2, Spec Ops in MW2 and Mercenaries in Uncharted 2 were all amazing ... the latter 2 being directly inspired from Horde mode which IMO has been the biggest improvement in multiplayer this generation. I would probably love firefight as well if I had the chance to play it.
Just because I don't like L4D doesn't mean the game sucks. Thats sort of the difference is I don't believe that I'm better than anyone else for liking certain games over others. I absolutely love the hell out of Burn Zombie Burn as it's one of the best games this entire generation yet 98% of gamers would scoff at that notion and have never played it.
Shadsy @ Nov 20th 2009 4:45PM
I'm agreeing with you not because I don't think L4D2 is a new or innovative game (it is), but just that gaming sites love Valve so much it makes me sick.
Jason Statham (Has a ps3 now) @ Nov 20th 2009 8:18PM
"Besides, sequels SHOULD be very similar to their originals. A sequel should be an evolutionary improvement over the 1st game. Take what made the 1st game good, expand on that, add new weapons/maps/story/enemies, fix the stuff that people complained about in the 1st one, and add a couple cool new features."
Agreed. I'm all for innovation when it's needed, not just done for the sake of it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a sequel being just that, a sequel.
StormX @ Nov 20th 2009 3:19PM
Kinda some poor journalistic integrity here folks.
Just cause you found the game to be very difficult, and you found some anecdotal support on twitter to support you, doesn't mean you need to get snarky because other people reviewed the game in a manner that doesn't exactly line up with yours.
I'm a BIG fan of the non-numeric review system, but no need to assume your word is the only correct one(especially on reviews which are inherently opinionated) and cast dispersion on anything that doesn't agree.