- 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."
Metareview: Left 4 Dead 2
82
Considering the devilishly heightened difficulty of Left 4 Dead 2, we're surprised enough outlets managed to complete a single campaign in time to submit a review for the title. We have to imagine GameSharks were somehow involved. Regardless, here's what other sites are saying about Valve's follow-up to last year's Zombocalypse survival sim.
Reader Comments (81)
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:22PM (Unverified) said
@solace
If I'm a troll, then most people are on Joystiq because the majority of people on here are Sony fanboys.
The might as well change it to Sonystiq.
If I'm a troll, then most people are on Joystiq because the majority of people on here are Sony fanboys.
The might as well change it to Sonystiq.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:22PM RANDOM G Joystiq Troll Slayer said
I wouldn't call L4D2's difficulty "devilishly heightened". It's slightly more difficult.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:23PM CaramelZappa said
Surprised people finished a single campaign? Really?
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:26PM (Unverified) said
Well we live in different times now. A lot of tools (or casual gamers) just buy a game, like MW2, just to jump on multiplayer and play nothing but that.
It's pretty sad.
Reply
It's pretty sad.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 4:42PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said
I think it's sad you would denegrate someone for wanting to enjoy a game as they see fit. I think that makes you the tool not them.
Reply
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 5:29PM CaramelZappa said
@Tmac
Yea, when I bought COD4 I played part of the campaign, thought it was rubbish, and proceeded to play the multiplayer, which was great fun. I'm such a tool for playing the part of the game I enjoy and ignoring the part that I don't find fun.
Really, I don't know what on earth your comment has to do with mine. I was commenting on how, while the stiq' reviewer was horrible at the game, he was suprised that ANYONE was able to beat it, when obviously a lot of people aren't having any trouble.
Reply
Yea, when I bought COD4 I played part of the campaign, thought it was rubbish, and proceeded to play the multiplayer, which was great fun. I'm such a tool for playing the part of the game I enjoy and ignoring the part that I don't find fun.
Really, I don't know what on earth your comment has to do with mine. I was commenting on how, while the stiq' reviewer was horrible at the game, he was suprised that ANYONE was able to beat it, when obviously a lot of people aren't having any trouble.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:27PM (Unverified) said
Can someone...anyone....define "what is too soon"???
I mean what determines the amount of time between games.....? How much time was between Assassins Creed 1 and 2 and it is getting praise. What about Bioshock 1 and 2 or Lost Planet and Mass Effect....these games have what...a year maybe a year and a half gap...
so in the grand scheme of things....why is Left for Dead 2 any different...why can't they have a similar gap in release time than the others.....??
I mean what determines the amount of time between games.....? How much time was between Assassins Creed 1 and 2 and it is getting praise. What about Bioshock 1 and 2 or Lost Planet and Mass Effect....these games have what...a year maybe a year and a half gap...
so in the grand scheme of things....why is Left for Dead 2 any different...why can't they have a similar gap in release time than the others.....??
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:34PM (Unverified) said
"How much time was between Assassins Creed 1 and 2 and it is getting praise"
2 years for AC, more than 2 for Bioshock assuming it comes out early 2010, more than 2 for Mass Effect 2.
Less than a year for Left 4 Dead. That is way too soon, and it reeks of rehash and "should have been DLC".
Reply
2 years for AC, more than 2 for Bioshock assuming it comes out early 2010, more than 2 for Mass Effect 2.
Less than a year for Left 4 Dead. That is way too soon, and it reeks of rehash and "should have been DLC".
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 4:41PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said
T-Mac doesn't have to play a game to know how good it is or isn't or if it's half baked. You didn't know that by now? He taps into the collective consciousness of gamers everywhere to get his eternal wisdom. He is like the all seeing eye on the back of the dollar bill.
/s
Reply
/s
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 4:56PM (Unverified) said
That's usually true, but there are exceptions. Like I couldn't figure out if Borderlands was good or not before release, and luckily it's the best game of the year.
Another one I can't figure out is that upcoming Crystal Chronicles game for Wii, which terrifies me. I got a very strong feeling I'm going to walk away from that extremely disappointed.
Reply
Another one I can't figure out is that upcoming Crystal Chronicles game for Wii, which terrifies me. I got a very strong feeling I'm going to walk away from that extremely disappointed.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:28PM (Unverified) said
I think MW2 on veteran is one of the hardest games to come out in recent memory. I have been itching to try Demon's Souls ever since my friend threw his controller through his TV because it was so hard.
Seriously. L4D2 is easy unless you crank the difficulty up to Insane.
Seriously. L4D2 is easy unless you crank the difficulty up to Insane.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:29PM (Unverified) said
The game is awesome ... the difficulty is refreshing, the first one was too easy. I know this because I normally suck at most fps games and I was doing just fine on the advanced and expert modes.
Now it's actually a struggle, it feels life or death, not everyone makes it each and every time ... and I love it. Sacrifices are made ... people are left for dead. Between the swarms of special infected and the added atmosphere effects (seriously, the rain and smoke effects are awesome and make the game a whole new level of crazy), this is an awesome experience that is challenging and rewarding.
But here's the secret ... play of PC ... because it's not fun on 360. I played the first on both and PC is where this game is meant to be played ... and it's fun as hell ... a difficult as hell too, but oh so worth it.
Now it's actually a struggle, it feels life or death, not everyone makes it each and every time ... and I love it. Sacrifices are made ... people are left for dead. Between the swarms of special infected and the added atmosphere effects (seriously, the rain and smoke effects are awesome and make the game a whole new level of crazy), this is an awesome experience that is challenging and rewarding.
But here's the secret ... play of PC ... because it's not fun on 360. I played the first on both and PC is where this game is meant to be played ... and it's fun as hell ... a difficult as hell too, but oh so worth it.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:47PM ducttapeBigSexy said
I really don't see what's so great about Left 4 Dead. Recently, I've spent some time playing through the first's campaign mode in split-screen co-op (on the 360, obviously) and it strikes me as a very average shooter.
It seems to rely more on twitch gaming then strategy, the controls kinda suck (it feels like every level is made of ice), the graphics are poor compared to other split-screen 360 games, and there's really not much of a story. It's a decent game, but not anywhere close to being worthy of the praise it's received.
Considering that the sequel has been rushed, I highly doubt it's worthy of the 90%+ scores it received.
It seems to rely more on twitch gaming then strategy, the controls kinda suck (it feels like every level is made of ice), the graphics are poor compared to other split-screen 360 games, and there's really not much of a story. It's a decent game, but not anywhere close to being worthy of the praise it's received.
Considering that the sequel has been rushed, I highly doubt it's worthy of the 90%+ scores it received.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 3:56PM CaramelZappa said
2 problems here.
1) You're playing the 360 version, which has far worse graphics, support, and controls than the PC version.
2) You're playing with 2 people instead of 4. (I'm assuming, not sure if 360 splitscreen supports 4 players)
The game really shines when you play it on PC with 4 people. The 360 controller is fine for shooters that take it into account, but L4D is too fast paced and has enemies constantly coming from every direction, so they had to add the silly extra button just so you can turn around quickly. L4D was designed to be a game to force you to work as a real team, and if you play it with 4 people on a higher difficulty that's exactly what it does, and it's great. The problem is, a lot of people don't play it like they're a team, and they leave with a mediocre experience.
Overall if I didn't have a gaming PC I couldn't see myself paying $60 for the 360 version, it's just not worth it. But at $35, or even the $50 for the PC version it's great value for money, providing you have 3 friends to play with.
Reply
1) You're playing the 360 version, which has far worse graphics, support, and controls than the PC version.
2) You're playing with 2 people instead of 4. (I'm assuming, not sure if 360 splitscreen supports 4 players)
The game really shines when you play it on PC with 4 people. The 360 controller is fine for shooters that take it into account, but L4D is too fast paced and has enemies constantly coming from every direction, so they had to add the silly extra button just so you can turn around quickly. L4D was designed to be a game to force you to work as a real team, and if you play it with 4 people on a higher difficulty that's exactly what it does, and it's great. The problem is, a lot of people don't play it like they're a team, and they leave with a mediocre experience.
Overall if I didn't have a gaming PC I couldn't see myself paying $60 for the 360 version, it's just not worth it. But at $35, or even the $50 for the PC version it's great value for money, providing you have 3 friends to play with.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 4:00PM SFX BIGANT said
this game is only marginally more difficult than the first game. i read the review which was nothing more than a constant complaint about how hard the game was. if you are finding this game too difficult perhaps viva pinata would be more you speed. i breezed through the first two campaigns on advanced last night by msyelf. the game is good thats all there is to it.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 4:05PM (Unverified) said
tmac....slow down .....
The time between Assassins Creed 1 and 2 is a lot shorter than you think. And Bioshock 1 and 2, Mass Effect, Lost Planet and Dead Rising...same thing...
Rehash..you can say that about what....50-60 percent of the games that come onto the market. Hell if you want to get technical...how many times can you rehash WW2 with Call of Duty and Medal of Honor? Modern Warfare 2 is what a different story and added weapons...why shouldn't that be DLC??? They are going to break StarCraft 2 into three Campaigns that you will have to buy....does that not wreak of nickel and diming...?? Shit we are up to Guitar Hero 5!!!! 5!!! And what has been so innovative about 2-5.....drums with symbols and singing.....yeah that constitutes going back and buying that bad boy what....every 6 months or so....yeah right.....
The time between Assassins Creed 1 and 2 is a lot shorter than you think. And Bioshock 1 and 2, Mass Effect, Lost Planet and Dead Rising...same thing...
Rehash..you can say that about what....50-60 percent of the games that come onto the market. Hell if you want to get technical...how many times can you rehash WW2 with Call of Duty and Medal of Honor? Modern Warfare 2 is what a different story and added weapons...why shouldn't that be DLC??? They are going to break StarCraft 2 into three Campaigns that you will have to buy....does that not wreak of nickel and diming...?? Shit we are up to Guitar Hero 5!!!! 5!!! And what has been so innovative about 2-5.....drums with symbols and singing.....yeah that constitutes going back and buying that bad boy what....every 6 months or so....yeah right.....
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 4:54PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said
Your either wrong or your intentionally lying.
Assassins Creed 1: November 17th, 2007
Assassins Creed 2 : November 17th, 2009
Bioshock 1: August 21st, 2007
Bioshock 2: February 09th, 2010
Mass Effect 1: November 20th, 2007
Mass Effect 2: January 26th, 2010
Lost Planet 1: January 12th, 2007
Lost Planet 2: February 23rd, 2010
Dead Rising 1: August 08th, 2006
Dead Rising 2: August 21st, 2010
_________________________________________
Left 4 Dead 1: November 17th, 2008
Left 4 Dead 2: November 17th, 2009
Reply
Assassins Creed 1: November 17th, 2007
Assassins Creed 2 : November 17th, 2009
Bioshock 1: August 21st, 2007
Bioshock 2: February 09th, 2010
Mass Effect 1: November 20th, 2007
Mass Effect 2: January 26th, 2010
Lost Planet 1: January 12th, 2007
Lost Planet 2: February 23rd, 2010
Dead Rising 1: August 08th, 2006
Dead Rising 2: August 21st, 2010
_________________________________________
Left 4 Dead 1: November 17th, 2008
Left 4 Dead 2: November 17th, 2009
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 4:23PM (Unverified) said
Calling Valve poor developers....I guess there's a first for everything.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 4:40PM Fuzunga said
Ah, crazed fanboys... what would gaming do without them?
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 5:11PM (Unverified) said
guess I must be wrong then....
but to bitch about a game having a sequel come out within a year is what...bad in what way??
Seriously...for every game you listed....a gamer could make an argument that it should have been DLC. That is the point I am trying to make. Unless there is a huge jump in innovoative game play or how the game is played....what is the difference.
So .....LFD2 would have been okay..if it was just a DLC. Or if they would have sat on this til say next November it would be okay..... This is what the market and a lot of gamers were clamoring for....can't fault Valve for capitalizing on its game.
Often times....I have to wonder when Valve employees or another game designers read these message boards and just say...."why bother...we put out what they want and they call us money hungry. We wait and don't put the game out in enough time and we are stalling..."
but to bitch about a game having a sequel come out within a year is what...bad in what way??
Seriously...for every game you listed....a gamer could make an argument that it should have been DLC. That is the point I am trying to make. Unless there is a huge jump in innovoative game play or how the game is played....what is the difference.
So .....LFD2 would have been okay..if it was just a DLC. Or if they would have sat on this til say next November it would be okay..... This is what the market and a lot of gamers were clamoring for....can't fault Valve for capitalizing on its game.
Often times....I have to wonder when Valve employees or another game designers read these message boards and just say...."why bother...we put out what they want and they call us money hungry. We wait and don't put the game out in enough time and we are stalling..."
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 6:36PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said
Wel thats another argument but one could argue that when a game has a longer development cycle between iterations it means they were making additions to the engine and adding new and innovative content to the sequel. Personally, I thought the first game felt like a HL2 mod that belonged in the Orange Box and not it's own retail release but thats just me. It's not only that it came out a year after the first one but that 7 months after the first game released they announced the sequel. 7. Months. This is Valve the company that went 10 years between episodes in their flagship franchise. Everything about it feels like a fast tracked rushed job especially coming from Valve. If you like the game then more power to you but you have to admit compared to a lot of other franchises L4D2 seems like its more in line with DLC argument.
Reply
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 5:54PM OnToGloryReturns said
It's the same old catch-22 with any sequel - either it's too different than the original or too much like it.
I loved the original L4D - huge fan of the zombie movie genre and I thought the game captured that vibe perfectly. I played the hell out of it and got my $60 worth, why wouldn't I lay out $60 for a solid sequel with more content and new campaigns? Not a huge Valve guy either; while I loved Portal I was not a fan of Half-Life 2 at all - game did nothing for me.
By the way Tmac - Borderlands? Really? Just a repetitive loot fest that was entertaining with friends but as a single player game it had a poorly told story at best and was mind numbingly one-note. Loved the visual style and tongue in cheek attitude but as a complete gaming experience it was sorely lacking for me. Kind of like a FPS version of Too Human.
Can't wait for some more Zombie Killin' Action - and I'll have to check out Burn Zombie, Burn - never heard of that.
I loved the original L4D - huge fan of the zombie movie genre and I thought the game captured that vibe perfectly. I played the hell out of it and got my $60 worth, why wouldn't I lay out $60 for a solid sequel with more content and new campaigns? Not a huge Valve guy either; while I loved Portal I was not a fan of Half-Life 2 at all - game did nothing for me.
By the way Tmac - Borderlands? Really? Just a repetitive loot fest that was entertaining with friends but as a single player game it had a poorly told story at best and was mind numbingly one-note. Loved the visual style and tongue in cheek attitude but as a complete gaming experience it was sorely lacking for me. Kind of like a FPS version of Too Human.
Can't wait for some more Zombie Killin' Action - and I'll have to check out Burn Zombie, Burn - never heard of that.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 6:53PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said
If you have a PS3 and you like Zombies you owe it to yourself to pick up Burn Zombie Burn. I've put more quality hours into that game than any other game this entire generation. I would pass on Zombie Apocalypse as it's pretty disappointing with the only redeeming quality being that it has 4 player co-op.
Another awesome PSN zombie game is The Last Guy which is kind of like a re-imagining of Pac-Man and ... something else. lol. Fantastic game though.
Check out these videos:
Burn Zombie Burn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DpYRZl2fq4
The Last Guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9umbflFsFp0
Another new Zombie game coming to the PS3 from the developers that made the supremely awesome Super Stardust HD is called Dead Nation which looks like a higher graphical fidelity version of Burn Zombie Burn.
Dead Nation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFK5hZT3ZaQ
All three of these games are PS3 exclusives so you need a Playstation to play them but I'd highly suggest getting all of them. I can't wait for Dead nation but from the trailer and developer pedigree I know it'll be an incredible experience. The video of the Last Guy doesn't really do the game justice but I can assure you it's one of the best downloadable games on the PS3. Burn Zombie Burn & The Last Guy are both available in English on the PSN and I believe both cost $10 and are well worth it. A formal release date for Dead nation hasn't been given but I'd expect it reasonably soon and considering you said you were a fan of the zombie movie genre it will surely resonate more with you than any other game.
You can look into Zombie Apocalypse but from experience I wouldn't suggest it over the other two games. It's simply not as polished or as fun.
Reply
Another awesome PSN zombie game is The Last Guy which is kind of like a re-imagining of Pac-Man and ... something else. lol. Fantastic game though.
Check out these videos:
Burn Zombie Burn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DpYRZl2fq4
The Last Guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9umbflFsFp0
Another new Zombie game coming to the PS3 from the developers that made the supremely awesome Super Stardust HD is called Dead Nation which looks like a higher graphical fidelity version of Burn Zombie Burn.
Dead Nation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFK5hZT3ZaQ
All three of these games are PS3 exclusives so you need a Playstation to play them but I'd highly suggest getting all of them. I can't wait for Dead nation but from the trailer and developer pedigree I know it'll be an incredible experience. The video of the Last Guy doesn't really do the game justice but I can assure you it's one of the best downloadable games on the PS3. Burn Zombie Burn & The Last Guy are both available in English on the PSN and I believe both cost $10 and are well worth it. A formal release date for Dead nation hasn't been given but I'd expect it reasonably soon and considering you said you were a fan of the zombie movie genre it will surely resonate more with you than any other game.
You can look into Zombie Apocalypse but from experience I wouldn't suggest it over the other two games. It's simply not as polished or as fun.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 7:13PM (Unverified) said
Whoever said MW2 on veteran was the hardest CoD is a liar. MW2 is by far the easiest, taking only 10 hours max to beat. I played the demo to L4D2, and what I saw did not warrant a rent, sad to say not even the hard drive space it took to download it. The graphics were exactly like the original, the characters were not interesting in the least, and it felt like I was "skating" across the map.
The worst thing I found however, was that if I aimed at a zombies head ( and I had multiple times to do this while they stood still....looking at me), and moved the cursor about an inch to the left or right, I would still get a headshot. No Thanks, poorly developed indeed. Oh yeah, I was smart enough to make sure no one else shot at him either.
Borderlands was great, havent played it since I 1000/1000 on the first week though, waiting for DLC. Also, I bought MW2 for the story ( which was great) and once I get the 1000 in that I will trade it in for my $40 and get Dragon Age or NSMBWii.
The worst thing I found however, was that if I aimed at a zombies head ( and I had multiple times to do this while they stood still....looking at me), and moved the cursor about an inch to the left or right, I would still get a headshot. No Thanks, poorly developed indeed. Oh yeah, I was smart enough to make sure no one else shot at him either.
Borderlands was great, havent played it since I 1000/1000 on the first week though, waiting for DLC. Also, I bought MW2 for the story ( which was great) and once I get the 1000 in that I will trade it in for my $40 and get Dragon Age or NSMBWii.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 11:00PM andsoitgoes said
It's funny.
I hate, hate, hate how MW2 feels. I got so incredibly frustrated with that game and I felt completely out of my element. I wanted to take the game and throw it out the window in the Rio story level where you've got everyone above you throwing shit all over your head.
I couldn't get past it with my sanity until I bumped the difficulty down.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, but for some reason the CoD games just don't WORK for me. The first CoD was one of the first games I played on the 360, and I started at recruit, which made me think that it was up my alley.
This one, I though... well hey, this will be better.
But god, one more grenade toss, one more dumb ass something from somewhere coming out to spam me with their weapons... No, I just couldn't do it. I guess I'm just not hardcore enough.
I can get through games like Gears on Insane. I hit level 50 on Borderlands, and could finish ME on the hardest difficulty, but MW2...? no.
Back on topic, I wasn't great at the first L4D, but after playing the demo for this one it felt so much more... real. It felt great. Bashing in with a guitar?? Cutting with a machette??? It seems really team focused and no, I probably won't ever complete a section on Expert, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy what I can do.
And if I put it by the wayside in another 6 months... well, that's better than I can say about some single player games I'd buy.
Reply
I hate, hate, hate how MW2 feels. I got so incredibly frustrated with that game and I felt completely out of my element. I wanted to take the game and throw it out the window in the Rio story level where you've got everyone above you throwing shit all over your head.
I couldn't get past it with my sanity until I bumped the difficulty down.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, but for some reason the CoD games just don't WORK for me. The first CoD was one of the first games I played on the 360, and I started at recruit, which made me think that it was up my alley.
This one, I though... well hey, this will be better.
But god, one more grenade toss, one more dumb ass something from somewhere coming out to spam me with their weapons... No, I just couldn't do it. I guess I'm just not hardcore enough.
I can get through games like Gears on Insane. I hit level 50 on Borderlands, and could finish ME on the hardest difficulty, but MW2...? no.
Back on topic, I wasn't great at the first L4D, but after playing the demo for this one it felt so much more... real. It felt great. Bashing in with a guitar?? Cutting with a machette??? It seems really team focused and no, I probably won't ever complete a section on Expert, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy what I can do.
And if I put it by the wayside in another 6 months... well, that's better than I can say about some single player games I'd buy.
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 10:55PM andsoitgoes said
Is there any way we can just give tmac the plague, or turn him into a zombie?
And by turn him into a zombie, that means turn him into a creature that we could bash upset the head with a wicked ass 5-string guitar.
Because that... Would be awesome.
And by turn him into a zombie, that means turn him into a creature that we could bash upset the head with a wicked ass 5-string guitar.
Because that... Would be awesome.
Posted: Nov 21st 2009 5:43AM (Unverified) said
Turn him into a brainless creature you say? Wouldn't that be a... rehash?
[davidcaruso.jpg]
Reply
[davidcaruso.jpg]
Posted: Nov 20th 2009 11:56PM hsol said
Joystiq should re-review this game for the PC. I've played 2 levels so far and I have not had any difficulty issues. Hell, not a single one of my teammates have died a single time. The game isn't necessarily harder than L4D1, it just requires alot more teamwork.
I can definitely see why the 360 version is broken. They essentially ported the PC version without tweaking the gameplay at all. L4D2 is alot more intense and fast paced than the first one so the controls are definitely not suited for the game.
I can definitely see why the 360 version is broken. They essentially ported the PC version without tweaking the gameplay at all. L4D2 is alot more intense and fast paced than the first one so the controls are definitely not suited for the game.








