Top
740°
9.7

Left 4 Dead Review - Horrifically Gripping and Satisfying... - Poland.US

Valve seems to be all over the place these days: they have their legendary Half-life series as the frontrunners of their legacy, as well as many other IPs such as the cartoonish Team Fortress and sterile but brain-challenging Portal. The bewildering thing is how good each of these franchises has become, despite their embracement of radically different ideas. Valve simply makes something for everyone, whether you be a lover of drama and new gameplay ideas, multiplayer fragging, or puzzle-solving. Consequently, it wasn't surprising to see the overly positive reaction to the announcement of Left 4 Dead (aka L4D), Valve's first entry into the crowded co-op genre. Does Left 4 Dead live up the hype? Oh, hell yes.

The story is too old to be commented.
N4PS3G3501d ago

Great!! I won't be buying Call of Duty 5 now ...l'll be getting this instead!
I wasn't expecting much from this game ..but the demo changed my mind and now the scores are even better!

who would have thought...L4D is a sleeper Hit

Woots! can't wait 4 tomorrow!

M337ING3501d ago

Me neither. This game is going to be huge! :D

HardcoreGamer3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

i want a ps3 version

dragunrising3501d ago

I haven't heard the opposite was true, however both version are almost identical. The PC will always have a slight graphical advantage in resolution but the developers kept it even feature wise. Personally, I will never choose keyboard and mouse over controller.

If your planing on getting it for the PC, consider getting the $99 dollar ultra Valve deal. It has every Valve game ever made.

Perjoss3501d ago

am I the only one that feels that:

1. this just feels like a good mod, not really a full game title (pc gamers might know what i mean)

2. zombies are creepy 'cos they move slow and there are lots of them, not running at you at light speed.

Tried the demo and I was not all that impressed.

dragunrising3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

Not fair, you completely changed your comment. Your original comment spoke about how you were going to get L4D on your PC rather than 360...because it was the superior version. Why did you change your comment and decide you want it on PS3 instead of your PC? Sounds fishy to me.

Bnet3433501d ago

Damn it! I'm still on the fence for this game. I'm kind of broke right now but it's so good.

funkysolo3501d ago

If going by the demo of L4D, I can tell you that cod is the better game...You can play the whole campaign with 3 other friends and battle it out to see who gets most points..L4D is an okay game but I played the demo like 4 times and after a couple of times I don't see the game having alot of rep lay value..WAW has 4 player co-op and the multi..I would wait for the bargain bin

No Way3501d ago

So, uhm, you think slow moving zombies are scarier then fast moving zombies? Sorry, but I beg to differ..

If a toddler threw a football at your face, it wouldn't be scary. But, if Tom Brady threw a football at your face, then that's down right scary.

See my point?

Bolts3501d ago

Slow moving zombie is only scary if the controls sucks and you can't move while aiming. L4D isn't as scary as Dead Space, because your character can move around like a CS operative but it is a hell lot more fun. As an online game the formula works.

Perjoss3501d ago

i didn't use the word scary, big difference.

No Way3501d ago

You're correct, you did not.

So, tell me.. what's the difference? Either way, I believe fast moving zombies are.. creepier than slow moving zombies.

And, plus, you also mention that they are creepy cause there are a lot of them. Uhm, go get spit on by a Boomer, and tell me there is not a lot of zombies in your face.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3501d ago
RAF-TECH3501d ago

interesting...
a rent to buy for me

Yoma3501d ago

if they give this game 10/10 , they can give whatthefckever game a 100/10. I played it and it was.. nothing special

M337ING3501d ago

Except they didn't, they gave it a 97... :/

JohnnyChimpo3501d ago

Ok these ratings are getting way out of hand, it seems that every game that drops now is getting a 9 or better, not every game is as good as a 9. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Left for Dead is good, I'm saying in general. If a game gets a rating of nine or higher......scratch that a 8.5 or higher, then I expect absolutley no day one patches. No glitches, no bugs, etc. I want a masterpeice. The only games that desrve these high ratings this year is MGS4, Uncharted, and Gears2.

These ratings are getting way out of hand, and we soak it up like it was black tar heroin. Why are we as gamers giving these tards satisfaction and allowing them to continue to give faulty ratings to games just to ignite another fanboy war. It's not MS fanboys and it's not Sony fanboys, it's reviewrs, editors, journalists that blow a game completely out of the water and say it's the best thing since slice bread. Then you get home and what do you know, a patch, or better yet DLC!? What you couldn't just give the consumer a bang for his/her buck and add the DLC into the game as general content.

All in all, metacritic and all other review sites need to be picketed by all fanboys, stating that we as people deserve an accurate rating, we as consumers and gamers don't care what some 40yr old man thought of a game just be3cause he played the first level and scored the game a 9 or 10. A score needs to be based on gameplay, visuals, story, replay value, and construction.

Down with Metacritic and all other reviewers.

GWAVE3501d ago

Nowhere in the review does he mention the horrible textures and the horrible pop-in. It's kind of sad how certain games get a free pass on these issues "because gameplay is more important than graphics" yet other games get railed for it. A 9.5/10 for graphics is an absolute travesty when prettier games are getting 9/10 and 8/10 for better graphics.

I love the Half Life series, but I think Valve needs to be taken down a few notches. They aren't the second coming of Christ...

N4PS3G3501d ago

" On the 360, the game runs at a less-impressive clip of 30 FPS, suffering from some lower-quality textures and character models "

You should read the review again ...or maybe read it for the first time..not the actual score only

it clearly says that the game is not technically mind-blowing, but artistically strong and well-optimized

P4KY B3501d ago Show
thor3501d ago

This game is going to get a free pass despite the facts:
It's ONLY a co-op mode, effectively. That's less content than most games out there.
The graphics are dated (and have issues on 360? That's pretty shocking considering they are bad to start with; I'd have thought the 360 could handle it easily)

Whereas games with better graphics and more content are panned.

How many reviews were there of Mirror's Edge criticising it because it was a short game?
R2's abundance of content was overlooked by many so they could nitpick the graphics and SP campaign.

thenickel3501d ago

And here they go running and crying unfair unfair lol. L4D is a great game all around even if the graphics are not top notch. The detail is perfect and the co-op gameplay is deeper then anything else out there. LBP got a free pass but do you see anybody complaining about that. Get a life GWAVE and quit complaining because you can't have it your way sheesh!

GWAVE3501d ago

@ N4PS3G

Perhaps you should read my post again. I mentioned that the 9.5/10 for graphics is a travesty. The fact that the author said "On the 360, the game runs at a less-impressive clip of 30 FPS, suffering from some lower-quality textures and character models" and yet still gave the graphics a 9.5/10 is only further proof that I am correct.

I have nothing against L4D. I am thoroughly enjoying the demo and I'd say that it's going to be a lot of fun. However, the graphics deserve no excuse whatsoever. The graphics are bad and that's all there is to it.

SL1M DADDY3501d ago

They are all over the place in terms of grading scale that it shows a great level of one of two things, either bias or idiocity. I figure both are not what I need to be listening to when picking my games so I pick for myself and rent then buy the ones I like enough to drop the bucks for.

Dmitry Orlov3501d ago

I think problems with 360 could come up only in case of poor optimisation. You said it yourself - the graphics are dated.

Cenobia3501d ago

I also feel this game won't age well on the 360. It's basically just the same game played over and over but with friends (as far as I know, I only played the PC demo). It's fun, but without the new levels and mods like the PC version will get, I'm not sure it will last very long.

Maybe being a zombie will add some longevity to it, I don't know. I only played the demo level and half a co-op game (I have no idea why, but I couldn't connect to any game). I guess I just wish the demo gave us a better taste of what the full game was.

thor3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

GWAVE you're right about the graphics. How on earth can they give a 9.5 to the graphics? That means that the graphics cannot be improved by much.. but I've played L4D on PC at max settings and there are a LOT of console games that look better. If the 360 version suffers from some problems as well then 9.5 is waaay too high.

GWAVE3501d ago

@ thor

It's true, but look at all the disagrees you and I are getting. :^D

It seems some fanboys have good enough eyesight to point out a random jaggie in a random pre-alpha Killzone 2 screenshot, yet their eyesight isn't good enough to see a cardboard box magically appear 5 feet in front of them while they play L4D. It's so sad.

As I have said, I really enjoy L4D. The co-op is a blast. However, as a GAMER, I'm not going to give concessions to a game that has poor graphics. Will I play it? Heck yeah. Will I praise the graphics or be impressed by them? Heck no, and any true gamer should be honest enough with himself/herself to accept that L4D is severely lacking in the graphical department.

A 9.5/10 for graphics is a blatant "free pass".

(Oh, and before anyone mentions "art direction", art direction is a matter of opinion and should be a very minor factor when scoring graphics. Art direction - no matter how excellent - doesn't make a bad texture look good nor a choppy framerate look smooth. Good art direction does not equal good graphics, unless you're willing to admit that Okami has better "graphics" than Gears of War due to the stronger art direction...)

M337ING3501d ago

You could argue that Okami was more pleasing to the eye. I understand that Gears 2 has the more advanced engine, but the amount of aliasing and flaws present on a large HD tv just made it somewhat of an eyesore to look at...

Maxned3501d ago

While I agree with you on the graphics, I do think this game deserves AAA.

GWAVE3501d ago

@ Maxned

Why does it deserve AAA? If it's not a AAA game, why give it a AAA score? If the game isn't AAA, will it reduce your enjoyment of it? I don't think a game should get AAA just because it can be fun. Plenty of games are fun and I can recommend a huge list of non-AAA games that I think are worth playing.

But a game should be rated fairly. Graphics are a part of that rating. Bad graphics shouldn't get a free pass. It reminds me of GTA4 reviews where -- despite mediocre textures, pop-in, framerate drops, etc -- it got 10/10 for graphics from most reviewers because....uh....um....did they even give a reasonable explanation?

thewhoopimen3501d ago (Edited 3501d ago )

Personally i view it as a very solid fun game that's great to play and exciting but not in the 9 territory b/c it doesn't push any envelopes.
- 3D engine is dated/ Graphics are par/subpar for this generation
- Scope is very focused but very limited
- Coop/Vs mode only(It's not even considered a complete game... how does it get full AAA scores).
- Music/Sound is average (Typical FPS fare

8.5 maybe 8.9... but it is not a AAA more like a A/B+

No Way3501d ago

The graphics are not THAT bad.. Sure, they are not great, but they are good.
There are far more games out there that look worse than Left 4 Dead.

I don't think I will ever understand why so many people pay sooooo much attention to graphics nowadays.. And, reviews.

Traveler3501d ago

I agree that the game does not deserve a 9.5 in the graphics department. But the problem I have with your comments is that you are exaggerating how bad the game looks. It makes you sound like someone with a bias that just wants to hate on it. The graphics are not the best I have ever seen, but they aren't bad at all. It has a real-time lighting engine, tons of enemies on screen at once and decent textures and effects. All things told, I would put it about on par with Resistance 2. Do you think Resistance 2's graphics are "severely lacking in the graphical department"?

The biggest problem I saw with the demo was the aliasing. I don't like aliasing. But other than that it looks great.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 3501d ago
kewlkat0073501d ago

Another family member not getting a X-Mas present.

ceedubya93501d ago

That's cold man! But I feel you. My gaming needs are going to be met, even if someone else has to suffer a bit for Christmas.