Left 4 Dead Better than Left 4 Dead 2?

I’ve been playing Left 4 Dead 2 a lot recently, and despite it, and its prequel being understandably similar, (they were released a year apart so how different could they be), L4D2 fails to improve on all aspects of its predecessors, which is unusual for a video game.

 

Firstly, I thought the overall tone of the first was better. It seemed a lot darker and grittier as you’d expect a zombie game to be. L4D2 on the other hand seemed almost cartoonish in the graphics department and  I understand the decision to change a lot of it to during daylight or at least dusk since it probably would seem a bit samey with the same appearance in the second. That’s why I think they should just have kept releasing new maps for it, rather than a new game a year later.

Secondly, I feel they overcomplicated L4D2 in a way. The first’s simplicity was great, it was just four people, a limited amount of guns each with their own distinct strengths and weaknesses and the same with the enemies. None of this laser sight and explosive rounds rubbish. The more open-ended environments didn’t feel right with me either. There’s nothing like a series of narrow corridors and a swarm of enemies or a tank charging right at you to get the tension going.

Though I know I’m in the minority. It just seemed like the changes to the game engine were pretty inconsequential, the only one that actually made a difference or set it apart from the original in any way was the addition of melee weapons but they could have simply patched this into the first game. I think I’m just bitter at paying £20 for what is essentially DLC.

That said, L4D2 is still miles better than most online co-op games and I’ll probably buy whatever future instalments they ram down my throat.

 

 

Advertisements