all games are not created equal

Focusing on coop features, L4D totally rocks.  It's exactly the kind of experience I would want out of a coop centered game.  It's awesomely frantic and a ton of fun when playing with friends.  The coop is simple, but it's the environment and style of the game that makes it so fun.  And without your 3 other friends, there would be absolutely no hope in fighting off those 50+ zombies that may start coming after you.

L4D is kinda repetitive in the sense that all you do is shoot zombies until they die, then find more of them and kill them.  But what L4D does right is maintain that feeling of 'holy crap, there are a ton of zombies and we are totally screwed' through every level of the game.

Army of Two was a sluggish Gears of War type game that I don't think did anything right.  The buddy system sounded cool, but really didn't give it anything extra for me to want to keep playing it.  And coop was the focus of the game, so it's sad that I didn't find the main feature of the game intriguing at all.

L4D keeps calling me back to try and beat a new level under the hardest tolerable difficulty.  I can feel it calling me right now...

LBP is much more innovative that L4D.  While L4D is a perfect version of a zombie game for me, LBP is so much more than the platformer game on the surface.

L4D is exactly what you see;  a zombie game.  You shoot zombies, then repeat until the game is over.  LBP has a whole layer of creation where you can make whatever you like.  You could even make a zombie level if you wanted to.

At some points, L4D becomes a clicking game, where all you're trying to do is click really fast in order to kill all the zombies coming at you with your handguns.  Super Collapse is also a clicking game at the very end when you're just trying to clear all the blocks possible before they pile up too high.  L4D wins though because when you click a bunch, zombies die.  In Super Collapse, the only thing that happens when you click is boxes go away.  Yippie.

This is a bit of a odd comparison but both games are survival horror and have zombies.  Althogh Resident Evil series have a way more complex story line than Left 4 Dead.  Truth is that Left 4 Dead is more fun to play.

 

What do most of you do after you beat a Resident Evil game?  You let it sit there to collect dust, some of you do play it again in a harder level setting.  After you played it through and through, it no longer have any replay vaule.  Left 4 dead is designed differently.  It's main focus is to get you to play the game with 3 other friends and get achievements or battle it out with another team in versus mode.  Resident Evil 5 is the first time that co-op game play is available, but only with 1 other person and still no versus mode.

 

I feel Left 4 Dead is better than Resident Evil in terms of simple game play, fun with friends, and high replay value.  Even though it lacks in versus maps and campaigns but that can be fixed with an update.  Besides I suck at playing shooters with a controller.

I've always enjoyed a good team game more than a single killing romp. Left 4 Dead is the saviour of online gaming for the 360. As more and more people get Xbox live, less people seem to talk and work as a team.

In most games, it's not much of a problem, unless you get stuck on the losing team, and no one will listen to your comments. In contrast, if you decide to go for a single player romp in Left 4 Dead, your screwed.

Its taken people awhile to work this out, and, granted, there are still alot of young kiddies grabbing the Xbox controller and trying in vain to run through a level by themselves, but alot of games that you get pulled into have some teamwork in one way or another.

Sure, Halo 3 was a great game, but no one talks on it anymore, and when they do, its insulting geek speak, and it becomes quite boring quite quickly when its like this - there is not much of a communicative community within the games.

On Left 4 Dead, its just far more fun, even though theres only a few levels, the game is just so hilarious, and brings people together over Live. Its a game that will never get old for me, whereas, Halo 3 did fast.

As much as MK has the new characters of DC [Joker, Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman etc.] added to the list of original characters [Scorpion, Sub-Zero, Sonya, Liu Kang, Raiden etc.] the game-play was the same.

The story line was interesting due to the question of  "How the HELL are we gonna blend these two worlds together?".

Left 4 Dead I found that it was more challenging and intriguing to me even though it was the typical "shoot-em-up" Zombie game. I liked the idea of the Special Infected [Smokers, Boomers, Hunters, Witches] especially the Witches. The idea is NOT to kill her.

Hmmm, interesting. . .

I also enjoy the fact that this not just a single-player game and takes a group effort to beat it. I found that being the infected was REALLY cool and fun.

Anyway, to make a long story short. I enjoy Left 4 Dead better than Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe.

I've played quite a bit of both games, and they both have good and bad points.

Good Things
L4D:
+Mayhem
+Teamwork
+Spookiness
TF2:
+Strategy
+Many maps & replay value
+Comedy!

Bad Things
L4D:
- Short game
- Limited space for exploring. Same old same old.
TF2:
- Complicated.
- The best of plans can be foiled by the most clueless of noobs.

L4D is a great deal of fun when you've got three buddies and you're all screeching and going nuts. However, this does not occur too often! The majority of the time, you're with a handful of boring suits! What are they even doing playing this game?

TF2 can have a bit of that chaos, but that isn't why it's good. There isn't much in Left 4 Dead that's more satisfying than getting the entire team to work together in a coordinated attack on that last control point. If you've ever played pl_dynamite and been the scout who runs the Death Star trench to get the cart to the end while the battle rages on the sides, you probably know what I mean.

So yeah. I prefer Team Fortress.

OKAY lets try this again, for some reason hitting the tab key made me loose alllll my progress....

Left 4 Dead: survival horror epic action packed

F.E.A.R 2: Horror epic action packed good storyline not so much survival because you didn't really have to even try or rather attempt to even survive because it honestly was that easy....

Left 4 Dead focuses on more of the mutliplayer perks when it comes to the internet and online play. there are so many game types in left 4 dead that you can never really run out of decisions, if you get bored of playing one game type, just switch to another, if you get bored of that but don't want to go back to what you were doing before, you con choose the third
option, and then probably by then you'll have refreshed enough to enjoy the first game style you were playing. its genius of steam to do.

F.E.A.R 2: I personally don't think that the guys at monolith tried to focus too much on the mutliplayer. it's just like any other mutliplayer but for some reason doesn't grasp my attention as well, it has the basic game types, deathmatch, team deathmatch... etc... etc.. the new map pack is nice but not overwhelmingly addicting.

this comparison would be longer but i can only get so annoyed at loosing my progress...

at least i can type fast.

Zombies zombies zombies.  Zombies are pretty popular these days.  Dead Rising may have been somewhere in the beginning of the zombie craze and L4D possibly near the end of it?

Anyway, Dead Rising is a cool game.  It's very much like the Evil Dead series of movies, where instead of keeping it totally serious the entire time, it can get pretty silly.  You may end up running around in kids clothing cutting up zombies with some hedge clippers.  You may even get a hold of a lawnmower or a chainsaw and really end up tearing up some zombies, and it's fun.  Only for a little while though, because the repetition can get pretty boring.  Also, searching for the right weapons can be pretty difficult, especially since there are zombies all over the place just waiting to eat you.

L4D is an even cooler game.  It captures the feel of a more serious zombie movie and does a lot of things right.  The zombie hordes can be pretty intense to fight off and the tank zombies can really stress you out, and it's awesome.

Both games aim to make a certain type of zombie flick into a game, and both do it pretty well.  L4D ends up being better because the type of movie it pulls from ends up creating more exciting gameplay.

(I mainly wanted to check out the category function of comparisons now :D )

Ghostbusters and L4D both feature terrific voice acting.  Ghostbusters has the advantage though, mainly due to the actual actors of the movies reprising their respective roles in video game form.

Dan Akroyd and Ernie Hudson stand out to me with their voices.  They're instantly recognizeable, lively, and really help bring the characters to life.  Harold Ramis is still great with his technobabble.  I was sadly dissapointed with Bull Murray, who I anticipated to be a standout.  Bill Murray sounds very quiet and very very sleepy the entire time.  Too bad.

L4D's characters also have great voices and they all sound lively and energetic.  I think the stand out is Francis though, with great lines such as "Nice shot Bill, that was my ass!" and the infamous "I hate elevators/subways/sewers/hospitals/trainyards/small towns/water/helicopters/etc etc etc" . 

While both are great, Ghostbusters still has the advantage where your character doesn't say anything, or even has a name.  It's perfect, as it doesn't at all get in the way of the vets talking amongst themselves.

A lot of backlash arose when L4D was announced to be out about a year after the first one was released.  Did L4D2 really deserve to be it's own stand-alone title?  I say yes.

L4D2 really tickled me when it included a gameplay mechanic that I always thought would be awesome.  I'm talking about the dubbed "gauntlet mode" that occurs in some levels.
In L4D1, events usually consisted of hitting a button, finding a corner, and holding out until your door was opened.  Thankfully, L4D2 changes it up.  Some events required hitting a button and mad-dashing through horde to another button.  Others may include scavenging gas cans to fuel a car.

There's also new threats this time around.  Sure you have a couple new boss infected, but the surprise to me was the uncommon infected.  These are generally the normal horde, except they have special properties which vary between campaigns.  Construction workers can't hear pipebombs, riot officers are only vulnerable on their backside, etc.

The one disappointment is the L4D2 survivors.  Ellis is definitely my favorite, and Coach occasionally has some good lines, but Nick and Rochelle are incredibly forgetful and boring.  I honestly couldn't even remember Rochelle's name until I remembered Ellis speaking about her before.

I hate to say it, but I can't really think of a reason to go back to playing L4D1 now that I have L4D2.  It's really everything and then some.  Plus, I HAVE to mention how epic the Hard Rain campaign is on L4D2, especially the second half.  If you played it, then you know what I mean ;)