Hype2Death REVIEW 8.5 Gamespot

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/left4dead/review.html

Linkified for great justice.

EDIT: Damn, beat me to it.

Anyway this is about what I expected.  It doesn't seem to have the lasting power of other FPS games, yet it's still a good co-op game for the short time it lasts.  I wouldn't pay anywhere near 50-60$ for it though.

I expected an 8.5 so I'm not shocked.

Very fun game. Worth the $50. But the bad section makes me think that the game should've scored higher. There isn't much in there.

8.5 is the score of the 360 version, the PC scores arent up yet. FYIIshmaelSonata

8.5 is the score of the 360 version, the PC scores arent up yet. FYIIshmaelSonata

Theres going to be nothing different about the scores, the main complaint is only 4 campaigns. It's not going to change right now.

[QUOTE="IshmaelSonata"]8.5 is the score of the 360 version, the PC scores arent up yet. FYIinsanejedi

Theres going to be nothing different about the scores, the main complaint is only 4 campaigns. It's not going to change right now.

given that the PC version has a map editor...it should.

[QUOTE="insanejedi"]

[QUOTE="IshmaelSonata"]8.5 is the score of the 360 version, the PC scores arent up yet. FYIcobrax75

Theres going to be nothing different about the scores, the main complaint is only 4 campaigns. It's not going to change right now.

given that the PC version has a map editor...it should.

You have absolutly no true idea how the mod community or how valve will react in the subsiquent months of this game comming out. Even though Valve has a good track record, and mod's eat everything up, look at UT 3. If you reviewed that with the sense of "Well there is going to be a HUGE mod community and Epic will release tonnes of maps!" then you would have given it a 9 or 9.5. Saying that now would make you look like a fool. Dispite the mod record and the Epic track record that game is going nowhere. Who knows if this one is going to be like that too. 

This is why you make reviews of the present content of the game, and not it's persumed future value. 

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="insanejedi"]

 

Theres going to be nothing different about the scores, the main complaint is only 4 campaigns. It's not going to change right now.

insanejedi

given that the PC version has a map editor...it should.

You have absolutly no true idea how the mod community or how valve will react in the subsiquent months of this game comming out. Even though Valve has a good track record, and mod's eat everything up, look at UT 3. If you reviewed that with the sense of "Well there is going to be a HUGE mod community and Epic will release tonnes of maps!" then you would have given it a 9 or 9.5. Saying that now would make you look like a fool. Dispite the mod record and the Epic track record that game is going nowhere. Who knows if this one is going to be like that too. 

This is why you make reviews of the present content of the game, and not it's persumed future value. 

Epic's history with Mods isnt even close To Valve's.....and L4D is obviously very popular on the PC...given that its been the top selling game on Steam for weeks  (despite a lot of big games coming out during that period of time).

Given that there have already been a lot of custom maps for the game...its obviously gonna have very strong custom map support.

PC review still not up.

PC review still not up.

 

While my Hype was AAA, it's still an amazing score. Jodan77

we'll continue to ...wait and ...wait.

I called it. Very fun game, but overrated to hell by the L4D fanboysCouth_

Same here, I just never saw the appeal. To me, it just looked like a mindless zombie flood fest that would probably be fun at first, but would quickly wear thin and get very old, very fast. At least I was certain that it would for me, especially with no single player campaign. Still a decent score though, and I am sure that it will not affect the enjoyment of those who dig it.

[QUOTE="Couth_"]I called it. Very fun game, but overrated to hell by the L4D fanboysironcreed

Same here, I just never saw the appeal. To me, it just looked like a mindless zombie flood fest that would probably be fun at first, but would quickly wear thin and get very old, very fast. At least I was certain that it would for me, especially with no single player campaign. Still a decent score though, and I am sure that it will not effect the enjoyment of those who dig it.

8.5 is "great" and still in the top class of games, so I don't know why it would have an "effect" on anyones enjoyment. Especially since it's getting AAA scores everywhere else. Once you leave the SW's board, L4D is a AAA game.

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

[QUOTE="Couth_"]I called it. Very fun game, but overrated to hell by the L4D fanboysBioShockOwnz

Same here, I just never saw the appeal. To me, it just looked like a mindless zombie flood fest that would probably be fun at first, but would quickly wear thin and get very old, very fast. At least I was certain that it would for me, especially with no single player campaign. Still a decent score though, and I am sure that it will not affect the enjoyment of those who dig it.

8.5 is "great" and still in the top class of games, so I don't know why it would have an "effect" on anyones enjoyment. Especially since it's getting AAA scores everywhere else. Once you leave the SW's board, L4D is a AAA game.

As I said, in case you missed it, "I am sure that it will not affect the enjoyment of those who dig it." I merely stated before hand that I personally never saw the hype, and that it never appealed to me. I also figured that due to lack of overall content, that an 8.5 would probably be about right for this title.

On a side note, yes, I am quite aware of my typo, lol. No need for grammer nazi reminders. It happens to us all from time to time, right, Bio?;)

It is a multiplayer-only game and like in the past with everything on GS, they have never really scored above 9.0/10. I can understand the reviewers desire to score it down because it doesn't offer a competent singleplayer but it was designed for multiplayer and should be reviewed as a multiplayer game. Are singleplayer-only games scored down for not offering multiplayer? No... so why should the reverse happen?

No matter what people will say about the game, it still is the freshest, most rewarding and *fun* mulitplayer experience to come available in a long time.foxhound_fox

Because there isn't enough content. Most AAA singleplayer games have about 20 hours of pure content (excluding replayability). Being priced as a full retail game doesn't help either.DrinkDuff

Hyped AAA so a SW flop Who cares though. Getting this friday. carlisledavid79

meh,save your money...its a rental at best.

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

[QUOTE="Couth_"]I called it. Very fun game, but overrated to hell by the L4D fanboysBioShockOwnz

Same here, I just never saw the appeal. To me, it just looked like a mindless zombie flood fest that would probably be fun at first, but would quickly wear thin and get very old, very fast. At least I was certain that it would for me, especially with no single player campaign. Still a decent score though, and I am sure that it will not effect the enjoyment of those who dig it.

8.5 is "great" and still in the top class of games, so I don't know why it would have an "effect" on anyones enjoyment. Especially since it's getting AAA scores everywhere else. Once you leave the SW's board, L4D is a AAA game.

it shouldnt be though for how much you get it doesnt warrant a 60$ purchase 

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Because there isn't enough content. Most AAA singleplayer games have about 20 hours of pure content (excluding replayability). Being priced as a full retail game doesn't help either.foxhound_fox

I mean single-player ONLY games. I thought that was assumed when I quoted what I quoted. Since gears of war 2 has a comprehensive multiplayer it can be excused for having an 8-12 hour campaign. L4D only has a multiplayer component, yet its priced almost the same as Gears. It doesn't matter how much quality there is, length is still a factor, especially for something as content light as L4D. I'm personally waiting for a price drop or extra content before I pick up the game.DrinkDuff

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]I mean single-player ONLY games. I thought that was assumed when I quoted what I quoted. Since gears of war 2 has a comprehensive multiplayer it can be excused for having an 8-12 hour campaign. L4D only has a multiplayer component, yet its priced almost the same as Gears. It doesn't matter how much quality there is, length is still a factor, especially for something as content light as L4D. I'm personally waiting for a price drop or extra content before I pick up the game.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Because there isn't enough content. Most AAA singleplayer games have about 20 hours of pure content (excluding replayability). Being priced as a full retail game doesn't help either.DrinkDuff

Both have a SP and MP experience

There is no double standard! L4D has no single player component worth talking about. If it did, then it would be excused no problem. It doesn't, so its not as good content-wise as it could have been, and is scored accordingly. Usually singleplayer only games are excused if and only if they have enough great gameplay to last as long or almost as long as singleplayer/multiplayer comboed games. It's a careful balancing act. Do you think gears would have just scored 9.0 for just having multiplayer? No. DrinkDuff

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
I played Gears of War once with a friend. It took me 8 hours and I had no desire to play it ever again. I am glad my friend was the one who bought the game so I didn't have to shell out $60.

Your claim that "most AAA SP games have about 20 hours of pure content" is completely unfounded. Gears of War was AAA GOTY and I only got 8 hours out of it.

Time to value comparisons should not be a contributing factor to an overall score. I played and enjoyed both the Max Payne games once and it wouldn't have mattered had I paid $20 or $100 for them (I got them each for $10 on Steam and wouldn't have had anything against paying $50 new for each).

The factor of "quality over quantity" comes into play here. I would rather have L4D be a wonderful and exhilarating 5 hour experience that I play only once than a tedious and drawn-out 50 hour one.krunkfu2

Both have a SP and MP experience

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]I mean single-player ONLY games. I thought that was assumed when I quoted what I quoted. Since gears of war 2 has a comprehensive multiplayer it can be excused for having an 8-12 hour campaign. L4D only has a multiplayer component, yet its priced almost the same as Gears. It doesn't matter how much quality there is, length is still a factor, especially for something as content light as L4D. I'm personally waiting for a price drop or extra content before I pick up the game.DrinkDuff

that's bs Left 4 Dead is perfectly fine SP. The only thing that really changes between the SP and MP compnents is the difficulty, what happens when you die, and your partners actions. The bots in Left 4 Dead are amazing they best me in the end almost every time. the only thing I beat them in is the kills factor. hell they're probably overpowered.

The gears bots suck ass though. I had fun with Gears 2 multiplayer for around 1-2 games and than dropped it. The fact that you can't play horde with bots is unforgivable. And having the mortar in multiplayer is just way too brutal.

The problem is that L4D's singleplayer isn't worth playing because its exactly the same as the multiplayer (except less fun). If there were two distinct components (one being singleplayer and the other being multiplayer), then it would have surely scored higher or at least provided more value.DrinkDuff

Hmm.. a somewhat valid point. The multiplayer and single-player are actually quite different the way i see it. it depends on what you classify as multiplayer since co-op is technically multiplayer. You could say that co-op and versus in Left 4 Dead are pretty much the same but it's a BIG difference when you have another person spawning a boomer in a blind corner, or a tank blocking the only path around the witch. or you could spawn the boomer near the witch so if the survivors turn off their flashlights you could just voit all over them and they won't know what the hell just happened.

Nice just the right score I expected here at GameSpot.com, I'm happy with it.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]It is a multiplayer-only game and like in the past with everything on GS, they have never really scored above 9.0/10. I can understand the reviewers desire to score it down because it doesn't offer a competent singleplayer but it was designed for multiplayer and should be reviewed as a multiplayer game. Are singleplayer-only games scored down for not offering multiplayer? No... so why should the reverse happen?

No matter what people will say about the game, it still is the freshest, most rewarding and *fun* mulitplayer experience to come available in a long time.DrinkDuff

20 maps different zombie layout every time plus versus. between the demo and the full game I have put over 20 hours into it. I will probably put another 20 into it by sunday. 

Great score.

I'll pick it up after finishing Fallout3 and COD: World at War.

Hyped AAA so a SW flop Who cares though. Getting this friday. carlisledavid79

where was the AAA hype? most everyone i saw called it 8.5+

wich falls within its score

Also: wtf is with the graphics? x360 is weak lol

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]The problem is that L4D's singleplayer isn't worth playing because its exactly the same as the multiplayer (except less fun). If there were two distinct components (one being singleplayer and the other being multiplayer), then it would have surely scored higher or at least provided more value.krunkfu2

Hmm.. a somewhat valid point. The multiplayer and single-player are actually quite different the way i see it. it depends on what you classify as multiplayer since co-op is technically multiplayer. You could say that co-op and versus in Left 4 Dead are pretty much the same but it's a BIG difference when you have another person spawning a boomer in a blind corner, or a tank blocking the only path around the witch. or you could spawn the boomer near the witch so if the survivors turn off their flashlights you could just voit all over them and they won't know what the hell just happened.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]It is a multiplayer-only game and like in the past with everything on GS, they have never really scored above 9.0/10. I can understand the reviewers desire to score it down because it doesn't offer a competent singleplayer but it was designed for multiplayer and should be reviewed as a multiplayer game. Are singleplayer-only games scored down for not offering multiplayer? No... so why should the reverse happen?

No matter what people will say about the game, it still is the freshest, most rewarding and *fun* mulitplayer experience to come available in a long time.Guybrush_3

20 maps different zombie layout every time plus versus. between the demo and the full game I have put over 20 hours into it. I will probably put another 20 into it by sunday. 

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Because there isn't enough content. Most AAA singleplayer games have about 20 hours of pure content (excluding replayability). Being priced as a full retail game doesn't help either.DrinkDuff

20 maps different zombie layout every time plus versus. between the demo and the full game I have put over 20 hours into it. I will probably put another 20 into it by sunday. 

expert atleast doubles that playtime. that is one hard mode