I don't think it was over-rated. However, there simply isn't enough content to keep you coming back for more. After killing over 33,000 Zombies, picking up most of the achievements and experiencing plenty of multiplayer/co op sessions this game has nothing else to offer. The longevity is not there and definitely isn't worth sixty dollars. This is a rental at best until extra content is added.MsCortana

I find it interesting that people say it's not worth $60 or that it should be a rental. For example, Ms. Cortana says she has killed over 33,000 zombies. I've played the game for over 30+ hours and have only killed about 15,000 (for those of you who are wondering what this means, the game keeps track of how many zombies you kill). Now, maybe she just tossed that number out, I dunno, but playing a game for 30+ hours (these days) certainley warrants my $60 and doing that with a rental would be quite the feat (of course, if you want to take personal vacation time, be my guest).

I write this not to bash anyone, but I have to imagine there are people out there trying to decide if they should get this game or not. I'll try to help you out-

Get this game IF:

1. You plan on playing online

2. Your friends don't have to have this game for you to enjoy, but you will want to make friends with people in the lobbies you meet.

3. You plan on using the mic to communicate.

4. You like using your mind. Yes, I said "Mind". I can understand how at first glance people say it is "mindless", but I assure you, it's anything but that if you want to be good at the game. You absolutely need to plan, strategize, and communicate with your teammates if you want to survive harder difficulties or rule at versus mode. It's only mindless on easy and normal b/c it's hardly a challenge to experienced gamers. I could write more on how it's not mindless but this post is long enough.

5. You enjoy seeing the synergy of proper teamwork.

[QUOTE="gusphan"]

I've seen player reviews of L4D which give it a poor rating and the general complaints are 1. they had a bad single game experience, 2. a bad multiplayer experience, and 3. it's too short. Let's examine this nonsense...

First- Why don't some people get that it's a multiplayer game that's designed to be played with friends?? Faultiing the game for it's single player mode is like faulting counter-strike for it's single player mode. In other words, it doesn't make sense to do so b/c it wasn't built to be a single player game. They put single player in b/c, let's face it, a single player mode is obligatory these days. Docking the game for this is ridiculous.

Second- If your not enjoying multiplayer, your probably not playing with friends and using a mic. Even in the ads for the game, it says, "Bring Your Friends". Hint, anyone?? What is truly brilliant about this game is what many people miss: if your a poor communicator and poor teamplayer, this will indeed be frustrating. You can't fault the game for this, but your own lack of understanding the basic human survival skill of cooperation! I want to hand out the "Darwin Award" to negative reviewers who cite this complaint.

Third- The game is "too short" is BS. Period. One review (IGN), said it can be completed in 2 hours. How misleading! Yes, if you put it on "easy" you can "play" all the levels in 2 hours. Now, put the game on expert. Let me know how long one campaign takes you...Oh, whats that? After 5 hours, you haven't beaten the one campaign?? Really? What happend to 2hours?? And that's not even mentioning the AI director...

For the sake of brevity I'll end there and open up the discussion...

smerlus

Well I'll start out by saying if you're reading reader reviews of any games, you're going to see as many 10's as you see 1's. Haters and Fanboys are usually an equal ratio. Anyways my answers to your post.

1. If they rate a single player portion low or complain about it it's probably because it's done as an afterthought or half assed. This happens all the time when single player games tack on a Multiplayer portion (games like the Darknesss, Condemned 2) If your main game is MP then you're kind of stuck either way like Shadowrun was. Maybe they should have spent more time making more maps or MP modes than throw in a SP experience when it wasn't going to be a great addition to the game but like I said they were kind of screwed either way.

2. I agree. Too many people buy good games that just aren't their kind of playstyle and then rate them and bash them. A lot of PC gamers hated Gears of War because of it's stop and pop gameplay but that's the point of the game. The cover mechanic wasn't broken in anyway it's just they didn't like it so the game is a 1. It's a worthless self centered view that a lot of people have. Just because I don't find beauty in the Mona Lisa doesn't make it a garbage painting.

3. That's another thing I don't like about reviews is that they are based off how a person played it and that person's experience might not come close to yours. The Spider-Man 3 review at IGN was clearly written by someone that didn't have the grasp of the controls. The NWN Storm of Zehir review was lowed points because the revewer that played it didn't pick the right party. He complained about magic users and lack of a person with skills on the overworld map, I don't have those issues because I don't have a magic user and I have a person that is useful in the world map.

In the end reviews are just opinions and some people may have utterly useless opinions in your opinion

I think this is the best response I've seen to my original post. You make valid, thoughtful points. You hit the nail on the head with the idea of flawed reviews and your Mona Lisa example is right on!

I've seen player reviews of L4D which give it a poor rating and the general complaints are 1.  they had a bad single game experience, 2.  a bad multiplayer experience, and 3.  it's too short.  Let's examine this nonsense...

First- Why don't some people get that it's a multiplayer game that's designed to be played with friends?? Faultiing the game for it's single player mode is like faulting counter-strike for it's single player mode.  In other words, it doesn't make sense to do so b/c it wasn't built to be a single player game.  They put single player  in b/c, let's face it, a single player mode is obligatory these days.  Docking the game for this is ridiculous.

Second-  If your not enjoying multiplayer, your probably not playing with friends and using a mic.  Even in the ads for the game, it says, "Bring Your Friends".  Hint, anyone??  What is truly brilliant about this game is what many people miss:  if your a poor communicator and poor teamplayer, this will indeed be frustrating.  You can't fault the game for this, but your own lack of understanding the basic human survival skill of cooperation!  I want to hand out the "Darwin Award" to negative reviewers who cite this complaint.

Third-  The game is "too short" is BS.  Period.  One review (IGN), said it can be completed in 2 hours.  How misleading!  Yes, if you put it on "easy" you can "play" all the levels in 2 hours.  Now, put the game on expert.  Let me know how long one campaign takes you...Oh, whats that?  After 5 hours, you haven't beaten the one campaign??  Really?  What happend to 2hours??  And that's not even mentioning the AI director...

For the sake of brevity I'll end there and open up the discussion...