L4D2 vs WWZ vs B4B an objective comparison

[^9[DSS]Dahaka]

I've seen the question pop up in all 3 discussion boards, and having played all 3 games for hundreds of hours, I think I can be an objective judge.
I have played 868 hours of L4D2, 499 hours of WWZ, and 971 hours of B4B. I'm not a fanboy of any game, The difference in hours played is based on multiple factors.

1) Graphics and Animations:
-L4D2 has very dated graphics, but has an amazing gore system

-B4B has great graphics, but has a practically non existent gore system

-WWZ is the best of both world, with great graphics, and a pretty good gore system

2) Movement mechanics:
-L4D2 has arcade movement from the 90s / 2000s

-WWZ has sprint mechanics, as well as climb mechanics, you cannot however, jump, or fall to your death at all. the game just prevents you from falling into cliffs and off limit areas. There are no perks that affect your sprinting and movement, however.

-B4B has modern movement mechanics, with sprinting, jumping, climbing, and falling to your death. It also has a multitude of perks that affect your movement in a lot of different ways, making it the game with the best movement mechanics out of the 3.

3) Combat mechanics:
-L4D2 has arcade combat mechanics from the 90s / 2000s. Point and click, no ADS, no weapon customisation, no real variety between the limited selection of the different weapon types. Whether you choose a shotgun, an AR, or a sniper rifle, you essentially point and click your way through the game, shoving whatever comes near you. Melee, similarly to shooting is just mindless clicking, there is no stamina, the only difference comes from the melee weapon you pick up.

-WWZ has more modern combat mechanics, however, being initially a 3rd person game only (first person mode was introduced later as an afterthought) there is no real ADS mechanic. You can however zoom to slightly reduce recoil and see the enemies you are shooting better, as well as to bring up the crosshairs. The game has a progression system for your weapons, with more and more advanced attachments getting put on your weapon as you level it up. There are also skins that you can apply to your weapon at will. Lastly, the weapon perks also contribute to the list of things you can customise. Melee is limited by melee stamina, so the player cannot simply prevail by mindless clicking. Furthermore, the players choice of perks and class affect the tactics and the playstyle during combat.
The player will have to grind to get their weapons to be the best versions of themselves though, which might be off putting to some players.

-B4B has the most advanced combat mechanics, with different well discernible weapon classes, attachments that the player has to choose from that affect the gameplay, weapon skins for visual customisation, ADS, and a very wide selection of cards (the games version of perks) that affect playstyle during combat. There is no grind when it comes to weapons, however, in order for the player to bring out the most of their weapons, the appropriate cards have to be unlocked and equipped. Melee is limited by melee stamina, which can however be made less noticeable with the selection of the right cards. In this regard, B4B has the best and most interesting combat mechanics.

4)Level desing:
-B4B has good looking levels, but the areas the players have to explore are all limited and in the same general geographic location, with some parts of maps being reused and recycled oftentimes. The levels are also not very discernible and despite looking good, the cant help but feel generic a lot of the times. B4B is therefore the worst in this regard.

-WWZ has very diverse levels, with campaigns taking place in completely different places and countries all over the world. The graphics are also great, and look very down to earth and realistic, with some areas being almost identical to real life places. There are however a lot of places were the players cannot go, especially vertically, were invisible walls keep the player from falling down, and there is no jumping at all in the game, limiting the player even more. There are also areas of certain levels that can dynamically change.

-L4D2 has a great selection of levels, most of them looking pretty distinct and recognisable. There are also some maps that can have dynamic changes during gameplay, keeping things interesting. The graphics are dated, but from the 3 games, L4D2 has the best map design, with WWZ trailing close behind.

5)Character design:
-B4B has a selection of 12 characters. Contrary to what people say, there is not much woke about the characters, aside from maybe one toughgirl/girlboss, and there are no identity politics in the game. Due to the characters being so numerous, (and the devs being a bit lazy) there are not many dialogues in the game, and there isnt a lot of banter between the characters, there are however many combinations of dialogues, depending on which 4 characters are selected in a playthrough. The characters themselves are mostly distinct and recognisable, with a few exceptions that seem uninspired and generic. The voice acting is decent, but nothing special, just some voice actors that did their jobs.

-WWZ has SEVEN! sets of 4 characters, making for a total of 28 distinct characters. Most of these characters have their own little backstory as well, which can be watched on short cutscenes. The characters are distinct and recognisable, but not extremely memorable, while a few of them seem a bit generic. Each group of characters has a decent amount of unique dialogues that can happen between them, but most of it is just the player's character bragging about their skills when they perform multikills, or screaming and pleading for help when in trouble. The voice acting is phenomenal, and you can hear the passion in the voice of most of the voice actors.

-L4D2 has two sets of 4 characters, and has hands down the most attention to detail when it comes to interactions between them. It's also the most light hearted and funny game of the 3, with frequent jokes and comical situations arising between the 4 characters. The characters are very distinct and very memorable, and due to memes, they are known even to people who haven't played the game.

6) Sound design:
-B4B has very limited music, and the sounds of the guns sound a bit generic. The infected have some great sounds, and the special infected all have their own recognisable sounds, which are unfortunately not easily discernible, unless you have some experience with the game.

-WWZ also has limited music, but the sounds of the infected and the guns are phenomenal. The guns feel punchy and powerful, with many of them having distinctive sounds.

-L4D2 has great music which helps players get immersed and helps with conveying emotions to them. Each special infected has it's own music track, paired with it's own sounds. They are very discernible, and very well made.

7) Enemy design:
-WWZ has well made common infected, and the proprietary game engine is capable of displaying hundreds of zombies on the screen at the same time without problems. The zombies also form huge pyramids as they try to climb up to the player's position, just like in the movie, making for a very impressive sight. The special infected are not very well discernible from the commons, and could use some work. They feel more like uncommon infected than special ones. They are very human in their design, and their special abilities often come from what they are wearing, and not from being mutated.

-B4B has the widest selection of common enemies, with commons that can have armor, commons that can leak acid upon being killed, commons that are burning and have AOE damage and commons that explode if shot in the head. There are also variations in the speed of the commons, with walkers, joggers, runners, etc. The specials are hands down the most unreal and the most mutated out of the 3 games. There are 4 distinct "families" of special infected, and each family has 3 sub types, that look similar to each other with different abilities and a slight variation in appearance. This can lead to confusion with new players, and, based on personal opinion, can seem to be a bit lazy and unimaginative on the devs part. The specials kill you fast, and can take quite some punishment, unless the right perks and tactics are used.

-L4D2 has very well made commons, and a good selection of special infected, that are very well discernible. The specials are near human, but with mutations that give each of them a very unique ability. They are easy to spot, they can kill you fast, but most of them also die fast.

PVP:
-B4B has a PVP mode that is not enjoyable at all, and not played at all.

-WWZ has a PVP mode that is not enjoyable at all, and played by very few.

-L4D2 has PVP that is played by a lot of players, but a very toxic playerbase, many members of which abuse the kick option any chance they get. Very difficult to get into it as a new player, and even as a season PVE player. Get ready to get raged on, and kicked by tryhards who have 5000 hours in the game and tolerate no mistakes from anyone.

Modding:
Only L4D2 has mod support.

Progression and cosmetics:
Only WWZ and B4B have cosmetics and progression.

Time investment required:
-L4D2 requires no time investment at all. You can fire up the game, play a campaign for 30 - 60 minutes, and go do something else.

-B4B requires a significant time investment, as the chapters / campaigns are very long and can take 3-4 hours to complete. The game can be saved and continued, but only by the host. In order for the player to be able to tackle the top difficulties, a moderate amount of grinding is required, to unlock cards (perks).

-WWZ requires the player to grind a lot, in order to unlock perks and improve their weapons, which are required in order to play the top difficulties. The chapters of the campaigns can only be played individually, and each take from 15-30 minutes. The game can therefore technically be jumped into or out of without any problem.

Teamwork required: (solo means your teamates / bots have died)
-L4D2 can be beaten solo, as long as the player is knowledgeable about the game. There is little strategy, aside from shooting and conserving equipment and healing items.

-WWZ requires moderate teamwork, with each player playing a different role to benefit the team. It is impossible to solo.

-B4B requires a lot of teamwork, and a lot of planning before going on a campaign, for the selection of the right cards. The easier difficulties can be done solo, the harder ones are impossible to solo.

TLDR:

Gore: L4D2 > WWZ > B4B
Graphics: WWZ = B4B > L4D2
Movement: B4B > WWZ > L4D2
Combat: B4B > WWZ > L4D2
Level design: L4D2 > WWZ = B4B
Character design: L4D2 > WWZ > B4B
Enemy design: L4D2 > B4B > WWZ
PVP: L4D2 > B4B = WWZ
Modding: L4D2 only
Progression and Customisation: B4B > WWZ only
Time investment required to play: B4B: long, WWZ: short, L4D2 short.
Time investment required to 100%: WWZ: VERY long, B4B: long, L4D2: moderate.
Teamwork and coordination required: B4B > WWZ > L4D2

B4B is the most deep and modern
L4D2 has the most attention to detail
WWZ has a little bit of both

New content:
L4D2: Abandoned aside from bug fixes.
B4B: Abandoned .
WWZ: Updated 3-4 times a year, with DLCs coming out every now and then.

I was as honest and as objective as possible. I love all 3 games, and each have provided me with great memories and great moments of playing with friends. Hope I helped would be buyers understand the differences, and of course anyone can feel free to disagree, or dislike any of the 3 games, for whatever reason.
Peace.

[nicks husband coach]

does b4b contain coach tho?
no so therefore l4d2 is better because it has coach
edit: i didnt read all of that btw

[Olde]

I think you did a really nice assessment. I have about 2900 hours in L4D2, about 150 hours in B4B, and I only started playing a little bit of WWZ, although I like what I've played. The only thing I would disagree on is that B4B is "the most deep." I'd actually disagree with this, and I feel like you would too. Your own assessment is that L4D2 is the superior game in terms of enemy design, level design, and character design. I find that all ridden of the same "family" behave basically the same way, which is really less enemy diversity, and therefore more simplistic and less depth. You claimed that you just "point and shoot" in L4D2, well no, there's more to it than that (and plus if you really believe that, you can say the exact same thing for B4B).

Really you'd need a full video essay to go into all the details you'd want to do, because the card system + corruption cards stand at great odds with the vanilla gameplay of L4D2. Cost of Avarice and/or Ravenous in conjunction with other corruption cards that may personally irk you (like Tallboy Hordes or Charred Ridden personally irk me) drastically change how the levels are played.

You did mention mods but you didn't talk about the hundreds, if not over a thousand at this point, custom campaigns for L4D2, which adds so much more replayability. B4B has a good handful of campaigns but no custom ones, it gets old after a while.

Lastly, you didn't talk about the engine differences, really only graphical fidelity. Source has a much more "tangible" feel to the combat, whereas UE4 feels janky. When you hit something in Source, it definitely has a feeling of direct impact, you hit things and they react and sound accordingly. In B4B you can hack and slash at ridden, a bunch of fake jelly decals splatter, and the ridden either flop or keep attacking, who knows. Now I know that L4D2 also has a problem with hitreg on melee attacks, but that's about 10% of the time when a hit should register but doesn't. But it doesn't feel as slippery and uneventful as physically interacting with ridden and the world in B4B.

tl;dr L4D2 is probably easier than B4B, although I'd say B4B is less fair and not actually "deeper." L4D2 has more custom campaigns and the more impactful feeling engine. B4B has a progression system so that's nice to shoot for if you are a completionist, but L4D2 is less punishing and is the more chill, sandboxy, silly, and timeless game.

[nicks husband coach]

oh i didnt see that the post contained wwz

[Geebanger0]

I'm not entirely sure this is objective. For one, when you covered the graphics of each game you said that B4B and WWZ both had better graphics than L4D2. From the gameplay and images I've seen, both games certainly look a lot brighter and shinier than L4D2, and there's a lot more going on at once, but I wouldn't say they look any better. More realistic doesn't always look better, and many people (myself included) prefer the stylised realism of L4D2. If you wanted to be objective, you could say that L4D2 has the lowest graphical requirements, or that the other games have more detailed models and higher resolution textures, but you can't just say the other two games are better looking since thats subjective.

Building on from this, you also failed to cover system requirements. L4D2 can be run on a much cheaper and more basic setup than a game like B4B. If I were to try and run B4B on my laptop, I would need to completely butcher the graphical settings, and it would likely end up looking a lot worse than L4D2, which I can safely run on the highest settings with frames to spare. Whilst higher graphical requirements typically result in more impressive visuals, this is wasted if a large portion of the playerbase can't experience it.

I also have an issue with you docking L4D2 for its supposed lack of cosmetics and progression. You already mentioned that L4D2 has the community workshop, and there's also various other third party sites that provide mods (players can even make their own from scratch if they wish to). Would this not mean that L4D2 has effectively infinite cosmetic options? I understand it's not the same thing as unlocking various cosmetics within the game itself, but the developers clearly intend for players to make use of the workshop to personalise each survivor.

In terms of progression... well, how do you define it? What you see as progression, I might see as "pointlessly grinding for customisation options that I would otherwise be able to get instantly with the workshop", or even worse, "restricting the players ability to access in game content until the game deems them to be experienced enough". In either case, I wouldn't argue that these are good things. You could also argue that L4D2 has progression in the form of "starting on the easiest difficulty, then gradually working your way up to Expert or realism mode", or through in game achievements or the statistics that are tracked. This might be not the same as filling up an xp bar by grinding arbitrary objectives, but it fulfills a similar purpose of measuring how experienced the player is at the game.

Finally, you've described B4B and WWZ as having better movement and combat mechanics than L4D2, but again this can be subjective. I would view it as a case of more rather than better. You have more options at your disposal in the other 2 games, but in L4D2s case the fewer mechanics it does have are very fun and satisfying to use, and they complement every other aspect of the game. I would much rather have a game where I don't need to concern myself with managing stamina and sprint meters, aiming down sights with my shotgun, or creating a balanced build with perk cards, and can instead just have fun shooting zombies; in this case, the simpler mechanics in L4D2 would be better for me, as opposed to the more in depth and complicated ones in WWZ or B4B. (You also listed weapon skins as a combat mechanic for B4B, but this should really be grouped in with customisation since as far as I'm aware it has nothing to do with the games combat mechanics.)

[Dellio]

Hey man I respect it tbh I'm a l4d simp so you know what I think but I think ur points are fairly reasonable tbh and I'm one of the only l4d fans that actually like b4b and think it's pretty good rn. Wwz in my opinion is my least fav tho and ur points kinda exemplify that

[^9[DSS]Dahaka]

Originally posted by Olde:

I think you did a really nice assessment. I have about 2900 hours in L4D2, about 150 hours in B4B, and I only started playing a little bit of WWZ, although I like what I've played. The only thing I would disagree on is that B4B is "the most deep." I'd actually disagree with this, and I feel like you would too. Your own assessment is that L4D2 is the superior game in terms of enemy design, level design, and character design. I find that all ridden of the same "family" behave basically the same way, which is really less enemy diversity, and therefore more simplistic and less depth. You claimed that you just "point and shoot" in L4D2, well no, there's more to it than that (and plus if you really believe that, you can say the exact same thing for B4B).

Really you'd need a full video essay to go into all the details you'd want to do, because the card system + corruption cards stand at great odds with the vanilla gameplay of L4D2. Cost of Avarice and/or Ravenous in conjunction with other corruption cards that may personally irk you (like Tallboy Hordes or Charred Ridden personally irk me) drastically change how the levels are played.

You did mention mods but you didn't talk about the hundreds, if not over a thousand at this point, custom campaigns for L4D2, which adds so much more replayability. B4B has a good handful of campaigns but no custom ones, it gets old after a while.

Lastly, you didn't talk about the engine differences, really only graphical fidelity. Source has a much more "tangible" feel to the combat, whereas UE4 feels janky. When you hit something in Source, it definitely has a feeling of direct impact, you hit things and they react and sound accordingly. In B4B you can hack and slash at ridden, a bunch of fake jelly decals splatter, and the ridden either flop or keep attacking, who knows. Now I know that L4D2 also has a problem with hitreg on melee attacks, but that's about 10% of the time when a hit should register but doesn't. But it doesn't feel as slippery and uneventful as physically interacting with ridden and the world in B4B.

tl;dr L4D2 is probably easier than B4B, although I'd say B4B is less fair and not actually "deeper." L4D2 has more custom campaigns and the more impactful feeling engine. B4B has a progression system so that's nice to shoot for if you are a completionist, but L4D2 is less punishing and is the more chill, sandboxy, silly, and timeless game.

By depth I meant that in L4D2 you basically jump into the game, you aim and you shoot, you throw a pipe bomb or bile bomb when pressured by too many commons, you crown the witch, and you throw a molotov at the tank. There is no planning and no strategy to it. The specials aside from the boomer are basically countered by shooting them as soon as you see them. B4B and WWZ has mechanics like weakspots, or special places where you need to shoot the special zombies in order to avoid negative effects, or gain positive effects. Aesthetically, the L4D2 specials are the most unique and the most pleasing though. Combat wise, they are the simplest. The tank is the one special that L4D2 does better than both games.
Can you play B4B or WWZ the same way? Yes, maybe the easiest difficulty, but most likely, that will give you trouble at some point as well. WWZ and B4B need not only strategy, but 4 players coordinating their strategy. If you go into the harder difficulties with 4 damage dealers, chances are you will fail. You need a healer, you need a horde controller, a damage dealer etc.

Mods are self explanatory, yes they offer endless content, but I cannot take that content into consideration while comparing the games. Can you make L4D2 more realistic and better looking if you use 3985 mods? Maybe you can. Maybe not. I can only say that one game has mod support, and the other 2 don't.

I think I kinda covered it in sound design, the L4D2 and WWZ weapons feel punchier than the B4B ones, and feel less generic as well.

I don't know if you can objectively talk about fairness, it's kind of a subjective matter, for example, is dark souls fair? I'd say it's one of the fairest games of all time, punishing but fair, but other people strongly disagree with me on that. B4B is very punishing for those who do not strategize, and coordinate their strategies with their teamates, it also requires adaptability aside from skill in aiming and shooting. It can be more unpredictable than L4D2 and WWZ, where if you know how the director works, you can predict and adapt a lot more easily.

Originally posted by Geebanger0:

I'm not entirely sure this is objective. For one, when you covered the graphics of each game you said that B4B and WWZ both had better graphics than L4D2. From the gameplay and images I've seen, both games certainly look a lot brighter and shinier than L4D2, and there's a lot more going on at once, but I wouldn't say they look any better. More realistic doesn't always look better, and many people (myself included) prefer the stylised realism of L4D2. If you wanted to be objective, you could say that L4D2 has the lowest graphical requirements, or that the other games have more detailed models and higher resolution textures, but you can't just say the other two games are better looking since thats subjective.

Building on from this, you also failed to cover system requirements. L4D2 can be run on a much cheaper and more basic setup than a game like B4B. If I were to try and run B4B on my laptop, I would need to completely butcher the graphical settings, and it would likely end up looking a lot worse than L4D2, which I can safely run on the highest settings with frames to spare. Whilst higher graphical requirements typically result in more impressive visuals, this is wasted if a large portion of the playerbase can't experience it.

I also have an issue with you docking L4D2 for its supposed lack of cosmetics and progression. You already mentioned that L4D2 has the community workshop, and there's also various other third party sites that provide mods (players can even make their own from scratch if they wish to). Would this not mean that L4D2 has effectively infinite cosmetic options? I understand it's not the same thing as unlocking various cosmetics within the game itself, but the developers clearly intend for players to make use of the workshop to personalise each survivor.

In terms of progression... well, how do you define it? What you see as progression, I might see as "pointlessly grinding for customisation options that I would otherwise be able to get instantly with the workshop", or even worse, "restricting the players ability to access in game content until the game deems them to be experienced enough". In either case, I wouldn't argue that these are good things. You could also argue that L4D2 has progression in the form of "starting on the easiest difficulty, then gradually working your way up to Expert or realism mode", or through in game achievements or the statistics that are tracked. This might be not the same as filling up an xp bar by grinding arbitrary objectives, but it fulfills a similar purpose of measuring how experienced the player is at the game.

Finally, you've described B4B and WWZ as having better movement and combat mechanics than L4D2, but again this can be subjective. I would view it as a case of more rather than better. You have more options at your disposal in the other 2 games, but in L4D2s case the fewer mechanics it does have are very fun and satisfying to use, and they complement every other aspect of the game. I would much rather have a game where I don't need to concern myself with managing stamina and sprint meters, aiming down sights with my shotgun, or creating a balanced build with perk cards, and can instead just have fun shooting zombies; in this case, the simpler mechanics in L4D2 would be better for me, as opposed to the more in depth and complicated ones in WWZ or B4B. (You also listed weapon skins as a combat mechanic for B4B, but this should really be grouped in with customisation since as far as I'm aware it has nothing to do with the games combat mechanics.)

We can disagree on this, but according to my logic and POV, all 3 games are going for realistic, or at least believable post apocalyptic graphics. None of the game tries to be cartoony like TF2 or Borderlands, nor pixelly like minecraft, or artsy / movie like like other games. So it is therefore fair to say that the game with the most realistic graphics, that look more like the reality they are trying to portray, has the better graphics.

I did not cover system requirements, because it would not be fair to do so. Is star wars: shadow of the empire a better game than star wars: battlefront 2 because one needs a beefy computer while the other can probably run on a calculator? Yes, if your computer cannot handle a game, that does not mean that said game is bad, you just can't play it. For the same reason, I did not include that L4D2 is basically only available on steam, (yeah xbox too, but who the hell plays L4D2 on xbox?), while both other games are available on a wide range of platforms AND have crossplay. So is more accessibility a deciding factor? Because if it is, then B4B and WWZ win by a wide margin.

Yes, mods are self explanatory. There can be as much content as players make. Which is a good thing, I cannot argue against that. And I did say that L4D2 is hands down the most superior in this regard, since it's the only one that has mod support. I can't take into consideration mods when I compare games though, as I said to the other person above, there is no point in making a comparison between vanilla WWZ and B4B vs L4D2 loaded with 457 mods. I can say though that WWZ and B4B don't need graphical improvement mods as much as L4D2 needs them, since it was released 13 or so years ago.

I define progression as it is in modern games. Gaining strength for your character(s) and cosmetics that you can display for other players to see. Yes you can say you have infinite cosmetics when you have mods, but nobody sees that. It's different when everyone plays by the same rules and you can see which player has the most skill, which player has invested the most time into the game etc. You can say none of that matters TO YOU, because you don't need it or consider it important, but I cannot make a comparison and disregard all that can I? Especially since it DOES matter for a lot of people.

When it comes to realism, people don't float over the ground in all 4 directions at the same speed all the time. You also cant hipfire an ak47 or an M60 and hit you target with pinpoint accuracy. Suspension of disbelief is different for each person, maybe a dragon showing up and burning the zombies is not immersion breaking and unbelievable to you, but it is to other people. As someone who moves around regularly, and has shot guns IRL, I cannot suspend my disbelief with the mechanics of L4D2. And even IF i could, it changes nothing, B4B and WWZ have better, more realistic movement and shooting mechanics, that give a larger depth to the game. If you don't want these things, that's fine, but that is subjective, not objective.

[King Of Lolis]

i aint reading all that bruv 💀
just say l4d2 better and be done with it

[XerXarii]

yeah man back 4 blood was a scam with malware im not even kidding

[Shin Navideño]

Unlike B4B, WWZ can actually compete with l4d2 to an extent due the massive zombie numbers and scale.

[^9[DSS]Dahaka]

Originally posted by Armed Suspect in Wheelchair:

yeah man back 4 blood was a scam with malware im not even kidding

What was the malware? I've had the game since release, i'me routinely doing monetary transactions and whatnot on my PC, sending business emails, and whatever else, nothing ever went wrong, no passwords leaked, nothing was hacked.... IDK man, sounds like you just came up with that.

Originally posted by King Of Lolis:

i aint reading all that bruv 💀
just say l4d2 better and be done with it

That would not be the objective truth. The game is great, but leaves a lot to be desired.
And why did you even click the thread if you don't want to read it? It's an objective comparison for 3 similar games, for those who are interested what to buy or not to buy.

[King Of Lolis]

im just here for le memes and see why are people again baiting or comparing b4b and this game despite being hard different :P

and l4d2 still better cuz its easy and has a workshop

[Sasha Pines (no brain)]

Originally posted by King Of Lolis:

im just here for le memes and see why are people again baiting or comparing b4b and this game despite being hard different :P

and l4d2 still better cuz its easy and has a workshop

hightly doubt is a bait at all consider he enjoy all 3 of them enough to write the flaw of all game i respect these man that take their time doing research like this

[Geebanger0]

Originally posted by ^9DSSDahaka:

Originally posted by Olde:

I think you did a really nice assessment. I have about 2900 hours in L4D2, about 150 hours in B4B, and I only started playing a little bit of WWZ, although I like what I've played. The only thing I would disagree on is that B4B is "the most deep." I'd actually disagree with this, and I feel like you would too. Your own assessment is that L4D2 is the superior game in terms of enemy design, level design, and character design. I find that all ridden of the same "family" behave basically the same way, which is really less enemy diversity, and therefore more simplistic and less depth. You claimed that you just "point and shoot" in L4D2, well no, there's more to it than that (and plus if you really believe that, you can say the exact same thing for B4B).

Really you'd need a full video essay to go into all the details you'd want to do, because the card system + corruption cards stand at great odds with the vanilla gameplay of L4D2. Cost of Avarice and/or Ravenous in conjunction with other corruption cards that may personally irk you (like Tallboy Hordes or Charred Ridden personally irk me) drastically change how the levels are played.

You did mention mods but you didn't talk about the hundreds, if not over a thousand at this point, custom campaigns for L4D2, which adds so much more replayability. B4B has a good handful of campaigns but no custom ones, it gets old after a while.

Lastly, you didn't talk about the engine differences, really only graphical fidelity. Source has a much more "tangible" feel to the combat, whereas UE4 feels janky. When you hit something in Source, it definitely has a feeling of direct impact, you hit things and they react and sound accordingly. In B4B you can hack and slash at ridden, a bunch of fake jelly decals splatter, and the ridden either flop or keep attacking, who knows. Now I know that L4D2 also has a problem with hitreg on melee attacks, but that's about 10% of the time when a hit should register but doesn't. But it doesn't feel as slippery and uneventful as physically interacting with ridden and the world in B4B.

tl;dr L4D2 is probably easier than B4B, although I'd say B4B is less fair and not actually "deeper." L4D2 has more custom campaigns and the more impactful feeling engine. B4B has a progression system so that's nice to shoot for if you are a completionist, but L4D2 is less punishing and is the more chill, sandboxy, silly, and timeless game.

By depth I meant that in L4D2 you basically jump into the game, you aim and you shoot, you throw a pipe bomb or bile bomb when pressured by too many commons, you crown the witch, and you throw a molotov at the tank. There is no planning and no strategy to it. The specials aside from the boomer are basically countered by shooting them as soon as you see them. B4B and WWZ has mechanics like weakspots, or special places where you need to shoot the special zombies in order to avoid negative effects, or gain positive effects. Aesthetically, the L4D2 specials are the most unique and the most pleasing though. Combat wise, they are the simplest. The tank is the one special that L4D2 does better than both games.
Can you play B4B or WWZ the same way? Yes, maybe the easiest difficulty, but most likely, that will give you trouble at some point as well. WWZ and B4B need not only strategy, but 4 players coordinating their strategy. If you go into the harder difficulties with 4 damage dealers, chances are you will fail. You need a healer, you need a horde controller, a damage dealer etc.

Mods are self explanatory, yes they offer endless content, but I cannot take that content into consideration while comparing the games. Can you make L4D2 more realistic and better looking if you use 3985 mods? Maybe you can. Maybe not. I can only say that one game has mod support, and the other 2 don't.

I think I kinda covered it in sound design, the L4D2 and WWZ weapons feel punchier than the B4B ones, and feel less generic as well.

I don't know if you can objectively talk about fairness, it's kind of a subjective matter, for example, is dark souls fair? I'd say it's one of the fairest games of all time, punishing but fair, but other people strongly disagree with me on that. B4B is very punishing for those who do not strategize, and coordinate their strategies with their teamates, it also requires adaptability aside from skill in aiming and shooting. It can be more unpredictable than L4D2 and WWZ, where if you know how the director works, you can predict and adapt a lot more easily.

Originally posted by Geebanger0:

I'm not entirely sure this is objective. For one, when you covered the graphics of each game you said that B4B and WWZ both had better graphics than L4D2. From the gameplay and images I've seen, both games certainly look a lot brighter and shinier than L4D2, and there's a lot more going on at once, but I wouldn't say they look any better. More realistic doesn't always look better, and many people (myself included) prefer the stylised realism of L4D2. If you wanted to be objective, you could say that L4D2 has the lowest graphical requirements, or that the other games have more detailed models and higher resolution textures, but you can't just say the other two games are better looking since thats subjective.

Building on from this, you also failed to cover system requirements. L4D2 can be run on a much cheaper and more basic setup than a game like B4B. If I were to try and run B4B on my laptop, I would need to completely butcher the graphical settings, and it would likely end up looking a lot worse than L4D2, which I can safely run on the highest settings with frames to spare. Whilst higher graphical requirements typically result in more impressive visuals, this is wasted if a large portion of the playerbase can't experience it.

I also have an issue with you docking L4D2 for its supposed lack of cosmetics and progression. You already mentioned that L4D2 has the community workshop, and there's also various other third party sites that provide mods (players can even make their own from scratch if they wish to). Would this not mean that L4D2 has effectively infinite cosmetic options? I understand it's not the same thing as unlocking various cosmetics within the game itself, but the developers clearly intend for players to make use of the workshop to personalise each survivor.

In terms of progression... well, how do you define it? What you see as progression, I might see as "pointlessly grinding for customisation options that I would otherwise be able to get instantly with the workshop", or even worse, "restricting the players ability to access in game content until the game deems them to be experienced enough". In either case, I wouldn't argue that these are good things. You could also argue that L4D2 has progression in the form of "starting on the easiest difficulty, then gradually working your way up to Expert or realism mode", or through in game achievements or the statistics that are tracked. This might be not the same as filling up an xp bar by grinding arbitrary objectives, but it fulfills a similar purpose of measuring how experienced the player is at the game.

Finally, you've described B4B and WWZ as having better movement and combat mechanics than L4D2, but again this can be subjective. I would view it as a case of more rather than better. You have more options at your disposal in the other 2 games, but in L4D2s case the fewer mechanics it does have are very fun and satisfying to use, and they complement every other aspect of the game. I would much rather have a game where I don't need to concern myself with managing stamina and sprint meters, aiming down sights with my shotgun, or creating a balanced build with perk cards, and can instead just have fun shooting zombies; in this case, the simpler mechanics in L4D2 would be better for me, as opposed to the more in depth and complicated ones in WWZ or B4B. (You also listed weapon skins as a combat mechanic for B4B, but this should really be grouped in with customisation since as far as I'm aware it has nothing to do with the games combat mechanics.)

We can disagree on this, but according to my logic and POV, all 3 games are going for realistic, or at least believable post apocalyptic graphics. None of the game tries to be cartoony like TF2 or Borderlands, nor pixelly like minecraft, or artsy / movie like like other games. So it is therefore fair to say that the game with the most realistic graphics, that look more like the reality they are trying to portray, has the better graphics.

I did not cover system requirements, because it would not be fair to do so. Is star wars: shadow of the empire a better game than star wars: battlefront 2 because one needs a beefy computer while the other can probably run on a calculator? Yes, if your computer cannot handle a game, that does not mean that said game is bad, you just can't play it. For the same reason, I did not include that L4D2 is basically only available on steam, (yeah xbox too, but who the hell plays L4D2 on xbox?), while both other games are available on a wide range of platforms AND have crossplay. So is more accessibility a deciding factor? Because if it is, then B4B and WWZ win by a wide margin.

Yes, mods are self explanatory. There can be as much content as players make. Which is a good thing, I cannot argue against that. And I did say that L4D2 is hands down the most superior in this regard, since it's the only one that has mod support. I can't take into consideration mods when I compare games though, as I said to the other person above, there is no point in making a comparison between vanilla WWZ and B4B vs L4D2 loaded with 457 mods. I can say though that WWZ and B4B don't need graphical improvement mods as much as L4D2 needs them, since it was released 13 or so years ago.

I define progression as it is in modern games. Gaining strength for your character(s) and cosmetics that you can display for other players to see. Yes you can say you have infinite cosmetics when you have mods, but nobody sees that. It's different when everyone plays by the same rules and you can see which player has the most skill, which player has invested the most time into the game etc. You can say none of that matters TO YOU, because you don't need it or consider it important, but I cannot make a comparison and disregard all that can I? Especially since it DOES matter for a lot of people.

When it comes to realism, people don't float over the ground in all 4 directions at the same speed all the time. You also cant hipfire an ak47 or an M60 and hit you target with pinpoint accuracy. Suspension of disbelief is different for each person, maybe a dragon showing up and burning the zombies is not immersion breaking and unbelievable to you, but it is to other people. As someone who moves around regularly, and has shot guns IRL, I cannot suspend my disbelief with the mechanics of L4D2. And even IF i could, it changes nothing, B4B and WWZ have better, more realistic movement and shooting mechanics, that give a larger depth to the game. If you don't want these things, that's fine, but that is subjective, not objective.

The issue is you specify several times that you're being objective, and that you don't favour any particular game over the others, and yet you've concluded the post by ordering the games within many subjective categories that largely come down to your own opinions, yet are presented as fact. If you want to discuss the merits of each game based on how you personally view them, that's completely fine, but don't say you're discussing it based purely on facts and then do the exact opposite.