Compare this game to world war z

[Tuxicoman [FR]]

I wonder which to buy
games looks similar from description (coop zombie game)
b4b got hype then bad reviews + price is expensive
world war z is old and thus maybe missing players

i'm mostly interested with random coop. i love helldivers, deep rock galactic...

[civilian]

Publicado originalmente por Gracey Face:

Publicado originalmente por civilian:

Forgot those. But my point still stands.
The guy I was replying to said the cards we unlock is RNG based, which is completely false

The cards you get in supply lines is RNG isn't it? (I had assumed so but I don't actually know.)

No, they are in static order.
Some guy even made a spread sheet of each supply line's card unlock order.

[Vaker]

Publicado originalmente por Gracey Face:

Publicado originalmente por civilian:

Forgot those. But my point still stands.
The guy I was replying to said the cards we unlock is RNG based, which is completely false

The cards you get in supply lines is RNG isn't it? (I had assumed so but I don't actually know.)

It's not
I don't know how it is now but before december's update you had 3 lines of supply lines
The first one was for damage + AR/sniper builds
The second one mostly for medic/support builds
The third one for mobility + shotgun/SMG builds
and you had cards in the same order on these supply lines (no RNG)

[Bullied by Pigeon]

B4B is better than worldwarz..

[icardias]

Wwz have more content, but have a fix finale etc, b4b has a more dinamic flow with the corrupted cards, but its expensive if you could get both

[Sisyphe]

HI there,

Imo back 4 blood has more "replayability" than World War Z. With its deck building and rogue lite features, the possibility of playing an infected like in killing floor 2. And of course less microtransactions and payable characters ahah.

he overall atmosphere of the 2 games is similar but if you are looking for a game that occupies you for a long time: B4B is the best option.

But if you can try both, do it. I had a lot of fun playing it with friends and I have no doubt that you would like it too. (Oh, and if you are unfortunately playing on your own WWZ is not an option as it will be more frustrating than fun).

anyway, have fun killing zombies!

Take care :)

[Erotic Tails]

ROCK AND STONE!

[Z3pHyr]

Hard to say which one is better or will be to your liking since its subjective for each person. i have both games and personally i enjoy both of them. Both are zombie shooter but there are different kind of gameplay and mechanic. tbh a youtube review of each gameplay/review or trying both of them yourself on 1$ gamepass might be a best option before buying it on steam. Anyway... ROCK AND STONE!

[The Knight Who Say Ni]

Wwz is much better it has a linear progression system. use the class you like, special regular spawns that are not broken very nice as a game. If the problem is the few players? Do not worry b4b is falling soon will have 'as many wwz or less. L4d2 never disappoints if you want to play real first person shooter with zombies and it has a lot of people playing with it.

[Comrade Pickles]

Publicado originalmente por Gracey Face:

I only played the pre first person version of WWZ and I believe it has changed quite a bit. WWZ had less variety in gameplay and builds (all of the classes are almost identical) but more interesting maps and a more "cinematic" presentation (which you'd expect being based off of a film).

A thing to note however is that WWZ had a crazy amount of grind back then. To fully unlock a class you had to prestige it 4 times, which was hundreds of hours of gameplay, and that's the only way you'd get any kind of variability between the classes since the prestige unlocked the "class specific" skills.

I bought WWZ on release from Epic and was even a community mod for their discord and people actively shared maxed out save files and devs did not care. So grind is only up to the player.

[Gracey Face]

Publicado originalmente por Comrade Pickles:

I bought WWZ on release from Epic and was even a community mod for their discord and people actively shared maxed out save files and devs did not care. So grind is only up to the player.

Some people don't immediately go to the discords or other social medias of the games that they play. Unless the game itself tells you that you can skip the grind in this way, which it didn't when I played it, then it doesn't matter.

[Mazzle Dazzle]

Publicado originalmente por Tuxicoman FR:

I wonder which to buy
games looks similar from description (coop zombie game)
b4b got hype then bad reviews + price is expensive
world war z is old and thus maybe missing players

i'm mostly interested with random coop. i love helldivers, deep rock galactic...

Depends what you like. If you like complicated team builds and tough as nails teamplay that is a bit chaotic as well as a fairly polished experience, I think Back 4 blood is the way to go. If you want more simplified progression, gameplay, and a B-C tier experience, go for WWZ. Both are great team games though so I'd get both if you can.

[DeadSlash]

Play them both on the Microsoft PC pass. I think WWZ is 10x better than B4B, but some people here obviously feel the direct opposite. The only way to know for sure if to play them yourself.

IMO, WWZ is a lot more like L4D in the sense that you can just play. You have leveling in the game to keep it a little more interesting long term, but all of the unlocks make the game more fun as opposed to making it "playable." This is in direct contrast to B4B that has cards that you need to grind to make the game "playable." They do what I considered to be dumb unnecessarily ♥♥♥♥ like making you gassed after 10 steps of sprinting... Don't like it? Oh, easy fix, just equip the "I don't have asthma and congestive heart failure" card and you can sprint a reasonable amount.

If you want a game you can play casually and wipe out MASSIVE HORDES of zombies, WWZ. If you want to bust out an excel spreadsheet and do preparation equivalent to the amount that went into the Bin Laden raid, go with B4B.

Again, that's my opinion, play them both on game pass, and decide for yourself.

[BRUTAL BUNDY]

i got World war Z for free over Epic games few month ago, i tried it and i quickly forgot it. I think that B4B is much more better, the feeling with the guns is better, zombies's physic is better.

[thangauto96]

now no one play B4B :]]

[Reggae Sauce]

Publicado originalmente por reaxxion:

Buy WWZ there is more fun. In WWZ you'll feel yourself in the centre of zombie apocalipse, millions of zombies on the screen, you can choose any balanced playable class and enchance it. Very fun game and number of players in the game is solid. Back 4 Blood is a China copy of the Left for Dead 2 and you'll get bored very soon.

+1 Also Seldom Seen Kid is a banging record