Which is better Back 4 Blood Or Left 4 Dead?

[Dir†y McNΔ§†ÿ× {ҐӬҌӭls}♠]

Why?

[Dakuwan]

B4B because its the next evolution of a corner stone of horde shooters.

[APN34Z]

I like them both just as much as each other for reasons i cant b arsed to explain cuz im 6 pints in 😂

[Bleydoka]

I enjoy b4b a bit more but it misses campaign pvp and distinguishable special zombies. After many hours of play they still look all the same to me.

[水龍吟]

l42 def simplier but b4b is pretty fun with the deck system..

[Rogress (UA)]

L4D since B4B has a lot of balancing issues and really unpredictable and unfair gameplay, you can get screwed at any moment and your skill won't matter. They need to fix enemy spawning and balance number of elites that spawn before it can become really enjoyable.

[Víєгα Ɍόѕє]

Easy, B4B, it takes everything L4D and L4D2 did and amplifies it 10x. The Campaign is amazing, the PvP is a blast to play, the progression in the game is *chefs kiss*.

[AutumnWolf]

B4B over L4D any day, my game time for both those games speaks for its self. i think i spent overall 16 hours on L4D. B4B, theres just something about it i just cant get enough of. Its so much damn fun.

[derp face]

L4D was a pvp game that happened to have half decent coop mode too.
B4B is a coop game that has a pvp that isn't good.
It's sad if the L4D pvp is never going to be re-done but i personally hated the pvp in l4d2 after being so engrossed in l4d1 anyway.
Hopefully a new l4d versus gets made.

For me it goes L4D1 > B4B > L4D2

[Dances_with_Zombies]

L4D because it has no artificial progression system.

[Acidshock]

Personally I think L4D is better. Dont get me wrong both are great games. However L4D just did a better job at the overall game experience. The VS mode was top notch in L4D. The team play was much better too. The game was simpler and the graphics werent nearly as nice. However it had a better ambiance and fostered a lot more communication.

I dont know why its different in B4B. I havent figured it out yet but for some reason the communication just doesnt get drawn out of the players nearly as much as in L4D. I have noticed that if people stray off in B4B they are not as "screwed" as you would be in L4D. I think it also has to deal with the cross play. It seems like the cross play crowd just doesnt take things nearly as seriously as the PC gamers. Just a lot of toxic people from the console environment. I guess ultimately what I am getting at is L4D did a much better job at making it a pleasant social gaming experience vs B4B. I think you already are seeing it effect the life span of B4B.

[Hoppled]

Left 4 Dead 2: Has better PvP, more content, ragdoll physics, a PvP mode people actually want to play, endless modding support, better/more fun melee combat effects, free updates for the past 10 years, better enemy types and AI, better game director and much better balance. All for 10 dollars.

Back 4 Blood: Has none of the things I just mentioned L4D2 has. Back 4 Blood has a 6-8 hour linear campaign with a card system and "classes" that don't matter much, they're there to just artificially pad out the content and "replayability". The PvP mode is probably the worst PvP mode I have ever seen. I feel like they had to try to make it that bad.

If you want to spend 60 dollars on a game with an 8 hour story mode that is boring once you beat it... go ahead. I'll enjoy left 4 dead or killing floor 2 if I want to shoot zombies.

[Duke of the Dabbleverse]

I wish there was more character progression besides the card unlocks but its a great game.

[Duke of the Dabbleverse]

Originally posted by Hopland:

Left 4 Dead 2: Has better PvP, more content, ragdoll physics, a PvP mode people actually want to play, endless modding support, better/more fun melee combat effects, free updates for the past 10 years, better enemy types and AI, better game director and much better balance. All for 10 dollars.

Back 4 Blood: Has none of the things I just mentioned L4D2 has. Back 4 Blood has a 6-8 hour linear campaign with a card system and "classes" that don't matter much, they're there to just artificially pad out the content and "replayability". The PvP mode is probably the worst PvP mode I have ever seen. I feel like they had to try to make it that bad.

If you want to spend 60 dollars on a game with an 8 hour story mode that is boring once you beat it... go ahead. I'll enjoy left 4 dead or killing floor 2 if I want to shoot zombies.

You better refund it before you play more than the 50 minutes you've already accumulated.

[AutumnWolf]

Originally posted by Hopland:

Left 4 Dead 2: Has better PvP, more content, ragdoll physics, a PvP mode people actually want to play, endless modding support, better/more fun melee combat effects, free updates for the past 10 years, better enemy types and AI, better game director and much better balance. All for 10 dollars.

Back 4 Blood: Has none of the things I just mentioned L4D2 has. Back 4 Blood has a 6-8 hour linear campaign with a card system and "classes" that don't matter much, they're there to just artificially pad out the content and "replayability". The PvP mode is probably the worst PvP mode I have ever seen. I feel like they had to try to make it that bad.

If you want to spend 60 dollars on a game with an 8 hour story mode that is boring once you beat it... go ahead. I'll enjoy left 4 dead or killing floor 2 if I want to shoot zombies.

Back4Blood 0.9 hours accumilated. You didnt even play the game -_-
Left4dead2 48 hours oh my goodness xD

[Parrots]

Left 4 Dead 2, Back 4 Blood is good but it's hard to beat whats basically perfect imo.

Back 4 Blood could use many improvements and hopefully they'll come overtime.