Poll: Left 4 Dead or Left 4 Dead 2?

[MajorTomServo]

Which do you prefer, and why?

For me, I prefer the original. Why? Let me give you a bulleted list because Im too tired to form a coherent paragraph.

-I prefer the original survivors. Except Ellis. He's my fave. Though Zoey is a close second, because she's a college kid who skips class to watch zombie movies and wears red hoodies, jeans, and converse. Just like I do!

-Shotguns are more satisfying. In L4D you could charge a group of two zombies and blow their legs off. Shooting a zombie charging at you knocked them off their feet and sent them flying backwards. In L4D2, they just kinda stumble, and if they're charging, they just kind of fall on their back.

-Easier to move. The shove-back seems way nerfed in L4D2. And getting lightly tapped by a zombie almost completely prevents you from moving at all, which makes it very easy to get caught in the mosh when the pace picks up. Which brings me to my next point...

-No Spitters or Jockeys. These guys are more annoying than anything IMHO. Spitters can incap you at full health if you get caught in a clusterfluff of zombies when she decides to spew on you. Still, I guess that's just part of what she was designed to do. And I can accept it, because most of the time, we just kill her, avoid her body, and move on. But Jockeys... hoo boy. I dont mind chargers and smokers, because they can be dodged relatively easily, by sidestepping or shooting in their general direction. But Jockeys, you hear the laugh, have a few seconds to shoot a target the size of a watermelon that can take a surprisingly high number of bullets, and next thing you know you're way behind everyone. And your teammates will likely free you by trying to shoot the head humper off. And continue to shoot. Even after he's off. Thanks.

-Slightly better playerbase. Since it's last years model, usually all the people you play with are L4D veterans feeling nostalgic or people who prefer the way things were. All the 12 year olds who just derp around with a machete calling the zombies fags are in the newer edition. DONT GET ME WRONG THOUGH. Most players are legit in both games.

-And finally, no fetch finales. Man, those are not fun. Especially in The Passing.



So anyway, what do you think?

 

[Supertegwyn]

I personally prefer L4D2, mostly due to melee weapons.

They are both decent games, and I'm happy to play both.

 

[Kingme18]

I feel like left 4 dead 2 took the first one, and made it better in almost every way. So, yeah. L4D2

 

[A Weary Exile]

There is literally no reason to buy the first game unless you're averse to melee weapons, new special infected, uncommon commons, new throwables, new firearms, and a community that isn't *completely* dead.

Killing Floor is just...eh. Doesn't compare to L4D2 in my mind.

 

[piplink]

L4D2, because the community is dead, and melee weapons. that is all.

 

[Vivi22]

Left 4 Dead 2. Aside from the obvious fact that almost all if not all of the L4D levels are now in L4D2, the new infected and additional items and weapons improved the game a lot. Simply camping in a corner when the horde came was far too good in the original. L4D2 made other strategies a lot more viable, and gave you good reason to have everyone using a variety of different weapon types. It wasn't all 2 handguns and either a shotgun or the assault rifle as the main.

Sure the shove is somewhat less effective, but that's because of how crazy powerful melee weapons are when you're up close. And yeah, you slow down a bit more when hit, but that's also why the adrenaline shot is there for when you really need to move (and why it's not just straight up better to always take the pills). I also happened to like the gauntlet finales quite a bit a lot of the time, though certain ones are a bit of a pain in the ass. But they add more variety than simply hunkering down until the horde passes/rescue comes.

Also, gibs.

 

[castlewise]

Left 4 Dead 2 now contains all (almost all?) of the L4D maps and it has better mechanics. I've played killing floor before, but wasn't able to get into it.

 

[CleverNickname]

L4D2

When I played the first one on a free weekend, it didn't faze me in the slightest, I didn't buy it, I didn't want it, I never thought about it again.

When L4D2 was on sale for 6.75? I didn't buy it and got yelled at here on the Escapist for being a cheap bastard
I got the last laugh when I instead bought it one sale later at 5?. Booyah.

And I played the hell out of it. I was very much hooked. It was great fun, I played it over and over again, I played a quick campaign for fun, before dinner, to unwind.

A few months ago my friend gifted me L4D1 and we played No Mercy. I hated every minute of it, and quickly noticed why.

Left 4 Dead feels like a rushed HL2 mod with all its downsides and limits. L4D2 was definitely designed to be a L4D game from the ground up.
I understand perfectly why they made the "sequel" only a year after the original, and it makes sense to port the campaigns over. L4D1 was one of the many tests Valve loves doing. When it worked, they made a real game out of the idea. One that doesn't feel and look half-finished. I mean, what is up with that slidy movement and those 3rd-rate weapon animations? Why would anyone think unlimited melee-shoving was a good idea? How can anyone look forward to a 3-Hunter spawn? Who would ever want to go through zombies without a fire axe?

 

[Gammayun]

I personally prefer L4D2, mostly due to melee weapons.

They are both decent games, and I'm happy to play both.

Yeah the whole chainsaw or katana to the crowd of zombies is kinda of a difficult point to match.

 

[JB1528]

Left 4 Dead 2 on PC has all the original L4D campaigns in it so L4D2 for me.

 

[Phlakes]

I really like the first one and all its atmosphere, but 2's gameplay is so expanded and polished it makes up for the complete tone shift that I don't like.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'll always prefer the first one to the second, largely because the difficulty level seems a bit more spot-on in it. The second one seems to be all about grabbing the players by the balls, curb-stomping them for fun and tossing them into a pit of boiling pitch for profit.

Which has its allure in a few occasions (as I don't *hate* L4D2 outright either), but largely remains sort of an obstacle to fun. Dark Carnival's finale never fails to make me gnash my teeth. I've tried six or seven strategies, the teams I've been on tried to plan things out surgically - but the AI Director pretty much tosses emergent gameplay in our faces even when we try our hardest to keep the zombies at bay or to ration our supplies.

And in L4D2, "Emergent Gameplay" is another way of saying "Getting Your Ass Kicked".

That, and I'll be pretty shameful in saying that I loves me some closet camping. What a ridiculously efficient plan. I'm just glad the first game's zombies can take less punishment than a flimsy slice of Swiss cheese, even on the hardest difficulty.

 

[Lev The Red]

seeing as L4D2 has all the content of L4D1, L4D2 wins by default.

i agree that Jockeys need to have their either their health or their ability to jump nerfed, but beyond that the game is fantastic.

and i don't know what you're talking about, "veteran players." i own both games (for PC), and L4D1 has a TOOOOOOOOOOOON of noobs who buy the first one over the sequel because it'c cheaper. in L4D2, if you go idle, even for a second, there's generally a vote to kick you.

shove-back was nerfed for a reason: it was waaaaay to strong in L4D1. you could knock back an entire hoard before fatiguing yourself. same thing with shotguns. as someone who's been around all kinds of guns his entire life, i can attest to the fact that L4D1's shotguns were comical. they were way to accurate and strong at longer ranges.

aspects of the game were made intentionally harder to force players to work together. now, i'll admit that most people still play it rather selfishly, grabbing every pill and pipebomb their cursors cross like they did in L4D1, but when you get a real team started, those fetch-finales you complain about are extremely fun and satisfying compared to L4D1's hide-in-the-corner-till-help-comes-then-make-a-break-for-it finales.

 

[Cazza]

Left 4 Dead

You could see your legs in 1st person. (Why take that out?) (You didn't like it? Make an option to turn it off)
I liked the original survivors. I hate the ones in L4D2
I liked the feel of the weapons in the first one
I prefered the maps in L4D. I feel bitter that they ported some over.

I found the Smoker,Boomer,hunter infected worked. You get one of those and you know what to do and when to do it. In L4D2 I only liked the spitters. If I got a charger or jockey in most cases thats just a waste of time. They were so limited in how they were usful.

The gore of nerfed in Australia. If a zombie was lit on fire it disappears (bug? If you lit the witch on fire she would disappear. You didn't need to fight her.) Nolimbs off and very little blood. It got hit by the censorship train hard. Left 4 Dead looked better the gore was at least there.

First love. Creeping down a hallway in Left 4 Dead was great but by the time L4D2 rolled around the charm was lost. This doesn't mean I was blinded by hate for the second game. I still loved it just not as much. Everyone comments about how the melee weapons were so important. I barely use them. I found the gun bash was enough. I do sometimes use the axe just for the fun but thats never common.

That the larger reasons for why I perfer Left 4 Dead over Left 4 Dead 2. There are small reasons but I would be nit picking.

 

[Dragonforce525]

I prefer Left 4 Dead it's just better in every way, the levels, the characters, the music, the special infected.

The levels in L4D2 are just too open, I liked how confined the original stages were which allowed you to follow the story each stage told, but the new ones just felt like I was running from a to b in a straight line, which made it boring both as infected and human.

I hated the characters in L4D2, all of Nick's dialogue just seemed to be sarcastic comments and remarks that made me feel like I was playing a complete prick, Rochelle was just generic sassy black chick, Coach could've been good but they never gave him anything interesting to say, the only character with a shred of, well character, was Ellis and even he found ways to annoy me as I like playing with subtitles on and when he goes on one of his rants about his friend, Ellis's dialogue literally fills up the whole screen, so I either have to wait for him to shut up or fly blind and hope I don't run into trouble.

The twangy country music really didn't sit right with me, I'm not sure why but it just didn't seem to gel, it always felt out of place, I get that they're in the south but I would have much preferred generic rock/metal that fades into the background then some out of tune banjo constantly plucking in my ear.

And the new special infected aren't really bad just not as good as the originals, also there are just way too many, which makes playing as the infected more about the luck of the draw then actual skill and teamwork.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

L4D2 has pretty much all the content of the first game at this point (for free if you're on PC), so if it's a question of which to purchase you'd have to be a fool to not just get the second game. I also like the addition of melee weapons in the second game. People complaining about the "push back" function being nerfed clearly don't know the joys of any melee weapon in the same situation. Instead of simply shoving zombies around, you kill 'em in a few quick blows. I also prefer the Spitter and Jockey additions of not having them. Camping in a cluster was too effective in the first game, and so having specials that could do some damage to a group was a smart addition.

 

[Ravnican]

Left 4 Dead 2. The reason is simple: if you're playing on a PC there's no reason to get the first one since almost all its content has been added to the sequel for free.

 

[Redingold]

Since they added the original campaigns to L4D2, I can think of no good reason to choose the original, which is why I picked L4D2.