I agree about the solid mechanics and addictive game play, but when it first came out, there was only TWO maps you can play on multi-player. That is a joke. It took like four or five monthes before they updated so that all four maps could be played in versus mode. I'd say that's BS and should have been done on launch. That is why i call it a mod when it was released.Sexual Harassment Panda said:When it comes to multiplayer, it's most certainly a question of quality, not quantity. L4D didn't have much content, but it had solid mechanics that allowed for engaging competition...which is why people still play counter-strike all these years later, despite it not having much of anything.Juggern4ut20 said:That's funny, because when L4D was first released the quality + quantity vs price was horrible. You had to pay 60$ for what was basically a glorified mod. I did buy and play the first one a lot, but looking at it again, it was incomplete. The low number of levels and the limited number of weapons and zombies was kinda insulting considering it doesn't take a genius to say "we should put melee weapons in". Of course, the second one had everything the first one was missing, but they forced you to pay another 60$ for it.Sexual Harassment Panda said:I research purchases...so if the quality is there(pretty much guaranteed considering the dev), most definitly.
At that point, most of my friends had moved on and grown tired of the repetitive levels despite the claim that the AI director made them repayable, which is a bunch of bs. So i probably wouldn't buy a third installment.
The hours I put it into L4D justify the price of entry, it was more than a mod, it was a well made proof-of-concept.