Metacritic roundup: Left 4 Dead

by Dustin Burg { Nov 18th 2008 at 4:00PM }

Left 4 Dead, Valve's intense cooperative zombie experience, just made its way to retailers and has been put in front of the review jury. So, how has it fared? Not too bad, seeing that its average metacritic score is hovering around 89 as reviewers gush over the game's cooperative brain splattering fun. Check out what the industry has to say about Left 4 Dead:

OXM (95/100): "It's the same thing over and over - but when simple ingredients are perfectly prepared, what could be a mere snack becomes a feast. This one just happens to be on human flesh."
Team Xbox (91/100) "It's so immersive and satisfying to sling lead at an infinite number of creepy, crawly zombies!"
Edge Magazine (90/100): "Valve has taken something unscripted and dynamic, and seeded it with the right amount of narrative flavour, pacing and spectacle."
GameSpy (90/100): "Out of all the titles that have shaped the Year of Living Cooperatively, this may be the best experience of them all."
IGN (90/100): "There's absolutely no doubt that Left 4 Dead is one of the most social and exciting multiplayer games that we've ever played."

Tags: left-4-dead, valve, valve-software

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

joeybeast @ Nov 18th 2008 4:05PM

Can't wait to play it after work.

Steve @ Nov 18th 2008 4:11PM

Oh man, this game is so overrated, its only got 4 levels, the graphics suck, and there's no story! And it still deserves an 11/10!! I am loving it!!

SadisticHam @ Nov 18th 2008 4:12PM

I was put right off when i found out it's 2 hours long. Not a joke, check IGN.

Although he brushes it off with huge replay value, I can't see myself going through 4 levels all that many times and any extra content is going to cost me extra, just doesn't seem worth it no matter how much i loved the demo.

jsutcliffe @ Nov 18th 2008 4:34PM

Ever played a multiplayer game before? ;)

Seriously -- ask your average Counter Strike player how many times he's played the the same map, and whether he still enjoys playing it.

Longevity comes with the company, not the content.

Latin Trident @ Nov 18th 2008 4:36PM

What is wrong with replaying it so often? If you have Halo 3 or COD 4, I assume that you play that game often and most likely, on live. Valve has great games! Enjoy it!

NvM @ Nov 18th 2008 4:43PM

Playing Left 4 Dead is more along playing Horde Mode in GoW 2, then going through a story mode.

SadisticHam @ Nov 18th 2008 7:40PM

I like how i get -'ed for stating a game isn't for me, interesting.

I'll presume I've made a few people cry over giving an honest opinion so I'll go into further detail just to get their nickers in a twist even more - and respond to a few of the level headed guys that replied to me.

Counter Strike has a massive userbase behind it and more maps than I can count due to that userbase. Sure people might play the same ones a lot but they also have variety. It's also worth stating L4D is nothing like CS and nothing has come close to doing what CS has done.

We have 4 maps. That's it. 4. And any others coming you'll find yourself having to pay for, not because of Valve but because of Microsuck. If you was to get L4D on the PC i could fully understand it, the Mod community will give it long legs. The 360 one? No, doubt it.

Not claiming the game is crap, not claiming Valve is bad, what i am saying is the online is going to be dead within 3 months of the game launching. So unless you have 3 buddy's dedicated to it you're going to get bored quick.

Gears of War 2 has 15 maps boxed and shipped + horde + a campaign. Each of those things that i listed last longer than a run through on L4D.

COD:WAW, no idea how many maps it's shipped with cause I've no interest in it but i gaurentee it has more than 4, it has zombie mode, it has a campaign longer than L4D.

Halo has countless maps now.

Sorry but when you compare it to the competition i would hope you can see where I'm coming from.

Combine this with Microsoft forcing devs to charge for DLC, combine it with the pain in the ass requirements they have to jump through to get DLC online and how long it takes and to make matters even worse, take a look at TF2 and how that turned out. Remember back to how long it took Valve to bring out updates for that.

I wouldn't hold your breath on this game lasting.

Arnon @ Nov 18th 2008 11:20PM

No, you're just stupid.

It's 4 acts with 5 levels in each act.. adding to 20 levels. Play it on expert, and the story can take over 30 hours.

Tony Bowman @ Nov 18th 2008 4:16PM

the demo pretty much convinced me that i wouldn't be buying this game. the opening cinematic was cool, and i enjoy the gameplay in the demo, but really? that's all there is? srsly?

not enough to warrant full-retail pricing. this should have been either a budget retail release, or an XBLA-, PSN- and Steam-only game.

Conor @ Nov 18th 2008 5:54PM

My thoughts exactly.

MDJ2010 @ Nov 19th 2008 5:06AM

Unfotunatally I agree. I do like the ai and the fact that no playthrough should ever be the same, but its just not in line with what I expect from Valve.

A rental I think.

offday @ Nov 18th 2008 4:27PM

It's not like Valve to rip people off with games. But this is the problem I have with this game. It looks like a ton of fun, but for how long?

Exo @ Nov 18th 2008 6:04PM

on pc at least it will be updated as much as they update tf2

so its already wrth it

Bobluling @ Nov 18th 2008 4:40PM

I've probably beat the demo 15 to 20 times now, and I keep checking my gamefly account to see if they shipped it yet or not. For some reason they say that it does not come out until tomorrow *insert sad/angry face*

Peter @ Nov 18th 2008 4:45PM

I was really let down by this game personally. The graphics look dated with many graphical oddities (clipping, shadows through the walls), the gunplay isn't very good (aiming specifically) and the fact that the game is so short really just doesn't entice me to buy the game. I was a huge fan of Half Life 2 and Portal but this game just let me down big time.

Paulmichael @ Nov 18th 2008 9:06PM

Yeah I agree on the graphics front, I mean my mALX laptop from June 2007 is able to run the game with settings maxed out at 1680x1050 resolution. This is just two GeForce Go 7950 GTXs in SLI, each with 512 MB of video RAM.

ChewyDogg @ Nov 18th 2008 4:50PM

You guys are way off base with the length of the game. There are 4 campaigns ("movies"), each with 5 stages. Play it on Advanced or Expert and expect each campaign to last 2 hrs. or more. Don't forget that when you replay a movie it's a different experience each time. There is also plenty of fun to be had in the vs. mode.

GOTY

Jimmy @ Nov 19th 2008 4:18PM

This.

Seriously--I must have played the demo by myself at least 10 times (first on easy, then a few on normal, then i played it on advanced a few times) and then another liek 20 times with friends. Every single time we've had one of those "holy sh*t did that really just happen?!" moments. So fun. :D

Alex @ Nov 18th 2008 4:57PM

Fun but will eventually get boring. Spore, anyone?

DJcube @ Nov 18th 2008 5:07PM

I can see this wearing off quickly, plus I can't see different levels making a huge difference. IMO the demo was too good (as in I feel like I've experienced virtually everything the game has to offer).

ChewyDogg @ Nov 18th 2008 5:16PM

You haven't seen anything yet.

refinedsugar @ Nov 18th 2008 5:14PM

Never have reviews seemed so forced, so fake than right now. With all of the high profile titles in the last month, it's like they are perpetually caught up in "a moment". Every game is great, well, at least the high profile, mega dollar ones ... which are usually sequels to boot.

It's starting to feel like one big consortium's hype-fest. Am I the only one nauseated by this feeling?

Doug @ Nov 18th 2008 5:14PM

Why does Metacritic translate Giant Bomb's 4-star review into an 80 score? That doesn't seem right, does it?

Dustin Burg @ Nov 18th 2008 5:26PM

Four divided by five equals .8 or 80%. Not fair, but math never is :(

Andrew @ Nov 18th 2008 5:28PM

4 divided by 5 = .8 which translates to 80%.

Doug @ Nov 18th 2008 7:19PM

yeah, I was never a math whiz but I do get that part.

I don't think 80 is what Giant Bomb would give if they were giving a point system. They chose stars for a reason, not as clinical. I don't think 4-stars=80 translates accurately to a metacritic score. It lowers the game's score too drastically.

metacritic should avoid translating stars to stats. the numbers would be more accurate (higher) i'd guess

Pete @ Nov 18th 2008 8:06PM

Agreed, Doug. The math doesn't compute with most reviewers' intentions.

To most, 3 stars would be an Average game. An average score to most of us? 70%, but mathematically the stars would equate 60%. Then there are those of us who think that 2 1/2 stars = Average = 50%.......

In summary, I'm buying L4D leave me alone! ahhh math!!!