Left 4 Dead-A review by Crazzee

SquirrelPants

New member
Dec 22, 2008
1,729
0
0
I've had Left 4 Dead for quite a while, although I never really got to play it, because my PC wasn't, and still isn't, powerful enough to load games in a fast enough manner to be acceptable. I had a lot of fun with it when I got a chance to play, though.
So, my friend's dad had bought it for his 360 to play with his "Over 30 years old people" clan. He loved it, and I was talking to him about it, when he said it was on sale for 40 bucks at Target. I sprinted down there pretty quick and picked it up, and, two days later, here I am.

Now, past the description of how it happened, and onto what I think of it.

Graphics
As usual, Valve did a great job with this. The Source engine games work just as well all the time, no matter what the setting, so I suppose we can jump past this section pretty fast with a quick statement: Source engine/Valve games tend to have very pretty graphics.

Of course, there were some problems, but every game's got that now and then, so I won't mention it.

Story/Characters
This part bugged me a bit. It's a game where the story is 90% implied. We know it's the zombie apocalypse, we know there are four survivors in your group, and we know that we're trying to escape in a variety of different ways(Helicopter, Boat, LAV(I think...) and a plane.
But other than that, there's not much description. The manual tells a bit about the characters, but most of it is stuff that could easily be assumed: Bill is a Vietnam vet, Francis is a tough-guy, Louis is a business man, and (This one was a bit harder to pick out)Zoey is a college girl.
What I love most about the characters, however, is that they all seem to show some sort of stereotype.
Bill: The vet who knows everything about stuff. He tries to be strong("That wasn't necessary...But...Thanks."), but he isn't really the toughest guy around.
Zoey: She's the college girl, but the thing about her is that she seems the sort of "Sunshine and flowers!" type to me. She Is the one who says please and thank you, and always keeps positive about getting away.
Louis: He's the token black guy. I don't mean that in a bad way, but he really IS. No offense meant at all.
Francis: He seems like a biker, and he thinks he's indestructible.

Gameplay(The big stuff)
I thoroughly enjoyed the gameplay of Left 4 Dead. The concept of forcing players to work together lest they be killed is just a great concept to back yourself behind. It makes many people play in a completely different way, because many of the people on the internet and whatnot try to be John Rambo or Master Chief or some other unbeatable character, like George Washington. But then they'll be pinned, or constricted, or both(that one's always fun to watch), and they quickly realize that to really play this game, they're going to have to use teamwork and try to be competent about things.
I love the concept of it all, as Valve seems to be doing something that not many have done, or done well.
At its core, Left 4 Dead is a basic shooter game. You get guns, you get grenades, all that little stuff, and you shoot the enemies who are trying to kill you. But it's done so well, that I couldn't really ask for more. By adding the health meters like so many games haven't, Valve has challenged players to think not only about themselves, but about their team. If someone is low on health, there is actually a chance that someone else will fix them up, since in this game, the more the merrier. You don't want to be left out there all alone.
The versus mode is also very fun and mildly original, but it seemed to me as a sort of afterthought. The basic concept behind it on the survivors' side is the same as the regular campaigns: Use teamwork, stick together. But now, instead of the director controlling the special zombies(Boomers, Hunters, Smokers, Tanks) are now human players, working against you to obliterate your team before they make it to the safe room. The survivors/infected alternate teams, trying to earn the most points as survivors and keep the survivors from getting points as infected.
The infected team seems a bit flawed, in my opinion. With long respawn times, low amounts of health, and all the noise they make when trying to sneak up to the survivors and defeat them, the teams seem rather unbalanced. But, of course, there is still the annoying horde and the witches to defeat, and they really do help quite a bit.

As an overall rank, I say...
BUY IT!
The game is very good, but it has a few issues with teammates not wanting to be teammates, and with imbalance during versus matches.
 

oliveira8

New member
Feb 2, 2009
4,726
0
0
Nice review. Abit short on the gameplay side but then again there aint much you can talk about, but you forgot to talk about the AI director, you mentioned on the Versus part but you didnt really mention what it and what it does. The infected team is not flawed but requires more teamwork from the 4 infected than the Survivor team.

Also the game is meant to be a spoof to Zombie movies, thus the style and the stereotype survivors.(would be more fun if in the middle of a Infected horde rush Louis screaming "This black dude wont be the first one to die!"
 

SquirrelPants

New member
Dec 22, 2008
1,729
0
0
Oh, yeah. I totally forgot about that. Sorry, I'm new to reveiwing, but I just wanted to throw something out there that was focused on how it works rather than how much I like it...I dunno about the reviews here, I've already read a few of them, but they were all "I liked this part, I didn't like this part."
And yeah, they're not THAT flawed, but the whole teamwork business is hard to do, because everyone just goes out and does their own thing. I personally just go after the slowpokes in the back, because everyone else tries to get the ones in front.
oliveira8 said:
Also the game is meant to be a spoof to Zombie movies, thus the style and the stereotype survivors.(would be more fun if in the middle of a Infected horde rush Louis screaming "This black dude wont be the first one to die!"
I lol'd at that.
 

stinkypitz

New member
Jan 7, 2008
428
0
0
Good review, I agreed with most points. Not a game I will buy though, i can play it at my friends house whenever i want.
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
 

oliveira8

New member
Feb 2, 2009
4,726
0
0
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.

Are we talking about the same Source engine?

Which not only is the most awesome engine in every aspect you can think of. Can be easily modded, has the best physics engine, the engine itself scales with your hardware, it also has the best facial characterization of any other engine and god knows what else it has.

Source rules! And you sir cant see greatness even if it had a big neon sign over it!
 

SquirrelPants

New member
Dec 22, 2008
1,729
0
0
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
Sorry to just assume, but you must be doing something wrong, or there's an error with textures or something. A lot of people say that source is some of the closest we've got to picture-perfect. So either you're playing games from the future, or you've got high standards...
Yeah, but I'm not defending it or anything, you just don't like it.
 

AlphaOmega

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,732
0
0
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
You mean it doesnt have a brown filter over it and loads of brown shadows like other games :p

Anyway, nice first evaluation.
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
AlphaOmega said:
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
You mean it doesnt have a brown filter over it and loads of brown shadows like other games :p

Anyway, nice first evaluation.
Crazzee said:
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
Sorry to just assume, but you must be doing something wrong, or there's an error with textures or something. A lot of people say that source is some of the closest we've got to picture-perfect. So either you're playing games from the future, or you've got high standards...
Yeah, but I'm not defending it or anything, you just don't like it.
oliveira8 said:
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.

Are we talking about the same Source engine?

Which not only is the most awesome engine in every aspect you can think of. Can be easily modded, has the best physics engine, the engine itself scales with your hardware, it also has the best facial characterization of any other engine and god knows what else it has.

Source rules! And you sir cant see greatness even if it had a big neon sign over it!
Yes, we are talking about the Source engine. I hate Valve fanboys who think Source is the best thing ever.

It is far from the most awesome engine, only people who don't understand how game engines work would think that it is.

The Unreal Engine 3, CryEngine 2, Scimitar, Frostbite and Gamebryo engines are far superior to the current source engine.

It can be easily modded because Valve provide the user with the ability to do so. The other engines can also be easily modded, however, this does not necessitate a good engine.

Source uses the Havok Physics engine which is not the best physics engine. Currently the PhysX engine from Nvidia is superior.

Lots of engines can scale to the hardware! It's not exclusive, new or impressive.

It does not have the best facial animation, the facial animation is awful. I would argue that the best middleware engine for facial animation is Face Robot by Softimage, now a part of Autodesk.

Here are some shots for comparison. Honestly boot up Assassins Creed or Crysis at high res in DirectX10 and you will see how much better it is than the best the Source engine has ever shown.


Just looks at the polygonal nature of the characters. The low quality textures on the ground.

See the superior use of lighting and normal mapping. The draw distance is also much better.

New lighting engine used with Unreal 3, loooks fantastic, has some poor textures an normal maps here and there.
Lots on screen, detailed characters, fantastic lighting.

Crysis uses real-time ambient lighting. Terrain and foiliage are rendered particularly well. The water effects are amazing, waves, froth, refraction reflection blurring and light seperation.

EDIT: I have a powerful PC and a good knowledge of graphics and rendering techniques. However, general comparison and observation shows how other engines are much more powerful than the Source engine.

Hopefully, Valve are working on a new engine as Source is really showing its age. Valve always push the bar with graphics and aesthetics, I can't wait to see how HL3 turns out.
 

Aura Guardian

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,114
0
0
I don't have a computer to play Left 4 Dead. But I own it on the Xbox 360. And I can say, that the Source Engine is one of the best. Left 4 Dead on the 360 looks beautiful.
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
Darkrai said:
I don't have a computer to play Left 4 Dead. But I own it on the Xbox 360. And I can say, that the Source Engine is one of the best. Left 4 Dead on the 360 looks beautiful.
But it has nothing on Gears 2, it's not even as good as COD4.

EDIT: Okay, maye it's on a par with COD4 for power but not for aesthetics. Battlefield Bad Company is another good looking title that is better on the Xbox 360.
 

Aura Guardian

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,114
0
0
beddo said:
Darkrai said:
I don't have a computer to play Left 4 Dead. But I own it on the Xbox 360. And I can say, that the Source Engine is one of the best. Left 4 Dead on the 360 looks beautiful.
But it has nothing on Gears 2, it's not even as good as COD4.
True true. Gears 2 and COD4 had everything including textures. But from what I've read from that one guy whose was complaining about textures, do textures like dirt really make the game?
 

Chickmcjr

New member
Jun 24, 2008
13
0
0
Graphics aren't everything. I have had more fun playing Left 4 Dead than I ever did playing Crysis. I'm so sick of people who keep complaining about graphics and how they're 'not good because of my current standards on what games should look like'. I play a game for fun, not because I'm trying to see how many shadows my computer can generate before it explodes.
 

Aura Guardian

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,114
0
0
Chickmcjr said:
Graphics aren't everything. I have had more fun playing Left 4 Dead than I ever did playing Crysis. I'm so sick of people who keep complaining about graphics and how they're 'not good because of my current standards on what games should look like'. I play a game for fun, not because I'm trying to see how many shadows my computer can generate before it explodes.
Gameplay beats graphics anyday. I blame the next gen gamers. Most of them care about how awesome a game looks because of the graphics and get pissed off buying it and hating it because the gameplay was bad.
 

Daye.04

Proud Escaperino
Feb 9, 2009
1,957
0
0
Nice review, sir. Better than a lot other I've seen. But I do have to disagree with you on that versus seems like a "afterthought". To me it seems like that's what they where planning on doing, but got a bit too caught up in campains that they did'nt have time for thos elast fine adjustments ..
 

s3cur1tr0n

New member
Aug 5, 2008
99
0
0
Source is a bit dated but it still owns.
beddo said:
AlphaOmega said:
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
You mean it doesnt have a brown filter over it and loads of brown shadows like other games :p

Anyway, nice first evaluation.
Crazzee said:
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
Sorry to just assume, but you must be doing something wrong, or there's an error with textures or something. A lot of people say that source is some of the closest we've got to picture-perfect. So either you're playing games from the future, or you've got high standards...
Yeah, but I'm not defending it or anything, you just don't like it.
oliveira8 said:
beddo said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
*sorry for typos my keyboard is beat up.

Are we talking about the same Source engine?

Which not only is the most awesome engine in every aspect you can think of. Can be easily modded, has the best physics engine, the engine itself scales with your hardware, it also has the best facial characterization of any other engine and god knows what else it has.

Source rules! And you sir cant see greatness even if it had a big neon sign over it!
Yes, we are talking about the Source engine. I hate Valve fanboys who think Source is the best thing ever.

It is far from the most awesome engine, only people who don't understand how game engines work would think that it is.

The Unreal Engine 3, CryEngine 2, Scimitar, Frostbite and Gamebryo engines are far superior to the current source engine.

It can be easily modded because Valve provide the user with the ability to do so. The other engines can also be easily modded, however, this does not necessitate a good engine.

Source uses the Havok Physics engine which is not the best physics engine. Currently the PhysX engine from Nvidia is superior.

Lots of engines can scale to the hardware! It's not exclusive, new or impressive.

It does not have the best facial animation, the facial animation is awful. I would argue that the best middleware engine for facial animation is Face Robot by Softimage, now a part of Autodesk.

Here are some shots for comparison. Honestly boot up Assassins Creed or Crysis at high res in DirectX10 and you will see how much better it is than the best the Source engine has ever shown.


Just looks at the polygonal nature of the characters. The low quality textures on the ground.

See the superior use of lighting and normal mapping. The draw distance is also much better.

New lighting engine used with Unreal 3, loooks fantastic, has some poor textures an normal maps here and there.
Lots on screen, detailed characters, fantastic lighting.

Crysis uses real-time ambient lighting. Terrain and foiliage are rendered particularly well. The water effects are amazing, waves, froth, refraction reflection blurring and light seperation.

EDIT: I have a powerful PC and a good knowledge of graphics and rendering techniques. However, general comparison and observation shows how other engines are much more powerful than the Source engine.

Hopefully, Valve are working on a new engine as Source is really showing its age. Valve always push the bar with graphics and aesthetics, I can't wait to see how HL3 turns out.
You have 3 pics of the unreal engine and one of crytek engine. Gears and assasins creed are bot unreal engine, crytek is so poorly coded even 'Deep Blue' cant get a good framerate on it. Crysis is a pretty slideshow foe most of us.
 

oliveira8

New member
Feb 2, 2009
4,726
0
0
beddo said:
AlphaOmega said:
beddo said:
Crazzee said:
Graphics on the Source engine are awful. I run it max settings 1920*1200 full AA and Anistropic Filtering, it still looks crap.
Sorry to just assume, but you must be doing something wrong, or there's an error with textures or something. A lot of people say that source is some of the closest we've got to picture-perfect. So either you're playing games from the future, or you've got high standards...
Yeah, but I'm not defending it or anything, you just don't like it.


*snip*
You know why Source is better then those engines? Cause it runs perfectly well even in a crap computer! Also it has the best combination of both interior and outside visuals.

My old computer with a 32 mb graphics card and 128 RAM(or something) could run Half Life 2 and it looked good, and even when I boot HL2 on my PC with a 512 mb card it still looks good.

The same I cant say for the Crytek engine. Thats why Source is good! Its functional, runs well and its pretty. Yes there are engines more powerfull then Source but none are as functional as Source.



It may not be as pretty or detailed as the other engines but gets the job well done, better than most.
 

ParkourMcGhee

New member
Jan 4, 2008
1,219
0
0
Crazzee said:
because many of the people on the internet and whatnot try to be John Rambo or Master Chief or some other unbeatable character, like George Washington. But then they'll be pinned, or constricted, or both(that one's always fun to watch)
If you have an autoshotty, very good reflexes and stay in tight-ish spaces you can solo a level. Managed to get 3 hunters, 2 smokers, a boomer and a horde in the middle of a level, and 4 smokers, 3 hunters, 2 boomers, and 2 hordes on a last level on my own before. But the idiots who try to be cool do get mowed down as you say :D .

As for Infected being underpowered... if they get mildly organized and spring a trap all at once, I've seen decent teams go down in seconds, let alone the bad ones you see all the time. Saying that though, a lone smoker or hunter does very little damage and you need multiple players to spring a trap together otherwise it doesn't work so the fact they you respawn quicker if there's only one of you doesn't really help.

And finally about the health... you could have put a lot more into this. The health is very interesting in this game since it's exponential, ie the more health you have, the less a first aid will heal you driving the save-till-later mechanic rather than using up stuff straight away, and even more so in the expert: if you go down 3 times you get a black and white screen, but apart from that good teams players will always strive to not use first aid kits unless absolutely necessary so that when they are in dire need, they can pop it out then.
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
s3cur1tr0n said:
Source is a bit dated but it still owns.

You have 3 pics of the unreal engine and one of crytek engine. Gears and assasins creed are bot unreal engine, crytek is so poorly coded even 'Deep Blue' cant get a good framerate on it. Crysis is a pretty slideshow foe most of us.
Left 4 Dead pic is Source

Assassins Creed is an Ubisoft proprietary engine called Scimitar.

Mirrors Edge uses the Unreal 3 engine but using a new lighting engine in conjunction with Illuminate Labs.

Gear of War 2 is Unreal 3 engine.

Crysis Warhead has been optimised a lot. I can run Crysis okay, a few tweaks here and there sort out some performance issues.

Just for you:

Frostbite Engine:



GameBryo Engine:



Guerilla Propietary Engine (Uses deferred rendering) For all you PS3 fans:



 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
oliveira8 said:
You know why Source is better then those engines? Cause it runs perfectly well even in a crap computer! Also it has the best combination of both interior and outside visuals.

My old computer with a 32 mb graphics card and 128 RAM(or something) could run Half Life 2 and it looked good, and even when I boot HL2 on my PC with a 512 mb card it still looks good.

HL2 has a bizarre feature where it completely breaks flow every 20 minutes or so to load the next section of the game. Halo has a better ability to mix inside BSP levels with vast outdoor terrains.

I don't think DX 7 HL2 looks good. At the time of release it was poor.

HL2 DX7:



DirectX8 is much better
HL2 DX8:



DirectX9 Looked fantastic at release.
HL2 DX9:



The reason games like Crysis aren't as scalable is because of the design. A lot of engines could scale back, all you have to do is create low res textures and disable certain shaders.