• Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Damn what a disappointment Back 4 Blood was. Did not recapture L4D2 at all.

      • Blemgo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Mostly because L4D was mainly Valve’s work, showing off the tech they are capable of. Turtle Rock Studios might be a good studio, but what makes them different to Valve is that Valve is also sort of a R&D company as well.

        If they had the same base as Valve, they might have created a great spiritual successor to L4D. Yet in the end they didn’t focus on the technical side, most likely due to publicly traded companies often trying to cut corners on anything that isn’t directly marketable, a downside that Valve does not have.

        • Thorry84@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Disagree actually, it wasn’t very good as a stand alone game to start with. Then they pulled out fast because they wanted some kind of Fortnite level franchise to milk and saw that it wasn’t going to be that by a long shot.

          • CluckN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Pshh, what’s not to love about an RNG card pack element for perks? The limb damage also being non-existence in Back 4 Refund also made it a rough comparison to Left 4 Dead.

          • Canadian_Cabinet
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah the whole game was like them trying to copy L4D2 but they forgot to copy what makes the game fun