User Score
8.4 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1592 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. DickS
    Dec 18, 2009
    0
    This expansion is horribly overpriced and obviously rushed. I got sick of seeing the same zombie model over and over again, I barely noticed the uncommon common, the level design is atrocious, and the AI is pants on head retarded. I had my full team of AI players stand next to me and watch a hunter rip me from 80 health to dead. You can no longer enjoy the environments on anything above easy because the game spawns the mini hordes like the Director is having a seizure on his spawn button. While small, the posters don't show your player names on them like the old one. All of the new items are stuff that you can get in the first one with a simple script set. YES the first one has incindiary ammo, lazer sights, ect. The extra guns are just different designs with no difference. All melee weapons do the same thing and could have easily been a dlc into the first one. The worse part of all is that its near impossible to navigate on half the levels. I got stuck on every other friggin stage because the level design sucks. I didn't go into this game expecting to hate it, but after playing it I cant stand it. It doesnt even have the same feel as the first game. It's too goofy and not dark like the first one. Expand
  2. JayF.
    Apr 10, 2010
    4
    As an online play game, it's just average in my book. I'd rather play other recent games with better graphics. Solo play is a joke. There's no campaign so to speak. Rather, it's like playing online with yourself. I played this game for maybe 3 hours and then looked for another.
  3. MikeS.
    Feb 9, 2010
    0
    i bought both L4D's and was not happy. Valve said "Oh this new stuff is too big to put in a patch! lets make a new game!" it wasn't that much stuff really... some new guns, new maps/storys and a few new zombies. and oh did i menchen they now only have one witch per story? GG Valve GG. Are you wiping you behinds with our money now? *get's his money back with brown stains on the bills* appernty your are....... they could have patched it in one mega patch like Killing Floor did when they had a FREE expation! But then again the devs for killing floor have a free update/ expation pollicey! so yeah. and i feel even sorryer for the people on the consoles (yes im a PC gamer.) because the xbox 360 people have to PAY there mircosoft points to update! PS3 last i herd that was free, Wii? nintendo would have a heart attack if it wasnt a resident evil game or one of there own and was M on there console as they have become too family friendy it makes me feel like i live with a nabor from 50 years ago... But what can i say? Way to go VALVE for taking more of our hard earned cash and using it as toliet paper! really! I think even the idiots who made the market crash of the great depression could have done better. and thats saying something! Good Fight Valve Good Fight and Good Game! Now if you dont mind im going to have to look at your adds in your games that run on your steam platfourm that is needed to play ANY of your games that wont let me play just about any game offline! even when i installed it VIA CD/DVD like my moderen Warfair 2! well at least i know i wont be buying anymore L4D games even tho im a Die hard Zombie fan since Killing floor is better and CHEAPER! want my advice? save $20-$30 bucks on L4D2 and even L4D1 and get killing floor. Better game + better custom map support did i menchen that you cant use cheats in L4D2 like you can in #1? if u want to it is a pain in the butt to do so! If i could i would drop Valve on it's head for this poor excuse of a game. I swear tho they did a heck of a PR Bliz made me want to buy it! uh sue for false advertisement anyone? more like false statements they actully said in an interview that this was too big to put in a patch! I Say there full of there selfs and want easy money. It was way too short of a time between the games to even say they werent plaining on making a 2nd! i think they planed this from the get go! Expand
  4. SallyV.
    Apr 4, 2010
    0
    +10 because it's a sequel to the best co-op ever made and -10 because it's the SAME F*CKING GAME as the original. why did I buy it? I employed some wishful thinking, trying to convince myself that the sequel would be amazing. it's valve, and valve games are usually the best... but this one's just for the money. unfortunately i cant give my copy to someone else. avoid this game if you have part 1, but if you are like me and do have it, i will recommend the following style of play: join expert game-> kill teammates -> have fun hearing players rage. Collapse
  5. Oct 31, 2010
    4
    I was terribly disappointed when I realised that the hype was just a hype. This game qualifies as a mediocre, run-of-the-mill first person shooter, with the exception of the infected.

    The missions are quite challenging whilst playing online against well experience players, which unfortunately is the rare exception to the average player of this game. It is not unusual to find yourself yell
    ing at your own team, for being generally terrible at the game.

    The maps are so few that you grow tired in less than a few hours. This goes for the characters as well. The survivors are all the same, they have no unique niche to them - except for models and voice acting.
    The infected work well together, but that is unfortunately all they do. One becomes terribly bored of them after just a few matches. Not to mention the linearity of them, but at least that makes them very intuitive.

    There is nothing upgradeable; no incentive of playing well.

    The single player is not worth mentioning since it's basically a multi-player map with bots instead of players.

    In conclusion.
    As long as this game cost what it does, roughly 19 euros, I for one would not make the mistake of buying it. If you for some inexplicable reason still is thinking about buying it, get your friends on the train, it is the only way of having any fun in this game.
    Expand
  6. Jan 5, 2012
    3
    It's the same Left 4 Dead! Why deceive people? Why create a CLONE? The creation of games - the art! The art does not make money! If, nevertheless, the game discuss, in the first place there begins to annoy (for some reason, can only me) music (Soundtrack: HL2 - best, L4D2 - fail).
  7. RomanO
    Jan 8, 2010
    1
    Well what can I say all the new stuff is kinda great BUT 38 Euros is too much for the same game. Yes I heard and seen how much Valve improved L4D. However I don't think it is enough. Look at TF2. Tons of new stuff: maps, weapons, game modes and everything for free. It is obvious that Valve is just trying to get more money. Also, I dislike how all those guys in Valve say that they have been working on L4D2 very hard and that it would have been simply imposible to get the same results if they had just upgraded L4D. I can't say I believe that is true. Valve could have made a series of updates just like with TF2 and maybe not in year, but in two or three L4D would have been the same thing we now call L4D2. Speaking of years, they worked on L4D2 only one year, which is less than any HL2 episode and still neither of those cost that much. So why 38 Euros, Valve, why that much? I would have given it 10 if not the price which is too high for an update. Sad, but L4D2 has shown gamers that Valve the company that gave us so much and asked so little is gone. Lets hope HL2 EP3 won't cost us 40 Euros. Expand
  8. GazMan
    Apr 8, 2010
    2
    The game itself is meh... I agree with others saying the game is "dumbed down. The level design isnt that great and I personally dont like the characters. L4D2 just doesnt play well nor does it have a good feeling about it. Most people I speak with are leaving the L4D / L4D2 community as not much is going on regarding competitive gaming either which is a real shame as the teamwork aspects could make it such a great platform. The original L4D was a fantastic idea and had some real promise but sadly it was never supported properly by Valve and I think most players think the same is going to happen this sequel. Once bitten twice shy, twice bitten... game over. Expand
  9. RichardS
    Jan 6, 2010
    0
    Expansion/DLC @ a Full Game price. I haven't seen Valve pull something this shady b4. This is almost EA style game production and licensing methodology 101. The graphics marginal improvements, uninspired new zombies, function less melee weapons replace your dual weldable pistols, i mean come on did they even think or did they just run a clone machine from the first, hell even the new characters are insipid and at times down-right annoying. This game deserves to be shelved and sold for maybe $10. If this had been sold as an expansion instead of a new game, it would have strengthened the L4D1 community rather than divide it. Expand
  10. Mar 6, 2012
    1
    This is the most disappointing purchase I have ever made. Firstly, this game is produced in 2009, but the graphic is like before 2005. And with such bad graphic, it runs with 40% less average fps than dead space one in the same setting on my computer. Secondly, the movement is very slippery, and shooting is very uncomfortable either. I always feel that I am playing a skiing simulation game, not a shooting game at all! Although it is a little bit fun to play with 3 other players on line, the overall presentation is too poor to match the score of 89/100. Originally, I want to give it 2 or 3 out of 10, but when I see the score is 89, I was shocked, so I decided to warn people to make the purchase carefully by give it 1 out of 10. Expand
  11. FetzL
    Feb 19, 2010
    1
    Certainly NOT worth the $50 they are asking for. Basically we get 5 campaigns which were not as atmospheric and indulging as the originals, an overhyped AI Director 2.0 (dynamic pathing? - oh lol I'll just seal up this door please take the other one 3 feet ahead instead, dynamic weather? -More or less the same storm at the same spot everytime in Hard Rain, not to mention AI in general is WORSE than ever!) and new bland and boring characters. Props to them for getting rid of some gameplay exploits and bugs from the first game (still unfixed BTW) by introducing new special infected to counter corner camping (which were based on community ideas intended for L4D1), weapons balancing (how about changing a few variables to make the hunting rifle in the first game viable just like in L4D2? And nerfing the autoshotgun?), more weapon varieties, and the new (a bit overdone) gore system. L4D could have been a great game many would still be playing 4 years down the road if Valve had built on it instead of making this "sequel". Now I'm not saying L4D2 should be free. I'm saying it should have been an expansion pack for L4D1, $30 at most. So to conclude, I highly recommend AGAINST buying L4D2 at full price, get it during the inevitable half-off sales at $25, or $7.50 in the month before the release of L4D3 should it come this November. Expand
  12. a12
    Oct 29, 2010
    1
    this game is absoloute......pathetic! theres nothing good about it.its the most depressing game of all time.......now then somebody open the guiness book of records to the most depressing games of all time
  13. Nov 2, 2011
    1
    everyone hypes it... but why? graphics are bad, animations are bad, music is annoying... the ai is retarded. you cant aim with your weapon, exept for the sniper rifle. (the problem of the source engine) the talking of the characters and the gameplay makes it look like a comedy but not like a good and scary zombiegame. the best thing is the intro video, after that it plays like poop. got it for 6â Expand
  14. J.Midnight
    Jan 25, 2010
    2
    I fell for the hype. TBH i would have given this "add-on pack" of a game a solid "8" the first week i got it. But now after playing the game a few times through its clear what this "Game" is: 3 "Special" Zombies and some maps. Nothing revolutionary, and i agree most-if not all- of the high reviews of this game are from overexcited fanboys. - Bad Pacing (A typical "Run and Gun" Zom Shooter) - Horrible Dialogue - Level Design is Bland - Director 2.0?!? (nope... again pointless hype. Shows some signs of improvement seems like a dumbed down ver. to help attract new players. Ex: Open Spaces = No Horde, Inside a Well Fortified Room? = Bingo) Expand
  15. GuessWho
    Jan 6, 2010
    2
    All you morons complaining about the game think twice. In Australia we got the dumbed dumbed down version of the game. Zombies hit the ground BOOM gone off screen. Can't rate it any higher just because Australians got the dumbed down version. I played the demo i didnt actually buy it. I found an uncensor for it but it didnt feel the same.
  16. MichaelN
    Jan 9, 2010
    4
    Great game, since it's just a port of the original great game with new character models, a few new guns, melee weapons which are largely useless for the most part, and a few new special zombies (both of which are fun, but we are talking an entirely new game here). L4D was light on depth, and it wasn't fixed here. Characters are still only models, and have no distinguishing attributes. The graphics are exactly the same, the gameplay is exactly the same (still good, but not improved in any way). Slapping "2" on the end of a title should be more progressive for a company with Valve's pedigree. This was a glorified expansion pack (new maps, guns, and zombies... nothing else new, yes, that's what we call an expansion pack). Would be a higher rating, but the cost of this game is just beyond me. Hopefully all of this money is going to Episode 3, and maybe they'll actually incorporate some new things into L4D2 the way they've supported TF2. Sorry to the original L4D players, Valve is moving on. Expand
  17. MichaelR.
    Mar 20, 2010
    3
    Okay, before the fanboys get angry with me, read the whole review. A)Director 2.0 - The "new" director isn't very new at all. I'm sure many people remember the "Crash Course" campaign for L4D. Remember how it had the "sort of the l4d2 director" functioning? That's because the L4D1 director and the L4D2 director are exactly the same besides the fact that there's a few new items and weapons in L4D2. They guaranteed "random" item and gun positioning in L4D2 and it wasn't implemented correctly. The guns still appear in the same places nearly every time, just like L4D1. No improvement, barely any change. B) "New Zombies!" - L4D2 introduced 3 new special infected. The Spitter is really only useful in scavenger to destroy gas cans unless someone is already being beaten by another infected in campaign. The Jockey is a useful little guy on certain maps...and a total waste of space on others. His forte is dragging people off ledges, really. On about 9/10 of the maps there is no ledges to catch a survivor alone on. Then there's the Charger, he's a terrible terrible implementation of the "hallways aren't safe anymore" idea. The point of the charger as far as the commentary says was to scatter the survivors or hurt them if they're in a hallway. You cannot turn (Even Slightly) while charging, so unless they ARE in a hallway your chances of hitting more than one survivor are low. And if they ARE in a hallway they don't scatter anywhere. Charger does much lower damage than he needs to make him useful as he tends to die before he can slam a survivor once or twice into the ground. The only time Chargers are really useful is near cliffs and ledges, when there is only one or two survivors left or in situations like the Parish bridge finale when survivors don't want to go back for the teammate. C) "New Weapons" - L4D2 introduced a few new weapons to the just about complete set of L4D1. Melee weapons - Everyone says that melee weapons really changed the L4D gameplay, I disagree. It's not often you see people using melee weapons to attack special infected. Common infected die easily to begin with so I don't see the melee weapons being all that useful once you have an automatic weapon or a semi-auto shotgun. Aim for the head, people. Grenade Launcher - Friendly fire, friendly fire, friendly fire! The grenade launcher was made to loosen up hordes of common infected and make special infected stumble around and die. The broken thing about this weapon is the fact that special infected often don't die from one indirect hit from this weapon, the person using this weapon tends to hit his teammates around twenty more times than everyone else, and the person using this weapon tends to be an easy special infected target due to hunters, jockeys, smokers, and chargers being able to get in close and force them to switch to melee/pistol. Bile Bomb - "Throw this to attract the horde away from you, even onto a tank!" The problem is the only time anyone will use this is if there's a horde coming and they want to just run away from it. The only usefulness of the bile bomb is distraction, and in versus it's a waste to carry. Defibrillator - Over a medpack the chances someone takes one are around 30%. When someone takes one they usually happen to be the Rambo style person who runs at the hordes with a baseball bat out and they die, leaving the rest of the team to fend for themselves until they reach the body. All in all, medpack is better. New ammos - Make special infected stumble or burn. Imbalanced in versus. Thank god they're rare. New primary weapons are pretty much all slight changes to the old primaries. Pump shotgun(2, difference is a slight damage difference and chrome has tighter spread), auto shotgun(2, one wide spread, one tight spread I believe), SMGs(2, one is stronger, the other more accurate.), Assault rifle(3..only differences, clip size and one is burst fire, and the AK has higher damage and slower firing speed), sniper rifles(2, military fires faster, hunting reloads faster) D) New AI - Terrible Special infected AI even on expert. Even worse survivor AI, if you're being beaten by a charger an inch away they'll stand there a few seconds then turn slowly and shoot it, then help you up. I was diappointed. Expand
  18. ScottF.
    Apr 9, 2010
    3
    This game was a disappointment after L4D in every imaginable way. Instead of well-paced gameplay that rewards teamwork, we get a game where whoever can rush the most wins. Tight confined spaces of L4D give way to much more open ones in L4D2, making it far too easy to avoid the traps that made L4D great. Mood music and tension are replaced instead by Louisiana jazz during horde attacks and sad one-liners like "Axe me a question." This game tries way too hard to be a fanboy game, and it loses the amazing and gritty zombie shooter that was Left 4 Dead along the way. Expand
  19. olol
    Nov 17, 2009
    3
    I know alot of L4D fans may disagree, but this game is not anything new or special. Yes there are a few new things, such as melee weapons, and new weapon models, but they feel the same as they did in L4D1. Furthermore, even with the new scavange mode and new campagins, this still gets boring REALLY INCREDIBLY quick for me. I would rather spend time on Half Life 2. User content was what kept the first game alive, due to valve not releasing much content (which they initially promised), and therefore i was wary about purchasing this one, but now i pretty much regret it. It wasn't worth it at all in my opinion, and i doubt much interesting content will come to this either (although valve WILL deliver, because they know if they don't, they'll be losing alot of their audiance with this game). But i would give this game a 3, just because it's fun for the first hour or two, but gets very boring soon afterwards, whether you play online or not. Sooner or later, there will be nothing to do other then join a game and teamkill, because that's what a majority of players did in L4D1 after a short time. Expand
  20. DennisC
    Dec 6, 2009
    0
    I gave a zero because I can't give an opinion about the game until I can actually learn how to get out of places. I've only been able to get out of the hotel. I can't find my way around. I've put in about 10 hours of this game, and just ran around shooting thousands of zombies and never getting any where. I can't find the exits!!! How do you get out of the mall? I can't find the door and I just shot thousands of zombies. I skippe the street level because I couldn't get out of there, either, after hours of shooting. It's monotonous and boring and it's ruining the game experience for me. Isn;t there a map or a guide for people who aren't good at path finding? Where's the GD'd door? I"m a great shooter, but not good at finding doors. I paid full price, and I'm not just disappointed, I 'm starting to get really angry. Can somebody help me? I want to enjoy this game. But right now I'm really, really bored. After the first session, which left me wanting to smash something, I put it down and didn't pick it up for days. Now I just tried again and I'm even more pissed off. I can't find my way out of the grids!!1 Help, help, help. Where's the map? Is there a map? And if not, why not? Expand
  21. DavidN
    Jan 6, 2010
    0
    Absolute rubbish. No continuity. Just MODS slapped together and called very loosly 'campaign' with no saved games. Extremely bad pathfinding. You go round in circles trying to find an exit meanwhile they darken it more so you spend 90% indoors searching for an exit. Repetitive. Just a very poorly designed bunch of MODS they fooled people into thinking was a GAME. I have sent an official complaint to Valve that this is not a game but MODS strung together. Guns and player movements are copied and pasted from Counter Strike. NO originality. No story. No campaign just endless, boring, repetitive shooting and killing of the same sprites. Not a game. No skill required or used. Just hold your mouse button down and shoot. No strategy, no talent at all required. RIP OFF. Be very careful of Valve releases in future. They have a MOD look about them and are rushed out to rake in the $$$$ but are really other games MODDED. L4D2 is Counter Strike MODDED that's all. Expand
  22. JeremyC
    Jan 7, 2010
    1
    This was hands down one of the worst games I've ever played... I enjoyed that horrendous E.T. game on the Atari 2600 more than I did this claptrap. The feel of the controls were imprecise and slippery, the graphics were too dark to be taken seriously and too poor to lighten. The only reason this thing even gets a point is for the multiplayer aspect... just garbage. How in the hell did this get a higher score that MW2?! Expand
  23. SP
    Feb 15, 2010
    0
    I was a huge fan of the first left 4 dead, though the campaign mode got stale fast. I found myself playing versus mode and 400 hours later I was playing versus mode competetively in scrims and matches. I was excited about the l4d2 release and bought it pretty early on expecting to move into competetive play in it as well. The game turned out to be absolutely terrible in comparison to the first. The aiming is much more clunky, and the weapons take up half of the screen. The maps are far too open and chokepoints are very limited and not often seen. This turns out not to matter though because the game removed all forms of skill to appeal to new players. In the first one the main ideas of the game in versus mode were based on co-ordinated infected attacks at chokepoints, quad-caps/ 3-1's, survivor skill, tankplay, and an understanding of maps and spawns. In l4d2 versus gameplay can be summed up in basically one word, luck. In the first game infected attacks required insane amounts of co-ordination to successfully pull off against a survivor team that was good. Everything had to be synced perfectly or the attack would get destroyed, going in off count or without other teammates would end in failure. In l4d2 you could sync an attack perfectly, aim a deathcharge out a window on a smoked target, then fly right through the target and out the window to your death; while the other team might completely fail their attack, have their charger miss completely and you think you can move forwards when suddenly, the charger grabs you (who cares that you are 20 feet away?) and you both fly out the window to your deaths. Why? Because that charger player is a pretty lucky guy. Spit spreads are almost entirely random, sometimes one person will get a puddle while another gets a lake and downs an entire team. Hunters have the potential to instantly repounce you after deadstops because the game thinks it is funny when the hunter pounces while still doing its stumbling animation. Smokers tongues can break on nothing (that happened in l4d as well but not nearly as often) or can pull you even after you've crossed a corner to a point where you think there is no possible way the tongue could still have hold of you. Boomer explosions sometimes don't hit people directly next to them, and other times will get people 20 feet away. Basically all infected play amounts to is how lucky you or your team are. You could execute something perfectly only to have it not work at all becausethe game decides it's just not your day, or you could have an awfully planned attack that wipes the other team because of random bs. On the survivor side things have really gotten rather lame. In l4d being a good survivor team required you to stay close, be able to deadstop and skeet hunters, and have a very good understanding of chokepoints and attacks as well as keeping in mind what spawns the team you were playing against had up so you'd know when to expect a quad. It could be really adrenaline packed when you knew a quad was coming in, tension is building, and you're ghosting waiting for it. It was extremely fulfilling to be the one who hit the deadstop or skeet to prevent it. You had to work with your team to push forwards past chokes after stopping attacks and to fight tanks. In l4d2, you no longer need to have decent aim. You see hunters maybe every 2 spawns and the game has much less of a focus on skeets and deadstops, and a much larger focus on clearing stationary targets. The aim and timing required in the first game are replaced with just a basic awareness and being able to click rapidly at something that isn't moving. Batting chargers is largely useless for anything other than showmanship considering it is much easier to just shoot them to death. Quads are no longer any worry and tanks are slower while molotovs spread insanely fast. Most competetive games come down to which team gets off a lucky charge as opposed to which is actually the stronger team. The game as a whole is rage-inducing and the lack of a need for strategy or co-ordination or aim is what makes it so horrible in my opinion. It is the only valve title iv'e actually regretted buying. Also the scoring system sucks. Expand
  24. F.D
    Feb 18, 2010
    0
    Although I vastly enjoyed the first Left 4 Dead I find myself unable to get into Left 4 Dead 2, both critic and user reviews are high so I thought it would be a fun online to pick up but after playing it I asked myself the question what different is there between Left 4 Dead 1 and Left 4 Dead 2 that couldn't have been added in DLC or patches? Very disappointed, the missions feel hollow and characters uninteresting. Although they added a few nice things the experience as a whole is lacking, felt more like a cheap attempt to make $$ and ditch their first project. Some people might enjoy this game, but I hated it. Expand
  25. AlexB
    Nov 30, 2009
    2
    I've done all of this before in the previous game... more then enough times. Additionally, the game feels almost unplayable, all the servers i join are laggy, and there's major performance issues compared to the first L4D. It's the same as the first game, but worse.
  26. AlexD
    Dec 27, 2009
    4
    I don't think it deserves paying 50$ given the fact it's just a DLC content promised for L4D1. I spent a lot of time playing the first part, I really enjoyed the atmosphere and the characters were adorable but this time both of these aspects are ruined. I personally believe that other zombie games have better weapons, for example KF is TEN times better in this aspect, and they are upgrading the game constantly just for free! I'm afraid I'll wait until it price falls to 20$ Expand
  27. Zachridw.
    Dec 2, 2009
    2
    At first of all, this game isn't bad, although my rating says otherwise. But the reason why I've gave this game a "2", is because of the price of ~60$ / ~50
  28. ElliottF
    Mar 27, 2010
    1
    Should have been an expansion for L4D, hardly anything new. New character, couple new zombies, new maps and melee weapons, and thats where it stops the rest is perfectly identical to the first. This is the biggest rip-off in valves history. $50 STILL, and its got $20 worth of new stuff tops. Over hyped and way over priced. To get rid of overpriced games and to stop them from doing this YOU HAVE TO NOT BUY IT ITS CALLED BOYCOTT. Something yall F'ed up on with xbox live. Sony online you don't pay. Expand
  29. MikeJ.
    Nov 17, 2009
    2
    More of the same with little change. Additions like melee weapons and dynamic weather feel like cop outs in a full release that plays more like a map pack with new models. Disappointing.
  30. KarstenT
    Nov 17, 2009
    4
    First of all, my english is not the best :P Valve sells a game for 50
Metascore

Generally favorable reviews - based on 55 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 55 out of 55
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 55
  3. Negative: 0 out of 55
  1. 100
    L4D2 delivers multiple improvements over its predecessor, and I get to keep all my fingers and toes.
  2. 90
    It remains one of the most distinctive co-operative titles out there, and allows for some of the most nerve-searing team-based multiplayer gaming on the market.
  3. Whereas once we treated Left 4 Dead as a stopgap between Half-Lifes, this is no longer a weird little side project with modest expectations, and Valve is confident enough to play around with it, safe in the knowledge that you can trust your players. Left 4 Dead proved it. And whereas that game had a personality, this one is overflowing with it.