Before we begin, try to understand that spiritual successors is not going to be exactly similar to the game it tried to succeed. Genre, gameplay, and theme can be the same, but there must be differences. An example was Phoenix Point, which was said to be a spiritual successor to XCOM (maybe the classic ones). However, while the two have similar theme and gameplay in you operating a spec-op organization against aliens, they were different. While XCOM is you clearing out enemies in areas in each missions generally, PP had some missions where you are up against infinite amount of enemies and have you complete objectives before getting overrun. While the former use RNG for shooting, the later uses free aim system to direct fire, meaning that there is no way you can miss a shotgun blast directly at someone's face. Therefore, just because it is a spiritual successor doesn't mean it have to be the same.

Now let's get started.

Honestly, I like B4B as much as I do to L4D. It's a great game with potential, experience, and gameplay that are different from our all time favorite 12-13 years old zombie shooting run-and-gun. A good alternative where tactical thinking is stressed heavily to take it slow rather than blast through in the Ridden infested apocalypse. A tactical zombie shooter game that blended L4D, KF2, and perhaps Resident Evil together.

But with all the hate in the discussion forums, and that "Valve carried L4D" vid that complained mostly on minor details and QoL springing up most of the time upon this about 4-5 months old game, I genuinely wanted to argue back so much that a question that I wanted to ask you all appeared in my mind:

What would make a L4D-ish games?

Now, this is not a complain or rant, and I definitely don't want a hate post here. Here, I want you all, haters and likers alike, to input your opinion on what would actually make a L4D spiritual successor.

Note the lack of the word "good". The reason because I wanted to know what the main concept(s) that people wanted to be included or change from what TRS presented with B4B to just make a L4D-ish game. The gameplay, the mechanics... anything that is outside of the polishes that is the graphics, controls, or physics. I don't see CoD people complaining about wooden fences withstanding a rocket launcher blast, or Skyrim having alt for sprint instead of shift by default. Plus, the concept of good and bad games mainly came down to the customers playing the game. You can't really know if a product you made is good or bad until it is tried by the public.

Also, steam workshop might be possible in the future for this game. XCOM 2, Darkest Dungeon, Saints Row 3 and 4, all of these examples had paid DLCs. Yet they still have their steam workshop, so why can't this game have it in the future.

And yes, I know that the likelihood of devs reading this might be low to nonexistence, but it is always good to hear how you wanted the game to be. And for all I know, in case they do read this, they might take your opinion in and make the changes (unless what you said is too much to the point of an overhaul).

(Jokingly) Or they decide to screw it and try to make L4D3 without Valve's help due to their allergy to number 3. Or that Valve decided to make it themselves.

2222

Anacrusis is a good l4d-ish game.

It is currently in EA. They are adding versus and mod support, and version 1.0 is expected to drop by end of year.

Try it. It is kinda barebones right now, but devs LOVE community feedback and are requesting it before going further. Some kinda big patch is coming soon!

The part that gets most people concerning B4B was the advertising. Take, for example, zombie army. It is a 4 person coop vs zombies but it is NOT like L4D. If Zombie Army threw L4D all over their release date then people would be pissed as well!

Most people who have played L4D for years play for 1 of 2 reasons (or both lol): mods and versus. Both of which won't exist in B4B. Mod support will be ultra hard to do, at most they can release skin mods and maybe map tools. But the game wasn't written with modding in mind to begin with.

This is one of the positives of Steam's source engine: It was meant for modding. In L4D, you can have a 10 vs 10 on a custom map, edit chargers so they can turn THEN set up charger races server, have hunter training, shrek tanks, the list can go on. Most people think mods mean "cool shrek skin" but mods on L4D take the game to an ENTIRE new level.

Check out a blood factory at zozo.gg sometime... its competitive 10v10 modded. And yes, there are seasonal tourneys for cash and prizes. That is only ONE community that created their OWN game from L4D, and has double the player amount of B4B's Steam player count.

Meanwhile B4B is written in UE4, which (from what I hear) is ♥♥♥♥ to mod.
Anacrusis wrote their game with the modding and director AI in mind from the start in UE4... in fact there are fewer hard limitations on the modding vs L4D2... that is pretty amazing. You can ask the devs at anytime on their discord and they will respond. They don't take too kindly to trolls so just a heads up on that!

Also, read Anacrusis reviews. Many many people say it gives L4D vibes, which is due to the director throwing whatever it wants at you, how it wants, when it wants... not static spawns!

Speaking of which: there is no "director" AI in B4B. This can easily be proven by spawns always coming from the same place in approx the same amounts. Take the ogre in 1-2 for example: when he spawns, the fence right behind you will spawn approx 20 CI. Every. Single. Time.

AI Director was a HUGEEEE selling point of L4D when it first came out. (Thank you Mike Booth!)

So I kinda went off track there, so what makes a L4D-ish game?

Mods
Versus (only game in existence to have this mode, and other games that have tried fail)
Custom Servers
High skill ceiling, no level ups, cards, etc.
Can hop in and play (no waiting 5 minutes)

Hypothetical: let us say B4B added a true versus mode... like the L4D they are emulating. Even if it is a total bugfest trash ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, people would be more responsive just to them trying. Why? As aforementioned, there is no such thing as L4D Versus in zombie games. Take a look at WWZ PVP... its trash.

Swarm is just salt in the wound.

There has always been an argument in L4D about which community is bigger: The coop mod players, or the versus players. Quite a few years ago Steam released the stats: Its pretty much 50/50.

B4B has neither.

I know this sounded like an Anacrusis advertisement (maybe a thesis? lol), but it def hits all the right notes on how L4D plays with what little they have in game. It is just best example I can give right now!

B4B is the spiritual successor of candy crush

WWZ

Originally posted by ObergruppenführerMaso:

You didn't learn anything, did you? Gonna stick it to The Man™ and double down on it, huh?

The framework and backbone of Back 4 Blood is too broken to make it anything like Left 4 Dead. Everything is just wrong.
My biggest complaint is there is no campaign VS mode. But in order to do this, we need special infected that are balanced enough to make it work with a VS campaign match. And it's not.
Then the card system creates even more unnecessary complications for balanced PVP to work.
Then we got no vote kick system which already destroys any potential for there to be PVP, or even regular campaign games without a single griefer ruining the game. The player base continues to shrink because of this alone. And people still believe it's a good thing even though the game is literally imploding on itself.

Dont forget about realism mode

World War Z does a pretty good job of it.

Left 4 dead wasn't my favorite. I like back 4 blood way more.
As such, I'll say what I didn't like about left 4 dead that to me is part of it's identity.

Too many game modes- stratify the community on what they get from the game. No clear deep focus
Very simple arcadey game- just join with randoms push through areas with randoms with no real coordination, infinite ammo piles, no team dynamics with weapon types conflicting ammo, no reason to change weapons as you play once you get your fav.
Mods- relying on players to make the game good is always something I hate. It also stratified the player base, they need to make the game actually good vanilla.
As for what I like that is in both games that would be:
A PvP mode- while swarm and campaign vs are very different, I think they help the identity of both games
Team-based- it's nice to have a game that actually relies on people working together and is difficult.
Enemies- lots of enemies that do different things to screw you over and are countered in different ways.

It's all a matter of opinion and if you see the comments on these forums, most of what other people like, I do not. I mostly feel like mods corrupt the experience yet people love them like crazy. If a dev is actually doing their jobs, mods will make the game worse as their cohesive design they worked on will suffer. It does make games last for an eternity and sell better as modders offer free development, it's just not my cup of tea. I feel like the simplicity of the game makes it incredibly boring and something I can't play long term. I always thought the campaign co op was the focus of the game and not the pvp, and the pvp was just a side thing you did if you wanted a completely uneven experience which I never wanted. As such, I don't want them comingled. By having it put into it's own mode balanced by having teams alternate, it's a much more consistent experience which it seems others don't like but I definitely do.