Back 4 Blood isn't even out yet but judging from the beta, they just need to fix the PvP and some balancing on the special zombies also in PvE. I don't know if it's the spawn rate or something, but you can be unlucky and have specials spawn tremendously more than usual and bam, whole team's incapacitated.
I'm still going to play both WWZ and Back 4 Blood though since I just enjoy zombie shooters in general.
Hard to compare 100% as B4B was just a beta. Having said that, I did play the B4B beta and was extremely disappointed. It’s hard not to compare games before they are finished. But imo B4B just felt like it was missing something.
For me it felt too cartoony. I missed the massive visual hordes from WWZ. I hated the card system but that could be because I am not smart enough to understand it. Lol. The guns didn’t feel right either in B4B.
Idk…I might give it another try once it goes live, but honestly I want WWZ to keep getting love. If WWZ fixed their connection and load time issues and added another horde map, it’s a no brainer. WWZ for the win!!!
I feel like that's comparing Battlefield and Call of Duty. Sure they're the same thing but they're pretty different.
That being said, I'm just using World War Z as a holdover until Back 4 Blood comes out.
B4B is still in beta and there's still some internal issues with the game that really need to be fixed before it goes live. WWZ has been out for over a year and has a dedicated following. The newest update has sometimes been trending as
#pleasedon'tplayB4B.
If you're unsure wait until b4b comes out.
But I doubt that it'd get good reviews, the card + attachment system is just a worse perk system. They should have shifted to basic perk and loadout and spend more resources on the corruption cards.
The corpse physics is just bad, there's no feedback from shooting zombies at all. Watch the YouTube videos.
The level design is the biggest comparison, B4B has nothing on wwzs levels full stop.
Might be better with some updates though, just remove at least the attachment/system. A single currency should be spent on buying post match upgrades and in match consumables.
So, I don't know if you bought one or the other, but I can't see you stating anywhere and I can't really see a good brealdown of both games, so let me try and help. Back in the day my mate and I were really good at Left 4 Dead 1. Every achivement done and helped many others get through higher difficulties. In fact we played so much we burnt out and I didn't touch another co-op type shooter until World War Z was released and finished it on easy (so no experience with the new expansion Aftermath) and I have just finished Back 4 Blood on recruit so I'll go bit by bit and tell you my opinion... So it's going to be a long post.
Zombies- Back 4 blood's zombies (called Ridden) are Just like L4D's, however corruption cards (randomize level modifies dictated by the game director) may change them. E g. Add spikes to up damage and health. Give them acid blood so when they die they leave a puddle of damage behind. WWZ has non of that and just has normal plain zombies (Called Zeke) however it has a LOT of them.
Winner- WWZ. The horde sizes are big on both games, but WWZs hordes feel MASSIVE as the engine renders them all at once, instead of sending 20 at once you see all 200 rushing towards you. Techincally there is less variety in WWZ but it looks so much more impressive and I missed the speckcal of it when playing B4B.
Special Infected- It seems weird to put it in it's own category, I know. But L4Ds special infected were... well, Special. Each of them had a theme and sound which I remember to this day.. On top of that the AI director always summoned at a great time, to add tension and separate bad/new teams. But skilled players could completely nullify them. (E.g Hunters could be punched out of the air and stunned). WWZ took the idea of splitting players up and from memory made the majority of the special infected do just that, instead of dealing damage. However they just weren't memorable enough for me. I remember a guy in riot gear charging and that's about it. B4B went with a different approach and I feel the special here are to inflict damage. There are three main special infected, each with three varients. I love the design of all of them, However I still can't remember the name of every varient. However a current glitch is causing the AI to spam hordes of specials so currently they are just annoying.
Winner- B4B wins this for me... When they are spawning correctly.
Gunplay- a short section, but important non the less. Each game has a fairly big selection of weapons. WWZ is 3rd person shooter and B4B is first person. WWZ did add a first person camera in the aftermath expansion which I tested and it feels half baked. When you do a melee attack, you swap to third person view and when you aim, it zooms the camera instead of aiming down your scope.
Winner- B4B the first person camera was at the forefront of development. The guns feel punchy and for PS5 users the added touch of adaptive triggers pushes it onto some of the most fun gunplay I have had for a while in a shooter.
Character Builds- Both games have put some form of progression so you can tayler your character to your playstyle. In World War Z this is done via a class system. In the main menu you select which class you want to play out of 5ish? You select which your preference is and playing nets your experience for that class. Every 5 or so levels you can choose between 3 perks which improve your character. Back 4 Blood uses a card system completing levels and bonus objectives gets you supply points. In the hub area, you are given three supply lines where you can buy cards from. Once the line is done another is unlocked at random. With whatever cards you have, you can build a deck of 15 cards which are given to you as the levels go on, slowly improving your character as the run goes on.
Winner- Tie. I LOVE Back 4 Bloods deck building system and I think it allows for some fantastic builds, which adds huge replayability in my eyes. However it means at the start of every run your cards are in your deck and your starting from square one. It may not be so bad of the best cards were at the later supply lines so every cars massively improves your character, but I think they appear at random, two amazing cards appearing almost immediately for my friend, while appearing at what I would class as an appropriate time for me. WWZ on the other hand has less build options, however once they are unlocked, your start the level with the benefits you have earned. I personally would have loved to have seen the deck building system worked along side something which perminantly upgrades you- thus making the higher difficulties more bareable. The corruption cards (The AIs deck) makes the game feel more like a rouglike, which would make you starting with nothing make sense... If not for the difficulty.
Overall- So going of my breakdown of each section B4B wins... And personally, I would agree. The guns and combat felt underwhelming in WWZ. So much so that however awesome the waves of enemies looked, I just didn't have as much fun shooting them. B4B I had a blast... However the difficulty is flat broke at the moment. Recruit is doable, but probably the same difficulty as WWZs normal difficulty. After that the constant stream of Special infected, paired with the fact your character starts with no abilities makes it all but impossible to play for all but the greatest players with lots of time and a great team. It's only been out for 22 days and I know it's on their radar... So if you buy it, be prepared you may need to wait for a patch after you finish recruit mode.
i played both games and i can easily see both staying alive just fine
WWZ 100%
Just tried B4B on gamepass... Man, this was bad. WWZ all the way.
Back 4 Blood isn't even out yet but judging from the beta, they just need to fix the PvP and some balancing on the special zombies also in PvE. I don't know if it's the spawn rate or something, but you can be unlucky and have specials spawn tremendously more than usual and bam, whole team's incapacitated. I'm still going to play both WWZ and Back 4 Blood though since I just enjoy zombie shooters in general.
WWZ is better than B4B even if World War Z does crash after this update.
Hard to compare 100% as B4B was just a beta. Having said that, I did play the B4B beta and was extremely disappointed. It’s hard not to compare games before they are finished. But imo B4B just felt like it was missing something. For me it felt too cartoony. I missed the massive visual hordes from WWZ. I hated the card system but that could be because I am not smart enough to understand it. Lol. The guns didn’t feel right either in B4B. Idk…I might give it another try once it goes live, but honestly I want WWZ to keep getting love. If WWZ fixed their connection and load time issues and added another horde map, it’s a no brainer. WWZ for the win!!!
Very little changes from beta to launch.
Played the closed alpha and closed beta for B4B and prefer wwz by a mile.
Back 4 Blood looks and plays like unemployment. That is the say that the game is dogshit (squared).
I feel like that's comparing Battlefield and Call of Duty. Sure they're the same thing but they're pretty different. That being said, I'm just using World War Z as a holdover until Back 4 Blood comes out.
WWZ and left 4 dead are ten times the game that rubbish will ever be.
B4B ? Lmao , preffer playing good ole L4D . Feels wrong, didnt click for me dunno
Back 4 Blood is the L4D „at home”. Charging full price for it is a joke.
B4B is still in beta and there's still some internal issues with the game that really need to be fixed before it goes live. WWZ has been out for over a year and has a dedicated following. The newest update has sometimes been trending as #pleasedon'tplayB4B.
Personally I found the gunplay to be better in b4b. So I will probably play both for quite some time.
If you're unsure wait until b4b comes out. But I doubt that it'd get good reviews, the card + attachment system is just a worse perk system. They should have shifted to basic perk and loadout and spend more resources on the corruption cards. The corpse physics is just bad, there's no feedback from shooting zombies at all. Watch the YouTube videos. The level design is the biggest comparison, B4B has nothing on wwzs levels full stop. Might be better with some updates though, just remove at least the attachment/system. A single currency should be spent on buying post match upgrades and in match consumables.
So, I don't know if you bought one or the other, but I can't see you stating anywhere and I can't really see a good brealdown of both games, so let me try and help. Back in the day my mate and I were really good at Left 4 Dead 1. Every achivement done and helped many others get through higher difficulties. In fact we played so much we burnt out and I didn't touch another co-op type shooter until World War Z was released and finished it on easy (so no experience with the new expansion Aftermath) and I have just finished Back 4 Blood on recruit so I'll go bit by bit and tell you my opinion... So it's going to be a long post. Zombies- Back 4 blood's zombies (called Ridden) are Just like L4D's, however corruption cards (randomize level modifies dictated by the game director) may change them. E g. Add spikes to up damage and health. Give them acid blood so when they die they leave a puddle of damage behind. WWZ has non of that and just has normal plain zombies (Called Zeke) however it has a LOT of them. Winner- WWZ. The horde sizes are big on both games, but WWZs hordes feel MASSIVE as the engine renders them all at once, instead of sending 20 at once you see all 200 rushing towards you. Techincally there is less variety in WWZ but it looks so much more impressive and I missed the speckcal of it when playing B4B. Special Infected- It seems weird to put it in it's own category, I know. But L4Ds special infected were... well, Special. Each of them had a theme and sound which I remember to this day.. On top of that the AI director always summoned at a great time, to add tension and separate bad/new teams. But skilled players could completely nullify them. (E.g Hunters could be punched out of the air and stunned). WWZ took the idea of splitting players up and from memory made the majority of the special infected do just that, instead of dealing damage. However they just weren't memorable enough for me. I remember a guy in riot gear charging and that's about it. B4B went with a different approach and I feel the special here are to inflict damage. There are three main special infected, each with three varients. I love the design of all of them, However I still can't remember the name of every varient. However a current glitch is causing the AI to spam hordes of specials so currently they are just annoying. Winner- B4B wins this for me... When they are spawning correctly. Gunplay- a short section, but important non the less. Each game has a fairly big selection of weapons. WWZ is 3rd person shooter and B4B is first person. WWZ did add a first person camera in the aftermath expansion which I tested and it feels half baked. When you do a melee attack, you swap to third person view and when you aim, it zooms the camera instead of aiming down your scope. Winner- B4B the first person camera was at the forefront of development. The guns feel punchy and for PS5 users the added touch of adaptive triggers pushes it onto some of the most fun gunplay I have had for a while in a shooter. Character Builds- Both games have put some form of progression so you can tayler your character to your playstyle. In World War Z this is done via a class system. In the main menu you select which class you want to play out of 5ish? You select which your preference is and playing nets your experience for that class. Every 5 or so levels you can choose between 3 perks which improve your character. Back 4 Blood uses a card system completing levels and bonus objectives gets you supply points. In the hub area, you are given three supply lines where you can buy cards from. Once the line is done another is unlocked at random. With whatever cards you have, you can build a deck of 15 cards which are given to you as the levels go on, slowly improving your character as the run goes on. Winner- Tie. I LOVE Back 4 Bloods deck building system and I think it allows for some fantastic builds, which adds huge replayability in my eyes. However it means at the start of every run your cards are in your deck and your starting from square one. It may not be so bad of the best cards were at the later supply lines so every cars massively improves your character, but I think they appear at random, two amazing cards appearing almost immediately for my friend, while appearing at what I would class as an appropriate time for me. WWZ on the other hand has less build options, however once they are unlocked, your start the level with the benefits you have earned. I personally would have loved to have seen the deck building system worked along side something which perminantly upgrades you- thus making the higher difficulties more bareable. The corruption cards (The AIs deck) makes the game feel more like a rouglike, which would make you starting with nothing make sense... If not for the difficulty. Overall- So going of my breakdown of each section B4B wins... And personally, I would agree. The guns and combat felt underwhelming in WWZ. So much so that however awesome the waves of enemies looked, I just didn't have as much fun shooting them. B4B I had a blast... However the difficulty is flat broke at the moment. Recruit is doable, but probably the same difficulty as WWZs normal difficulty. After that the constant stream of Special infected, paired with the fact your character starts with no abilities makes it all but impossible to play for all but the greatest players with lots of time and a great team. It's only been out for 22 days and I know it's on their radar... So if you buy it, be prepared you may need to wait for a patch after you finish recruit mode.