Search for games

Type three or more characters to start searching

Links

Amazon

Steam

Twitch

MONSTER

Back 4 Blood

Name: Comprehensive Review and Analysis of Back 4 Blood
Item: Back 4 Blood
Author: MonsterCritic Editorial Team

2021

GenresAdventure, Action, Shooter, Horror, Single Player, Multiplayer, First Person Perspective

AvailableOct 7, 2021

PlatformPlayStation 5, Xbox Series X, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, PC

DeveloperTurtle Rock Studios

Overview

Back 4 Blood is a thrilling cooperative first-person shooter from the creators of the critically acclaimed Left 4 Dead franchise. You are at the center of a war against the Ridden. These once-human hosts of a deadly parasite have turned into terrifying creatures bent on devouring what remains of civilization. With humanity’s extinction on the line, it’s up to you and your friends to take the fight to the enemy, eradicate the Ridden, and reclaim the world.

Elsewhere

6.1

Game analysis

Monster Scorecard

EXPAND ALL

Story and Narrative

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Back 4 Blood’s story is a mixed bag: while its structured campaign and narrative focus over Left 4 Dead earn praise, critics call it shallow, clichéd, and emotionally barren—prioritizing co-op action over depth, leaving a forgettable, derivative tale.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR STORY

Story Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

72%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

19%

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the story and narrative.

The story of Back 4 Blood receives mixed but generally lukewarm reception, with some critics acknowledging its structured approach and thematic elements. Several reviewers highlight its campaign structure, noting that it is divided into acts and chapters, offering a segmented experience that can be completed in around 6–7 hours (BaziCenter) or four distinct acts with mission-driven survival scenarios (PCGamesN). IGN and Xbox Achievements commend the game for emphasizing narrative more than its predecessor Left 4 Dead, with cutscenes and a focus on "Cleaners" as mercenaries battling hordes of zombies. Dexerto praises the game’s unique characters and setting, which distinguish it from Left 4 Dead while evoking nostalgia, and Malditos Nerds describes the narrative as "confident and action-oriented." These positives suggest that while the story may not be groundbreaking, it provides a cohesive framework for the gameplay. However, the majority of critics panned the story for its lack of depth, originality, and emotional engagement. GamingTrend criticized it as "useless with minimal plot and character development," while JeuxActu called the narrative "weak" and failing to engage during action sequences. Vandal lambasted the writing as "poorly written and filled with clichés," and IGN Italia noted a lack of emotional depth, focusing instead on survival over world-building. GameStar described the story as "minimal" with "superficial dialogue," and TheSixthAxis called it "throwaway," emphasizing that the narrative feels like a mere pretext for gameplay. Many reviewers, including XGN and Game Rant, highlighted the underdeveloped characters and derivative plot, with the latter noting that the Cleaners lack charm or memorable traits. These critiques collectively underscore a widespread perception of the story as shallow and unmemorable. The overall consensus among critics is that Back 4 Blood’s narrative is functional but ultimately unremarkable, prioritizing gameplay over storytelling. While some praise its structure and slight improvements over Left 4 Dead (IGN, Xbox Achievements), the majority view it as a missed opportunity for deeper engagement. Eurogamer Italy and Metro GameCentral acknowledge that the story serves its purpose within the context of the game but is "incidental" and hard to remember. Conversely, critics like PC Gamer note that the narrative offers a fresh take on the zombie genre by positioning players as mercenaries rather than survivors. Despite these nuances, the prevailing sentiment is that Back 4 Blood’s story lacks the depth, creativity, and character development needed to elevate it beyond a generic post-apocalyptic shooter, leaving it as a secondary element to the co-op action.

TL;DR

story and narrative

Gameplay Mechanics

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Back 4 Blood delivers addictive co-op thrills with its inventive deck-building and dynamic teamwork, but repetitive missions, flawed AI, and uneven difficulty undermine its potential, making it a mixed bag of ambition and inconsistency.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR GAMEPLAY

Gameplay Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

80%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

19%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the gameplay mechanics.

The gameplay of Back 4 Blood receives widespread praise for its cooperative focus, innovative deck-building system, and dynamic co-op mechanics. Many critics highlight the game’s emphasis on teamwork and strategic play, with GameStar noting its “cooperative campaigns requiring teamwork and strategy,” while PCMag applauds the “deck-building card system that enhances replayability.” The card system itself is a standout feature, with IGN Spain calling it “a card system that adds depth and strategy” and Xbox Achievements praising its role in “strategic team play.” Additionally, several reviewers laud the game’s gunplay and weapon variety, such as Windows Central, which highlights “fantastic gunplay” and “a variety of weapons and attachments,” while Softpedia commends “refined controls and natural-feeling moves.” The roguelike elements, including randomized missions and procedural content, are also celebrated for adding freshness, as noted by Gaming Nexus and VGC. However, several critics point to significant flaws that detract from the experience. Repetition and predictability in mission design are a recurring issue, with AusGamers criticizing “repetitive action and predictable pacing” and GameStar noting “disjointed” design compared to Left 4 Dead. The AI’s ineffectiveness, particularly in solo play, is another major complaint: GameSpew calls the AI “ineffective,” while IGN Portugal highlights “AI issues” that make solo play frustrating. Enemy engagement and difficulty balancing also draw criticism, with VGC pointing out “repetitive mission objectives” and “poor AI,” while GameSpew complains about “excessive enemy spawns.” The deck-building system, though praised for variety, is sometimes criticized as unintuitive or overly reliant on RNG—Comicbook.com calls it a “notable drawback,” and CGMagazine finds the system “unintuitive and detracting from pace.” Overall, critics agree that Back 4 Blood successfully modernizes the Left 4 Dead formula with its cooperative focus and card system, but struggles with consistency in execution. While positives like the “addictive gameplay” (IGN Spain) and “thrilling co-op experiences” (Wccftech) dominate, negatives such as repetitive mission design (AusGamers), AI shortcomings (GameSpew), and balancing issues (VGC) create a mixed reception. The game’s reliance on teamwork is both its strength and weakness—while it excels in multiplayer (as noted by GameOver.gr and TheSixthAxis), solo play feels underdeveloped. Despite these flaws, the consensus leans toward appreciation for its ambition and replayability, with many acknowledging it as a “natural evolution” of the co-op zombie genre (Xbox Achievements) but cautioning that its issues may limit its appeal to all players.

TL;DR

gameplay mechanics

Graphics and Visual Design

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Polished, immersive visuals with smooth performance and atmospheric depth, but recycled Left 4 Dead designs, monotonous aesthetics, and technical quirks undermine its originality, leaving it as functional rather than groundbreaking.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR VISUALS

Visual Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

37%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

62%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the graphics and visual design.

The graphics and visual design of Back 4 Blood received a mix of praise for their technical execution and atmospheric elements. Many reviewers highlighted the game’s modern aesthetic, with PC Gamer noting its "beautifully optimized" visuals and smooth animations, while Softpedia praised the "beautiful and impressive" graphics that feel like "a work of art." The game’s environments were frequently lauded for their variety and detail, with VG247 commending its "compelling variety of environments inspired by Americana" and GameCritics appreciating the "lush and detailed settings." Additionally, the gore effects and character designs were noted as effective in enhancing immersion, with Press Start Australia highlighting "impressive graphics" and "satisfying zombie animations," while IGN Spain praised the "detailed zombie and weapon designs" and "lighting effects that enhance the visual experience." The game’s ability to maintain a cohesive post-apocalyptic tone across diverse locations, such as "mist-shrouded swamps" and "flooded warehouses" (as described by God is a Geek), further underscored its strengths in creating an engaging visual atmosphere. However, several critics pointed out significant shortcomings in the game’s visual design. The lack of originality was a recurring issue, with WellPlayed stating the graphics are "indistinguishable from previous L4D maps," and Shacknews criticizing the "bland level design" that fails to meet expectations. PlaySense and PC Invasion noted the monotonous color palette and underwhelming details, particularly in darker environments, while AusGamers described the cartoon-like visuals as "lacking in scares" and reminiscent of "classic '90s videogames." The game’s reliance on recycled designs from Left 4 Dead was also a point of contention, with MGG Spain observing that it "reuses design elements" and "lacks originality in the design of special infected." Additionally, some critics highlighted technical issues, such as "polygonal compromises and texture problems" (The Games Machine) and "minor visual quirks" (GamingTrend), which detracted from the overall experience. The inconsistency in level design—ranging from "well-crafted" to "rushed" (Atomix)—further emphasized a lack of cohesive creativity. Overall, critics generally agreed that Back 4 Blood delivers competent and visually appealing graphics that meet modern standards but fall short of standing out as a unique or groundbreaking title. While the game’s technical performance, such as its smooth 60fps frame rate on next-gen consoles (as noted by Softpedia and Meristation), and atmospheric elements like "creepy atmospheres" (App Trigger) were praised, many felt it lacked the distinctiveness to rival other entries in the genre. The consensus leaned toward a balanced assessment: it is a solid, polished experience with strong optimization and immersive visuals, but its reliance on familiar tropes and generic design choices limited its ability to leave a lasting impression. As IGN Spain observed, the game "maintains a modern aesthetic" while capturing the essence of Left 4 Dead, but as Shacknews noted, it "does not stand out visually compared to other titles," reflecting a broader sentiment that Back 4 Blood is more functional than innovative in its visual approach.

TL;DR

graphics and visual design

Music and Sound Design

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Back 4 Blood’s sound design shines with immersive weapon feedback, chaotic rock tracks, and memorable licensed hits like Ace of Spades, but struggles with inconsistent tension, weak special infected cues, and generic music that fails to match its predecessor’s intensity.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR SOUND DESIGN

Sound Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

54%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

40%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the music and sound design.

The majority of reviewers praised the sound design and music of Back 4 Blood, highlighting its immersive and impactful contributions to gameplay. Critics like Dexerto and Finger Guns emphasized how the audio effectively enhances tension and excitement, with Finger Guns noting "impactful weapon sounds" and "satisfying audio feedback during combat." Hardcore Gamer lauded the "top-notch" audio design, particularly the "satisfying sound effects for headshots and explosions," while IGN Spain and Jeuxvideo.com praised the "satisfying gunplay sounds" and weapon intensity. The use of licensed music, such as Motorhead’s Ace of Spades and Spiderbait’s Black Betty, was frequently highlighted as a standout element, with GamingBolt and Destructoid calling out memorable sequences that amplified the game’s chaotic energy. Additionally, TheXboxHub and TrueAchievements appreciated distinct zombie noises and rock-driven soundtracks that enriched the atmosphere, creating a "chaotic and gory" experience. However, several critics pointed to shortcomings in the music and sound design. BaziCenter criticized the soundtrack for "lacking the ability to create tension," while GameSpot noted the absence of musical cues for special infected, which detracted from immersion. Shacknews raised concerns about "poor directional audio" and inconsistent volume levels, calling the experience "frustrating." Games.cz found weapon sounds "unimpressive," and Checkpoint Gaming described the music as "generic" compared to its predecessor. WellPlayed also noted that humorous dialogue "often fell flat," undermining the game’s intended atmosphere. Additionally, Xbox Achievements pointed out a lack of "panic-inducing effects" for special characters, a feature that defined earlier entries in the Left 4 Dead series. These critiques suggest that while the audio design was generally strong, certain elements failed to meet expectations. Overall, the consensus leans positive, with most critics acknowledging the sound design’s strengths in creating an immersive and intense experience. The combination of impactful weapon sounds, dynamic music choices, and effective audio cues for gameplay mechanics earned widespread praise, as seen in reviews from GameGrin, Multiplayer.it, and Vandal. However, the music’s ability to consistently elevate tension or innovate remained a point of contention, with some reviewers like EGM and Checkpoint Gaming noting its lack of memorability. Despite these criticisms, the majority of feedback underscores that Back 4 Blood’s audio design successfully enhances gameplay, even if it occasionally falls short in specific areas. The game’s reliance on licensed rock tracks and robust sound effects solidified its reputation as aurally engaging, though not without room for improvement.

TL;DR

music and sound design

Voice Acting

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Voice acting in Back 4 Blood shines with vibrant personalities, humor, and immersive depth—highlighted by standout performances like Mario García’s wit and the Italian dub’s charm—but falters under repetitive dialogue, flat humor, and a lack of character nuance compared to Left 4 Dead, creating a mixed legacy of strong execution vs. uneven design.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR VOICE ACTING

Acting Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

35%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

51%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

14%

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the voice acting.

The voice acting in Back 4 Blood receives largely positive reception, with many critics highlighting its ability to breathe life into characters and enhance immersion. Dexerto praises the performances for adding personality and contributing to the game’s overall enjoyment, while Gamepressure emphasizes that characters are well-voiced with unique personalities and backstories that deepen player connection. IGN Spain notes standout moments, such as Mario García’s humorous delivery, and GamingBolt applauds the "diverse cast" and contextual dialogue that lend authenticity. Critics like Checkpoint Gaming and Everyeye.it also commend the voice acting for effectively conveying distinct character traits, with the latter noting its role in "character development and overall immersion." These reviews suggest that the voice work successfully elevates the game’s atmosphere and engagement. However, several critics point to shortcomings, particularly regarding repetition and lack of depth. WellPlayed criticizes the "overly chatty" dialogue, arguing it detracts from the experience, while AusGamers highlights NPCs delivering "repetitive lines," implying a lackluster execution. CGMagazine and EGM both note that the voice acting fails to match the chemistry of the original Left 4 Dead games, with EGM calling the humor "flat" and unremarkable. IGN Italia and Trusted Reviews mention repetitive dialogue that becomes tiresome during intense gameplay, while Shacknews compares the quips unfavorably to the charm of earlier titles. These critiques suggest that while individual performances are strong, the overall design of voice lines and character interactions occasionally falls short in maintaining engagement. The overall consensus reflects a mixed but leaning-positive assessment. While many critics celebrate the voice acting for its distinct personalities, humor, and immersion—particularly in localized versions like the Italian dub (MondoXbox, The Games Machine)—others find it repetitive or underdeveloped. The divide often hinges on whether players prioritize character depth versus the game’s fast-paced action. Critics like IGN and Gaming Nexus praise the "superb" and "convincing" performances, while others, such as EGM and Shacknews, feel the writing and delivery lack the punch of previous entries in the genre. Ultimately, Back 4 Blood’s voice acting is seen as a strong asset but one that occasionally struggles to balance humor, repetition, and character depth.

TL;DR

voice acting

Technical Performance

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Back 4 Blood shines on PC/PS5 with smooth performance and optimization but crashes, glitchy AI, and broken matchmaking plague all platforms, dragging down an otherwise fun experience despite post-launch fixes.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE

Tech Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

24%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

67%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the technical performance.

The technical performance of Back 4 Blood varies across platforms, with several positives highlighted by critics. On PC, reviewers like Wccftech praised the game’s polish, noting its ability to run smoothly at 4K with no major issues, while Vandal and Shacknews commended the PC version for supporting high frame rates and NVIDIA DLSS optimization. For Xbox Series X/S, MondoXbox and Gaming Age highlighted stable performance, with consistent 60fps and smooth multiplayer experiences on next-gen consoles. On PS5, Atomix and PlaySense noted excellent stability, with no significant frame drops or crashes, while BaziCenter emphasized steady frame rates during gameplay. Additionally, TheGamer and Finger Guns observed minor glitches but overall solid performance across platforms. However, technical issues plagued multiple platforms. On PC, critics like CGMagazine and GameOver Online reported frequent crashes and problems with matchmaking, while God is a Geek highlighted glitchy AI bots and unstable netcode. For Xbox Series X/S, GameSkinny and Eurogamer Italy cited recurring crashes, loading failures, and convoluted menus, while ZTGD and M3 criticized control bugs and AI companions failing to assist players. On PS4/PS5, Attack of the Fanboy noted the always-online requirement as a drawback for solo play, and TheXboxHub and Metro GameCentral pointed to matchmaking inconsistencies and lack of rewards for single-player progression. Even on Xbox One, TierraGamer acknowledged minor matchmaking bugs despite calling the system "good overall." Overall, critics agree that Back 4 Blood faces significant technical challenges but shows potential for improvement. While platforms like PC and PS5 received praise for optimization and stability (e.g., Wccftech, Atomix), issues such as crashes, AI glitches, and matchmaking problems were widespread across all systems. Notably, some reviewers, including GameSpace and COGconnected, noted that developers have been addressing bugs post-launch, suggesting a positive trajectory. Despite mixed experiences, the consensus leans toward the game being "fun" despite its flaws, with Malditos Nerds and Game Rant acknowledging that technical issues are overshadowed by gameplay enjoyment. The disparity in performance highlights the need for further refinement, particularly on Xbox and PC, where instability remains a persistent concern.

TL;DR

technical performance

Replay Value

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Back 4 Blood’s replay value shines in co-op with dynamic card systems and procedural variety, but solo play falters due to repetitive content, flawed AI, and lack of progression incentives.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR REPLAY VALUE

Replay Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

56%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

40%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the replay value.

The overall sentiment among critics regarding Back 4 Blood’s replay value is largely positive, with many praising its structured systems and variability. The card system, difficulty levels, and cooperative gameplay are frequently highlighted as key drivers of replayability. For instance, IGN and GamesRadar+ commend the AI Game Director and dynamic enemy spawns for keeping each playthrough fresh, while GameGrin and VGC note that unlocking new cards and experimenting with deck builds encourages multiple sessions. PCGamesN and New York Daily News emphasize the randomized levels, corruption cards, and varied objectives, which create distinct experiences even with repetitive mission structures. Additionally, COGconnected and GameCritics acknowledge the potential for long-term engagement through procedural generation, weapon customization, and competitive Swarm mode. These elements collectively suggest that the game’s design fosters a sense of exploration and experimentation, particularly in multiplayer contexts. However, several critics point to significant drawbacks that limit replayability, especially for solo players or those seeking deeper engagement. AusGamers criticizes the predictability of pacing and level design, arguing it diminishes incentives to revisit higher difficulties. CGMagazine and GameSpew highlight flaws in the card system’s execution, with the former noting its lack of enjoyment despite theoretical replay value and the latter expressing concerns about player fatigue from long acts. Press Start Australia and Atomix stress that solo progression is gated behind online play, creating a barrier for those who prefer single-player experiences. VGC and Dexerto also mention issues like dull level content, poor AI, and unbalanced difficulty, which can frustrate repeated attempts. Additionally, GameOver Online and IGN Portugal note that while the card system and cooperative modes enhance replayability, solo play lacks meaningful incentives, and some mechanics may feel repetitive or underdeveloped. Despite these criticisms, there is a general consensus that Back 4 Blood’s replay value hinges on its systems and multiplayer appeal. While GameSpot and VG247 praise the AI Director and deck-building as core strengths, others like But Why Tho? and SomosXbox acknowledge that solo play struggles with limited progression and repetitive content. The game’s reliance on cooperative gameplay is both a strength and a limitation: We Got This Covered and TheXboxHub note that multiplayer enhances replayability through shared challenges, but GameSkinny and TierraGamer warn that solo players may find the experience less rewarding. Ultimately, critics agree that the game’s replay value is strongest when played with others, leveraging its card system, varied difficulty levels, and procedural elements to sustain engagement. However, issues like pacing, AI quality, and solo-focused design flaws prevent it from achieving universal acclaim in this regard.

TL;DR

replay value

Back 4 Blood’s replay value shines in co-op with dynamic card systems and procedural variety, but solo play falters due to repetitive content, flawed AI, and lack of progression incentives.

Overall Verdict

MONSTER

OVERALL SCORE DISTRIBUTION

Monster Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

61%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

39%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing all available reviews that scored and critiqued the game.

The majority of reviewers highlight Back 4 Blood as a strong co-op shooter that successfully channels the spirit of Left 4 Dead, particularly praising its chaotic, team-based gameplay and innovative mechanics. Critics like The Loadout and PCGamesN laud its "intense and unpredictable gameplay" and "fresh take on the genre," while App Trigger calls it a "fun spiritual successor" with customization options that appeal to both old and new fans. The card system, replay value, and dynamic encounters are frequently cited as standout features, with Gamers' Temple noting its "finely tuned gun controls" and MGG Spain praising its "fresh mechanics." Many reviewers, including TheXboxHub and Impulsegamer, emphasize that the game shines brightest in multiplayer, offering a thrilling experience when played with friends. The combination of fast-paced action, strategic teamwork, and variety in missions creates a compelling package for co-op enthusiasts. However, several critics point to significant flaws that detract from the experience, particularly in solo play and technical execution. Gameblog.fr and Press Start Australia criticize the game’s AI and "limitations in solo play," while GameSkinny and TheXboxHub highlight issues like pacing problems, bugs, and matchmaking inconsistencies. The lack of a robust single-player mode is another recurring complaint, with Gamers' Temple and PlayStation LifeStyle noting that solo progression feels underdeveloped. Additionally, some reviewers, such as Gamepressure and Hardcore Gamer, point to narrative weaknesses, repetitive missions, and an uninspired story that fails to match the charm of its predecessor. While PC Invasion acknowledges potential, many feel the game needs more refinement in areas like difficulty balance and content variety to fully realize its ambitions. Overall, the consensus among critics is that Back 4 Blood is a solid, if imperfect, co-op experience that successfully revives the Left 4 Dead formula while introducing new mechanics. While it faces criticism for technical issues, solo play shortcomings, and repetitive elements, most agree it delivers fun, engaging multiplayer sessions. TheGamer and Malditos Nerds praise its "elevated" gameplay and "thrilling experience," while GameSkinny and PC Gamer acknowledge its flaws but still recommend it for fans of the genre. The game’s future depends on addressing these issues through updates, as noted by Hobby Consolas and GameMAG, who see potential in its foundation. Despite mixed reviews, the majority view it as a worthwhile addition to the co-op shooter landscape, particularly when played with others.

TL;DR

Back 4 Blood is a thrilling co-op shooter that captures Left 4 Dead’s chaos with fresh mechanics and team-based fun, but its solo play flaws, technical hiccups, and repetitive quests drag it down.

MONSTER

Reviews

176 reviews found

100

New York Daily News

Xbox Series X

Oct 16, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Back 4 Blood is described as a good-looking game that builds on the formula of Left 4 Dead. It is praised for its cooperative gameplay and ease of jumping into. It is compared to other cooperative games with deeper story and progression.

Read full review

TheGamer

Xbox Series X

Oct 10, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

The review praises Back 4 Blood as an elevated and enhanced version of Left 4 Dead, with a more mature and rewarding gameplay experience.

Read full review

God is a Geek

Oct 13, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Despite some glitches and issues with the solo mode, the reviewer considers Back 4 Blood to be the most fun they've had with a shooter this year and an absolute blast to play with friends. The game is praised for its atmosphere, gameplay, and card system.

Read full review

Inverse

Xbox Series X

Oct 11, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Back 4 Blood is praised for its intense moment-to-moment gameplay, clever level design, variety from run to run, and memorable characters in a campy story. It is considered a near-perfect cooperative experience with a focus on creating unique cooperative moments rather than a deep narrative. The botched PvP multiplayer mode is criticized for lacking creativity and being less enjoyable compared to the main campaign experience.

Read full review

PC Gamer

Oct 16, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Back 4 Blood is praised as one of the best co-op experiences, especially when played with friends. Despite some flaws in the PvP mode, the overall fun and gameplay depth make it a standout title.

Read full review

Stevivor

Oct 13, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Despite some criticisms, Back 4 Blood is seen as a worthy successor to Left 4 Dead, offering engaging gameplay and a fun experience overall.

Read full review

Gamers' Temple

Xbox Series X

Nov 18, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Back 4 Blood is praised for its replay value, card system, and finely tuned gun controls. The lack of a true single player mode and the requirement for an online connection are noted as drawbacks. The game is recommended for shooter fans looking for a game with longevity and fun multiplayer experiences.

Malditos Nerds

Xbox Series X

Nov 9, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Back 4 Blood is a thrilling and engaging cooperative shooter that retains the essence of Left 4 Dead while introducing new mechanics that elevate the experience. Despite some technical issues, it offers hours of fun and is highly recommended for players.

Read full review

Softpedia

PlayStation 5

Nov 1, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Back 4 Blood is a challenging co-op release and worth a chance, especially for fans of post-apocalyptic first-person shooters.

Read full review

GameCritics

Nov 10, 2021

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Back 4 Blood is a solid, well-polished co-op shooter with minor flaws that could be improved with some tweaking. With more content updates and the engaging card system, it has the potential to become a great game with lasting appeal.

Read full review