When I heard that another Left 4 Dead was coming out, I knew that I must have my hands on a copy. I saw the trailers, which still had the same *** look as the first, except in New Orleans with different characters. By the way, Valve did an excellent job with the trailers.

There isn't really a story to the "campaigns", like the first, but this is one of the few shooters that (while I have played it a thousand times over, like the first), it doesn't get old as fast as, say, a Call of Duty game. The graphics are very realistic, although through wave after wave of infected, the faces become grey blurs with splotches of blood (as was with the first).

Do you notice that I have been saying "like the first" a lot? That's the problem with this game. It's so much like the first that it really isn't innovative. Being like the original in a series is good, but being too much like it can hurt the sequel. The only main differences I noticed in this game from the first is a couple of new enemy types, a couple of new weapons, new characters, and different campaigns (which is not very innovative, when being compared to the first). 

I also have a problem with the new weapons that were added: while helpful and cool at points, they were too cliche from all things zombie. The ax and chainsaw: while helpful with a Witch, they are seen in almost every zombie film, game, book, et cetera. The golf club: not my first choice to use in a zombie apocalypse, but I've seen it used before. Same goes with the frying pan.

Don't get me wrong, it is a Left 4 Dead game which is the equivalent of shooting zombies galore while having an amazingly good time doing it, it just didn't stack up to the first in creativity and innovative-ness (is that even a word?).