Back 4 Blood Vs World War Z: Aftermath

Turtle Rock Studios' Left 4 Dead is still very much regarded as one of the most memorable four-player local co-op games on the planet, and understandably so. In spite of the developer upping sticks and abandoning the lofty cash cow after pushing out its second instalment, a third game did eventually come to fulfilment. However, it wasn't under the same family tree that chronicled the first two groups of survivors; it was on another tapestry altogether, one that would later go on to become Back 4 Blood, an invigoratingly atmospheric spiritual successor to the beloved two-piece survival-horror.

And then there's World War Z, yet another zombie game that channeled just about every element from the 2013 blockbuster movie into an episodic shooter with a questionable amount of similarities. Put the two games side-by-side, of course, and you'll begin to notice the resemblance—not just with the zombies, but the gameplay, the characters, and the overall gist of the games themselves. And in case you're wondering which of the two is the overall better choice, then read on. Here's everything you need to know before picking up either Back 4 Blood or World War Z: Aftermath.

What Is Back 4 Blood?

Back 4 Blood is a first-person action shoot 'em up game by Turtle Rock Studios, a firm best known for developing the short-lived but forever timeless Left 4 Dead series. While sticking to its grassroots as being a multiplayer-based shooter with a deep focus on teamwork, Back 4 Blood also comes into its own as a full-fledged IP that's equally as deserving of the spotlight as its preceding series.

In Back 4 Blood, games are divided into chapters, which can be completed in any particular order as one of four playable survivors. As such, players must work together to slug through a series of dynamic levels and learn to overcome the fears and obstacles that loiter within. To this end, Back 4 Blood is very much a shoot first, ask questions later sort of gig, as it mostly revolves less around an actual plotline, and more around addictive and unforgettably fast-paced gunplay. Is it Left 4 Dead 3 in a 4K turtleneck sweater? Perhaps. But is it better than World War Z: Aftermath? Now that's debatable.

What Is World War Z: Aftermath?

World War Z: Aftermath is a third-person survival-horror game by Saber Interactive, an outfit best known for hit franchises including Halo, Crysis, and Evil Dead. Much like Back 4 Blood, the idea behind the video game adaptation of 2013's World War Z is to pit a team of four against a city of walking corpses that lack in power, but make up for in speed and intensity. The goal, also similar to Back 4 Blood, is to escape the post-apocalyptic world while also learning to work as a close-knit unit in arms.

Again, World War Z: Aftermath is broken down into chunks; memoirs that translate into individual episodes featuring different characters, settings, and objectives. The overall aim is quite literally the same, and the only real difference is the perspective. And yet here the question remains: which of the two is considerably better than the other?

Gameplay

On paper, you'd naturally assume that both Back 4 Blood and World War Z were one of the same, if not connected as main instalments in a single franchise, then in some form of two-for-one post-launch DLC. Dig a little deeper, and you'll see that, looking beyond the first-person and third-person perspectives, there are actually a few subtle differences that set the two apart. But as far as gameplay goes, both revolve around four-player multiplayer maps that incorporate swarms of zombies, starting points (also known as Safe Rooms), and concluding chapters that test the players cooperation via one final free-for-all skirmish against the dead.

Back 4 Blood features a Safe House at the beginning of each level, similar to the ones used in World War Z. What Back 4 Blood also has are character loadouts that can be swapped out and tailored to suit your play style. Again, these are textbook elements that most, if not all multiplayer games employ. But as far as gameplay goes, World War Z definitely has more of an immersive edge. In spite of the third-person perspective drawing you away from the action ever so slightly, it is, all things considered, the better game to play.

While Back 4 Blood does have a lot of elements à la Left 4 Dead, its level designs and fluidity are somewhat lacking, whereas World War Z has far more to offer; riveting combat, risky objectives, and a deeper sense of purpose as you sludge through the chapters, chunk by chunk. Its enemies are also faster, and far more threatening than the ones seen in Back 4 Blood, which alone makes it more of a nail-biting experience to endure alone or with companions.

Which Is Better?

When all's said and done, you can't really go wrong with either of the two. If you're after an adrenaline-fueled, zombie-infused survival-horror experience with enough replayability to keep you trucking away for months on end, then take your pick—Back 4 Blood or World War Z. But if you're considering just the one over the other, then honestly, we'd wager the latter, as it brings just a smidgen more to the table as far as gameplay goes.

Don't get me wrong, Back 4 Blood is a fantastic multiplayer game, and an all-round beacon of pride for Turtle Rock Studios to hoist around. But speaking facts, World War Z just has the better characters, levels, enemies, and loadouts. It's also easier on the eye and far more aesthetically appealing than Turtle Rock Studios' long-awaited spiritual successor. So there's also that to consider.

The good news is, you can play either zombie hit on Game Pass, which means, if you've got an active subscription, then you may as well give both a shot and see for yourself which one has the harder punch. For us, though, the answer is as clear as day: World War Z — every time.

So, what's your take? Do you agree with our verdict? Which of the two games do you prefer? Let us know over on our socials here or down in the comments below.