A second look at zombie games...

It's been some time since my Left 4 Dead 2 and Killing Floor reviews. While I didnt get around to making a Left 4 Dead review (I suppose for completeness sake, that'll be coming), many of the points for it were raised with my review of the sequel. Something I have noticed though (and I am definitely guilty of this) is a certain amount of bias and animosity that the two camps have. At the end of the day, both are solid games regardless of what 'professional' reviews conclude. They just happen to target two totally different market segments (something that, as you get more and more engrossed, you forget about). Here's to a second take.




Left 4 Dead / Left 4 Dead 2
The heavyweight, blockbuster titles from Valve, they definitely get some serious credit for bringing coop gameplay to the masses. It's definitely something that has been sorely missed since the days of Doom and Duke Nukem 3D. A smattering of games here and there have popped up (most noteably the Serious Sam franchise) but for the most part, co-op gameplay has been a niche market. The majority of coop gameplay up until L4D mostly boiled down to team deathmatch or control-point games such as the Battlefield and Call of Duty franchises.

So a big thank-you to Valve for reintroducing coop gameplay as a mainstream thing. Being a mainstream title the game (independent of the players) has some outstanding strong points:

• With Boomers, players are [re]introduced to a multi-approach suicidal monster. While suicidal monsters are nothing new to the genre, they have mostly appeared as baddies that simply blind-charge you or ambush you in a one-time-use suicide attack. The Boomer's ability to [repeatedly] cause damage (assuming successful ambush-and-escape) is a fantastic re-take on the archtype of suicidal monster.
• The genuine need for teamwork. While it is possible for an exceptionally skilled (and lucky) player to ninja their way to the end of a campaign/level, it is especially challenging in L4D/L4D2 as the special infected are specifically designed to require intervention from another player.
• Modular, themed gameplay. A subtle re-take on the notion of "levels" and "maps", each level (a "chapter") is a part of a larger campaign which is delivered as a 'movie'. The ultimate AI controller, the 'Director' continues the overal cinematic theme. Even something as bland as the end-game score is delivered as closing credits. All in all, these are trivial things, but a very nice, cohesive touch.
• Versus mode, provided a unique take and a twist on the competitive gameplay common with the Battlefield/Call of Duty genre. With infected-players having the ability to follow the survivors around in a ghost-form and then controlling when and where they can spawn (read: ambush), versus gameplay is very challenging (against a good team).
• Most of all, the dynamic gameplay, courtesty of the Director is a very big selling point for the franchise and it adds a huge amount of value to the game in terms of re-playability.

Of course, a lot of these strengths can be readily twisted into really negative points about the franchise:

• Boomers clip through walls allowing survivors to shoot them through the wall/door. Sure it's a minor thing and can generally be avoided by standing a bit further away from said wall/door -- but seriously, clipping? The first game was released in November 2008 -- clipping should have long been dealt with. While this isn't a fault specific to the franchise, it'still kind of sad as a whole, gamers are still dealing with issues like this.
• With the sequel, a new special infected, the Spitter is introduced. It's fullfills a siege role in that it fires a blob of acid goop at an area on the ground, forcing the survivors to split up. Sure no big deal, it makes sense that you take ridiculous amounts of damage while standing goop. You do still, however, take damage if you are on a ladder and the spit is beneath you. While we can get into the details of arguing that it's vapor based damage (which then would lead to discussions about why you dont take more damage/sec while standing directly in it), it would have been so much easier for the game mechanics to properly handle this in a logical manner (i.e., if you are physically standing in, or get spat on by goop, you take damage, otherwise, you don't).
• While the gameplay is fantastically fun and an overall, all-around challenge, there game is a bit too obsessed with teamwork. With hunters, smokers, chargers, jockeys and witches single handedly being able to take the player out of the fight, it seems a bit over the top. I guess if the AI (or average player) wasn't so retarded, it would kind of balance it out but alas that's too much to ask for (too many instances of being smokered ~3 feet from a survivor and having them unable to get to to me -- even though nothing is obstructing them).
• The previous point leads to this: there is no way to play solo. Sure the game is marketed as a "coop shooter" but what if we just want to have a quick solo round during lunch break? In every other fps there is a mechanism for scaling the game to suit the number of players present. Yet the AI/system in the Left 4 Dead franchise is unable -- more like unwilling to do so. You are forced to play with teammates (whether they be humans or AI mates) and not doing so (i.e. shooting them or kicking them via the console), does not result in the Director (which is supposedly credited with being so flexible) scaling the game for anything other than four players.
• Depending on which end of the technical spectrum you hail from, the gameplay graphics are either really good, passable or piss-poor. Overall, I would probably say the game has average graphics (leaning towards the lower end), particularly considering the often well-praised graphical capabilities of the Source Engine

This all leads to my ultimate complaints for the franchise: forced linear gameplay with artificial difficulty. Regarding the former, while I accept the need for crescendo events and can accept a general path from start to finish of a given level, the game forces the linear gameplay onto you as if it was still 2002. Sure the Director varies the maps a little here and there to make the game harder/easier based on how well you're doing, the ultimate result is very cookie cutter. With several hundred runs through each of the campaigns in Left 4 Dead and probably close to a hundred runs per campaign in Left 4 Dead 2, I can say pretty confidently that you can sort of zone-out and just muscle-memory large portions of the campaign -- after all, there's no [path] decision making to be had.

For the artificial difficulty complaint, it's not any given one thing, but the cumulative effect of dozens of little aggravations:

• The spitter complaint above
• Chargers being immune to shove attacks -- you can kill an expert-tank by shoving it to death, why cant you kill a Charger? (sure it takes damn near forever, but it should be doable)
• Riot zombies being relatively invincible from the front -- even though we know full well the in-game weapons are quite capable of piercing police armor and that blunt damage is still highly effective against armor designed for to protect against piercing. While I recognize that this is getting a bit technical - especially when I had to lookup ballistic vests and armor piercing capabilities of M16s ([1], [2], [3] and [4] lol - hey, at least I'm thorough).
• Not being able to shoot down smoker tongues mid-air (even though you can melee them)
• Boomer bile dissapearing (midair) if you manage to kill the Boomer before it completes the attack
• Why do the special infected have to make so much damn noise (or that often)? It almost takes away from the whole surprise-factor. While we can argue about making it a fair and balanced game (more of a concern in versus mode), the whole point of being a survivor is that you survived despite the odds. Perhaps if the harder diffficulty modes (or even Realism Mode in Left 4 Dead 2) removed/reduced the telltale noises, it would be more of a challenge.
• An extension of the Boomer complaint above -- the game is rife with clipping issues. Released in 2008/2009, clipping should really be a thing of the past -- or at least it shouldnt be so rampant as it.

I am not entirely sure how many of these complaints are 'genuine' in that they are a fault of the core game itself or because support had to be made for consoles (I can't for the life of me, envision console players sniping out smoker-tongues midair). I imagine that some concessions were made on the graphics and physics front (although I am particularly amused at how they marketed last-generation graphics as a style-feature).

Lastly, setting up any kind of functional private dedicated server is a serious pain in the ass. Sure you can get the GUI dedicated server and be up and runnin inside of 5 minutes. But getting any kind of "tinker and experiment" server (often meaning you need cheats) is a serious pain of having to deal with generic counterstrike-server elements. As someone used to Unreal Tournament style servers (both listen and dedicated), it astounds me how complicated it is to setup a Left 4 Dead 2 server for you and a specific friend to play with cheats (to test stuff out) in expert with realism mode enabled. While there's no reason to do so in the UT universe (namely, loading up cheats for spawning etc), setting up the equivalent server on UT2K3/UT2K4/UT3 is an absolute cakewalk consisting of a few mouse clicks.

 
I guess, if I had to psycho-analyze my pros and cons, the Left 4 Dead franchise's top points are

• [+] The [re]introduction of co-op gameplay to mainstream
• [+] Modular gameplay: players can jump in and out of games, also games are relatively short (perfect for lunch break matches)
• [+] Having the Director present to make [small] tweaks to the gameplay is a very nice feature and even though, after several hundred runs through, the changes aren't so noticeable, it's a lot better than playing through static campaigns
• [-] Very linear gameplay
• [-] Underneath the hood the game is way too damn easy and it tries to hide it by artificially ramping up difficulty (see spitter/smoker complaints for some examples) and giving you retarded AI
• [-] Dedicated servers are a serious pain the ass the setup and the game doesnt scale for the number of players

Would I reccomend Left 4 Dead? Absolutely. Would I reccomend Left 4 Dead 2? Absolutely. Would I advocate owning both? Probably. For me, if I hadn't gotten Left 4 Dead 2 for free (as a gift), I probably would regret spending $50 to buy it. While I had a blast playing through L4D2, it wasn't anywhere near the fun I had with the original (think matches scaling to 30,000+ zombies :P)



Killing Floor
I started playing Killing Floor after taking a short break from Left 4 Dead - roughly around the point when Expert mode was getting too easy, due to [a] having done probably close to 1500 runs through the campaigns from start to finish and [b] having gone through the configuration files with a fine tooth comb (with a keen eye for the spawn interval, placement percentages and stats for everything).

When you get to the point of having timers setup on your keyboard (Logitech G15 v1) to keep track of special infected spawns, you've probably spent too much time on the game ;) Even though I found the game lacking (perhaps I found the players lacking, rather than the game itself, although the playerbase and the game are somewhat tied together). In either case, I took a break and bought Killing Floor and didn't expect a whole lot from it.


Killing Floor started out as a mod for UT2004 back in 2005 and was released in 2009 as a standalone game. So from the get-go it's not a big-budget deal like the Left 4 Dead franchise was. I thought L4D had a simple store, background-lore and character personalites, Killing Floor practically throws any semblence of story out the window. Just as well, KF is much more about the combat mechanics. Built on Unreal Engine 2.5, the combat mechanics are practically above reproach. And until I had logged dozens of hours on KF, I had previously extended L4D's Source engine the same benefit.

Killing Floor is wave-based with specific downtime in between waves for you to catch your breath and stock-up on weapons and ammunition. Specifically, between waves, a trader is available to the players where they can make purchases (armour, grenades, weapons, ammo). Money is earned by killing zombies and the trader's location moves around the map through a predetermined set of locations. This means that, as the wave draws to a close, you should begin to find your way towards the location where the trade will appear next (the location is indicated on your HUD as an arrow and distance gauge).

Before we get into the pros and cons, one thing is noticeable immediately: there is no notion of "common" infected. Everything is a special infected (or in Left 4 Dead 2 parlance, a split of uncommon and special infected).

• Common infected are represented with Clots, singular zombies that have the ability to hold you down and keep you from moving (effectively performing the task of the mob of common infected in Left 4 Dead).
• Boomers are represented by Bloats, which, instead of attracting the hoard with the bile, cause acid damage (which ultimately is much more threatening)
• The Tank is represented by the Fleshpound, which (like the Tank), until you realize the trick to killing them, is much, much more threatening.
• The role of the Spitter is represented by the Siren - she does an area of effect attack that distorts the players vision/aim and directly affects their health (ignoring armour)

While there arent really direct translations for the rest of the monster-cast between the two franchises, Killing Floor features all the requisite arch-types: heavy hitter, team-splitter-upper, suicide-bomber, generic filler monsters etc. The philosophy behind the monster designs is different between the two franchises. Whereas Left 4 Dead emphasizes splitting the team up and the player being helplessly killed, Killing Floor emphasizes killing the player directly.

This has two side effects: on the one hand, you are no longer outright dependant on the your teammates for survival but on the otherhand, balance is very important. This leads to the second aspect of Killing Floor: perks. There are several different classes available, each with specific strengths. As you play the game, you progress through various levels of the perks and get better bonuses. In short, the game gives you an incentive to continue the player (the downside being, 'what do you do when you have maxed out your perks'). The perks themselves fall within standard archtypes (sniper, melee, defence, support etc) so nothing too fancy there. Of course, with perks there comes the issue of balance.


But before that, the combat and core mechanics for the game very readily impress

• Iron sights! No more aiming recticule where your bullet magically and randomly goes somewhere within the crosshairs, now you know exactly where your shots are going.
• While each baddie has it's own sound, it isn't overbearing and forces you to pay attention to the audio cues (including footsteps) as to not be ambushed. Furthermore, the range at which you hear the audio is relatively short as to keep your on your toes
• Sandbox gameplay. They dont make a lame attempt at stories or quests or missions, in fact they dont make any attempt. Just lock and load. This means of course, there are numerous ways to finish a level (you can camp, move around constantly, leap-frog etc).
• The enemy is aggravating. Sure the enemies might just make a be making a beeline for whomever was closest to them when they were in target-aquisition mode, but the various subtle properties of the individual enemies make the difference (like how Gorefasts will charge you when they get close enough, or how Scrakes will be totally docile until you do a certain amount of damage, or how Fleshpounds will do the same but will also charge you after a certain amount of time anyways). Tie all this in with the basic lowly Clot being able to grab a hold of you and keep you from moving. Now add close quarters combat and you have a proper challenge.
• As a whole the game is markedly harder (even in comparison to Left 4 Dead 2's Realism mode, it's significantly harder), largely due to the mechanics of the individual baddies, but also to the lack of unlimited ammo and lack of "shove".
• Visually, although the UE2.5 is definitely showing it's age, it's significantly more graphic. Giblets flying every which way, slow motion effects (which, to be honest are kinda gimmicky), smoke, fire-glow. Sure it's an older engine but it certainly looks good for it. Things like [bad] visual clipping do happen but they are not as game-changing as they are in L4D.
• Teamplay is encouraged and there are benefits to playing as a team (more efficient healing and welding being the only notable benefits) and running off alone is lightly discouraged (due to the increased difficulty) but it's not outright prevented by the game engine itself.
• The game will scale for the number of players present (at the start of the wave). While the default is 6 players maximum, it is possible to run servers with player counts into the 100+ range. Setting up a quick server is very easy (even with mods and custom settings).
• Being Unreal Engine based, there is a large community of modders and mappers already established. New maps are easy to come by (and the lack of need for 'story' means you can spend your entire time making the map, not worrying about scripted triggers etc)

Now these very strengths directly lead to the weak points about the game:

• Sandbox play can be kinda dull. It's nice to have an objective more substanstial than 'survive'. This is a huge gripe from players transitioning from the Left 4 Dead franchise. I think is largely due to the thematic take Valve has done with the whole 'movie' thing.
• On a related note, whiel the Left 4 Dead franchise doesn't exactly have 'story', a lot of that is overlooked by the character personalities - the character personalities in Killing Floor are bland as hell.
• The game, being notedly harder than Left 4 Dead (although for anyone coming from a CS/UT background it's not particularly challenging). This is a combination of both Killing Floor being somewhat challenging and Left 4 Dead being easy. The default map that fires up the very first time you play the game (Biotics Lab) is not beginner friendly and consists almost entirely of close quarters combat.
• On a similar note, iron-sight aiming escapes most beginners, having been spoiled with aiming recticles.
• While Killing Floor doesnt have unlimited ammo, it has unlimited healing capabilities (there is a recharge time involved, mitigated if you play Medic class). In my opinion, having unlimited ammo in Left 4 Dead makes thigns a lot easier than having unlimited healing in Killing Floor
• Smoke (from grenades) and fire (from flamethrower) obscures vision. This by itself is not a bad thing (lack of vision obscuration would be), but coupled with beginner players who spam both can be a bad thing
• Being perk-based, the game is very dependant on the balance of perks.
• Even though it is open-sandbox gameplay, each wave spawn is identical (assuming same game mode, difficulty and number of players), can get a bit dry.
• There is no versus mode, this is purely a co-op title

In the end, Killing Floor is $20 (with sales dropping it down to $10 and $5 relatively often), and it is definitely worth  that price tag.



Closing Thoughts

A lot of my comments sound like I consider the Left 4 Dead to be the [significantly] easier of the two franchises. That's because it is. To make the two franchises roughly equal we would have to either [a] in L4D, remove the ability of special infected to completely gimp a player and decrease the spawn interval for special infected from 45sec to 10 sec or [b] in KF, add the ability of some of the zombies to pin the player but reduce the spawn count by a factor of 2 or 3. Even with either of these changes, KF is still the more challanging of the two (hell, having done option A while still allowing the specials to incap).

So is it a big deal that L4D/L4D2 is [versus aside], appreciably easier than KF? It depends what type of gamer you are. As much fun as I had with L4D, having played KF, it's very hard to take L4D seriously, with all the little tidbits of artificial difficulty popping up. At the same time I can definitely say KF's wave-based combat can be a bit dry (would be a lot more fun if the waves didnt stop while the trader was open).

I think a large part of my personal bias against Left 4 Dead is the player-base. While I'm not saying the Killing Floor player base is any better, although, (a) being less off a block buster and (b) being a PC only game, it's probably true that the player base has better twitch aim (particularly since Left 4 Dead's aiming model is a 'softer').
 
While the advanced players for both games are, in my opinion, equal (L4D players having to rely on noobs to rescue them on the off chance and carry the team simultaneously and KF players having to carry the team against much harder opponents with less ammo), it's the beginner/normal players that get to me.


In KF, when you have a noob playing on a difficulty they shouldnt be playing on, they simply die and stay out of your way. Because no single opponent can incap you, it is quite possible to ninja your way through to the next wave. In L4D - if you have a noob playing, then you better hope that the AI players are still alive to rescue you when you get incapped. In short, multiplayer is fun and teamwork is fun, but not when it's shoved down your throat as a game mechanic.

Let's examine my experience with L4D/L4D2. The maps are linear -- there is only one way to progress from stage to stage (glitches and exploits aside). With the minor tweaks (and they are pretty minor) made by the Director, any given run through a campaign will be roughly identical in terms of spawn timings, quantity and make-up. Now assuming beginners play the map on Easy, why is it, that, when I'm playing on Advanced/Expert, I find other players getting lost? (seriously. If you're getting lost every which way, why are you playing on a public server on advanced/expert?). Second thing is the player that stops to kill everything and explore every side path. Sure it's fine if you're playing with friends or you are playing in a somewhat story-style 'move and clear' but if you're playing online (whether or not it is coop or versus), it just boils down to getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible (after all, the longer you sit there, the more time there is for stuff to spawn). That being said, every one should be within about 10-15 feet of each other. Not so. I'd look back and see at least two players about 200 feet back. Two hundred. No joke. I don't know how it's possible - maybe their foward-key broke and they had to run down to the store and buy a new keyboard? It's not like my character (Francis/Ellis) runs notably faster than any of the other characters lol!
 
So I guess that's the ultimate downturn of L4D for me - being stuck with crummy players that decided it was time to play multiplayer on public servers (in modes other than easy/normal) who [a] didnt know the map layout and/or [b] couldnt keep up with the leader/rest-of-the-group. Do players like this in KF exist? Absolutely. So many times I see level 0-2 players joining Hard difficulty servers.... the difference is they die right away (and usually rage-quit, resulting in the next wave autoscaling to account for one less player). In short, KF is much more naturally selective.
 
Are there good teams for L4D/L4D2? Absolutely. Is it possible to find them on random public servers? Probably. However, are you more likely to have to work with lost/confused ones? Definitely.
 
So I guess my ultimate issue is that L4D is more forgiving than I would like (and I'm certainly not the best player out there - not even close!) . And while it's still loads of fun as a lan party game where you are all figuring out a map or whatnot and dying over and over again, I think, it's a courtesy thing to not continue to play on a difficulty level that is beyond you.