Left for Dead 3 Idea

[Danpascooch]

Let me kick this off by saying I don't expect any of what I am about to propose to happen, this isn't a prediction, it's more of a "wouldn't this be awesome" thread.

I think I have a great idea for L4D3. What if one more original characters died, and two of the newer L4D2 characters died, and then both groups met up after being evac'd to the same military base (from their respective locations of evac) and then (of course) that base was overrun and they had to fight their way to safety yet again.

They could combine old team and new team into a new single 4 person unit, and those extra deaths would really add to the feeling of hopelessness.

If this were to happen (obviously I don't expect it to, it's just something I think would be awesome) I would hope it would be Louis, Zoey, Nick, and Ellis in the new team.

I am curious as to what people think of this idea, and keep in mind, my four person team is personal preference, please feel free to put in your own, but try to keep at least one of the female characters in it, because we all know Valve would never make an all male team (I'm not saying this because I don't like female playable characters it's just that the ones Valve gave us were either really annoying (Rochelle) or somewhat devoid of any personality characteristics beyond: "I'm the girl on the team" (Zoey))

Lastly, my idea takes as a given that there will be a Left for Dead 3, so don't bother posting saying my idea is stupid because you don't want them to make a third one, let's say they will no matter what (which they will, I'm sure) what do you think of this idea compared to having a THIRD brand new team of all new characters.

EDIT: BTW, if you think my idea is bad, please say so, I know the last thing I should be worried about when posting an idea on the internet is lack of being criticized, but if there is something wrong with my idea, please post, just try to avoid insults and give reasons for the problem with the idea if you can.

EDITEDIT: I like the idea of branching pathways to freedom, so that you can choose what sublevel to do, and each would have different advantages and disadvantages, like for one it might say "A tank has been spotted in this area" and for another it might say "There are an unusually high number of zombies reported in this area" and you would have to choose which path to take (they both go to the same place). These bits of intel would come via a radio carried by the survivors

 

[Shjade]

This sounds more like an expansion/campaign addition than an idea for L4D3. They've already demonstrated killing a survivor and having survivor teams meet up is DLC material since...it's in the new DLC, so...yeah, not so much.

If I were to try crafting an idea for L4D3, I'd have to change the dynamic. As Yahtzee pointed out in his L4D2 clip, the current sequel is pretty much the same as the first game, just transplanted with some new toys. You're still on the run from point A to point B and trying to keep everybody alive en route. There are story additions as well, however, that point out there is still an active military (the bombing run on the bridge demonstrates this) and organizations examining the source of the infection (CEDA).

Progressing the story from this point, L4D3 should be moving from survival to destruction: it's time to fight back. I doubt the old survivors would be involved in a military effort to quash the infection given they're probably still in shock and recovering from their escape, but if there aren't enough healthy bodies to fight, who knows, they might be needed on the front lines for their immunity.

On the one hand this might feel less horror and more straight-shooter given you're going from defense to offense, but knowing what's waiting for you out there isn't the same as being immune to fear of it. Indeed, knowing what waits for you in the heart of the infection could make the experience that much more dreadful. I'd picture longer campaigns as missions intended to strike inward to recover integral infrastructure get messier than expected, starting in daylight for the advantage it provides and going on into darkness, underground and inclement weather as the group slogs on slowly toward their goal.

At the same time, reactivating key areas in certain scenes will provide advantages in later ones: the power station might be far out of your way, but if you skip it you'll have to go the long way around the river on the next scene, etc. - modifying your own path becomes an option. Of course, there's no guarantee the machinery will work every time, so it's a risk that might not even pay off when you decide to head over to the station. Whether it's worth the risk or not is a matter of how many people are bleeding when you reach the crossroads, I suppose.

Extermination mode, where just surviving isn't good enough - you need to make sure you've killed a sufficient number of the infected before you leave the area so that it's at least reasonably safe for support personnel to move in and set up camp. Rescue missions - similar to scavenge, in a way, but trying to save other people rather than recovering cans. Likely starts with only one or two players searching for the others while the horde closes in on their position. Just rough ideas - the reversal of aggression would be the major shift from 1 & 2 to 3 - a different meaning for left for dead, you might say.

 

[zHellas]

What about moving the whole thing to a different country? Like seeing how France deals/has dealt with the zombies. Or England, Russia, maybe even Slovakia.

 

[A Raging Emo]

Prof. Snippington, of Snipper Univer-snip-ty.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the title and point of the game? You know, Left 4 Dead? As in, Left for dead by everyone?

 

[Kouen]

I Think before any L4D3 we need more in L4D 1 and 2 first lol

While its not a bad idea essentially, the problem is that given the trend in 1 and 2 it would be more likely to have a whole new set of survivors again. I wouldn't mind seeing this happen.

 

[Davrel]

Making it Episode 3.

I know, I know...there are different teams working on different projects in Valve...but seriously.

 

[Sean Strife]

Alright, I have an in-depth idea for Left 4 Dead 3 and it'd be followed up by something I like to call Left 4 Dead World Tour.

Left 4 Dead 3 would take place in Los Angeles with each campaign taking place in a different part of L.A. (Hollywood, Compton, Beverly Hills, etc). Four totally different survivors: a stripper, a teen idol who fell from grace, a Hollywood agent, and a gangster. The final campaign would involve them being rescued by the survivors of the first two Left 4 Deads (Zoey, Francis, Ellis, Rochelle, and Nick. Coach would die a la Bill and Louis would've died from infection due to the injuries he obviously suffered in The Passing).

Uncommon Infected:
Various Celebrities
Bodyguards
Gangsters
Rich people
Strippers


If you guys have anything you'd like to add to my idea or just like to tear it down, please do so.

 

[Shjade]

Doesn't that sort of defeat the title and point of the game? You know, Left 4 Dead? As in, Left for dead by everyone?

Not at all, it simply observes the statement in a different fashion: you're not leaving each other for dead. You're going back to those who were left for dead when you go back into infected territory.

At the idea above this post: I can't take your idea seriously when it includes "Crip hunters." It's a joke, right?

 

[Sean Strife]

Doesn't that sort of defeat the title and point of the game? You know, Left 4 Dead? As in, Left for dead by everyone?

Not at all, it simply observes the statement in a different fashion: you're not leaving each other for dead. You're going back to those who were left for dead when you go back into infected territory.

At the idea above this post: I can't take your idea seriously when it includes "Crip hunters." It's a joke, right?

It's still a rough idea that can be tweaked around. I think that idea came to me when somebody said in The Passing, there should've been a Hunter Groom crawling around to accompany the Witch Bride.

 

[Enigmers]

Dual-Wielding melee weapons, like the fire axe and the guitar.

Then go into third person and pretend you're playing Brütal Legend.

 

[Sean Strife]

Dual-Wielding melee weapons, like the fire axe and the guitar.

Then go into third person and pretend you're playing Brütal Legend.

Wouldn't dual-wielding melee weapons slow you down and leave you more vulernable to attack. Maybe dual-wielding the Magnum, but I don't know about dual-wielding melee weapons, especially since most of the melee weapons require two hands to effectively use.

 

[Kelbear]

Let me kick this off by saying I don't expect any of what I am about to propose to happen, this isn't a prediction, it's more of a "wouldn't this be awesome" thread.

I think I have a great idea for L4D3. What if one more original characters died, and two of the newer L4D2 characters died, and then both groups met up after being evac'd to the same military base (from their respective locations of evac) and then (of course) that base was overrun and they had to fight their way to safety yet again.

They could combine old team and new team into a new single 4 person unit, and those extra deaths would really add to the feeling of hopelessness.

If this were to happen (obviously I don't expect it to, it's just something I think would be awesome) I would hope it would be Louis, Zoey, Nick, and Ellis in the new team.

I am curious as to what people think of this idea, and keep in mind, my four person team is personal preference, please feel free to put in your own, but try to keep at least one of the female characters in it, because we all know Valve would never make an all male team (I'm not saying this because I don't like female playable characters it's just that the ones Valve gave us were either really annoying (Rochelle) or somewhat devoid of any personality characteristics beyond: "I'm the girl on the team" (Zoey))

Lastly, my idea takes as a given that there will be a Left for Dead 3, so don't bother posting saying my idea is stupid because you don't want them to make a third one, let's say they will no matter what (which they will, I'm sure) what do you think of this idea compared to having a THIRD brand new team of all new characters.

EDIT: BTW, if you think my idea is bad, please say so, I know the last thing I should be worried about when posting an idea on the internet is lack of being criticized, but if there is something wrong with my idea, please post, just try to avoid insults and give reasons for the problem with the idea if you can.

Let them choose any L4D1 or L4D2 player, then at the beginning of the campaign, all 7 meet up, explosion or some other attack scatters them and cuts them off from each other. The remaining 4 player-controller characters now have to work together to get through L4D3 together.

But kill Rochelle in the explosion/attack anyway. Saves money by not generating lines for such an unpopular character. The remaining 2 that aren't taken along for the campaign are presumably...Left for Dead!

Then track the most commonly selected 4 out of the 6 and those are the only 4 to make it into L4D4. Ha.

I'm kidding, just give us 4 new survivors in L4D3, and then bring back the entire cast when they find a reason to do so.

 

[Shjade]

Why would you dual-wield melee weapons? Range is your best defense. You can't swing a melee weapon at all while being smoked; can't shove while using one smoked either, meaning you have no option to free yourself even if in range to push one off. Good avoiding boomer bile. I'll bet on the tank against you...and so on. I don't see many upsides to balance out the downsides of going pure melee.

 

[Danpascooch]

This sounds more like an expansion/campaign addition than an idea for L4D3. They've already demonstrated killing a survivor and having survivor teams meet up is DLC material since...it's in the new DLC, so...yeah, not so much.

If I were to try crafting an idea for L4D3, I'd have to change the dynamic. As Yahtzee pointed out in his L4D2 clip, the current sequel is pretty much the same as the first game, just transplanted with some new toys. You're still on the run from point A to point B and trying to keep everybody alive en route. There are story additions as well, however, that point out there is still an active military (the bombing run on the bridge demonstrates this) and organizations examining the source of the infection (CEDA).

Progressing the story from this point, L4D3 should be moving from survival to destruction: it's time to fight back. I doubt the old survivors would be involved in a military effort to quash the infection given they're probably still in shock and recovering from their escape, but if there aren't enough healthy bodies to fight, who knows, they might be needed on the front lines for their immunity.

On the one hand this might feel less horror and more straight-shooter given you're going from defense to offense, but knowing what's waiting for you out there isn't the same as being immune to fear of it. Indeed, knowing what waits for you in the heart of the infection could make the experience that much more dreadful. I'd picture longer campaigns as missions intended to strike inward to recover integral infrastructure get messier than expected, starting in daylight for the advantage it provides and going on into darkness, underground and inclement weather as the group slogs on slowly toward their goal.

At the same time, reactivating key areas in certain scenes will provide advantages in later ones: the power station might be far out of your way, but if you skip it you'll have to go the long way around the river on the next scene, etc. - modifying your own path becomes an option. Of course, there's no guarantee the machinery will work every time, so it's a risk that might not even pay off when you decide to head over to the station. Whether it's worth the risk or not is a matter of how many people are bleeding when you reach the crossroads, I suppose.

Extermination mode, where just surviving isn't good enough - you need to make sure you've killed a sufficient number of the infected before you leave the area so that it's at least reasonably safe for support personnel to move in and set up camp. Rescue missions - similar to scavenge, in a way, but trying to save other people rather than recovering cans. Likely starts with only one or two players searching for the others while the horde closes in on their position. Just rough ideas - the reversal of aggression would be the major shift from 1 & 2 to 3 - a different meaning for left for dead, you might say.

There have to be some new twists, but I wouldn't change the dynamic too much, after all, if I want to play a different game, I'd play a different game, I come to L4D series to play L4D gameplay

 

[Danpascooch]

What about moving the whole thing to a different country? Like seeing how France deals/has dealt with the zombies. Or England, Russia, maybe even Slovakia.

Ooo, I like this, but It'd have to be different enough to warrant the switch

 

[Sean Strife]

What about moving the whole thing to a different country? Like seeing how France deals/has dealt with the zombies. Or England, Russia, maybe even Slovakia.

Ooo, I like this, but It'd have to be different enough to warrant the switch

This was what I had in mind for Left 4 Dead World Tour. Maybe pick a four person squad consisting of survivors from the other L4D games to go search for other survivors in the area, and if you find them and then beat the entire campaign, you can unlock them for play in other modes.

 

[Shjade]

There have to be some new twists, but I wouldn't change the dynamic too much, after all, if I want to play a different game, I'd play a different game, I come to L4D series to play L4D gameplay

Exactly, and I come to L4D to enjoy L4D gameplay as well, which is why if I wanted L4D gameplay I'd play L4D. Thus, no sequel is needed. If L4D3 is the same game as L4D, why would I buy it? L4D2 is already an incremental update sequel; to add another to the series I think a greater departure from the original layout would be a good thing. Making a third version of the same game that simply changes location - even to a different country (hell, you can simulate that now by changing the in-game language spoken if you want) - seems exceptionally redundant. Sure, you could do it; personally, were it my game series, I'd want to do more.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I like the idea of choosing between the teams of the original 2 for L4D3 campaigns, but I wouldn't mind seeing some new faces. More weather affects like the storm in Hard Rain and The Passing would be pretty cool. I'm thinking maybe fog (limits your vision), snow (slows you down, limits vision, limits sound range) or some other things like that. Perhaps also a point where you're in the back of a pickup truck and you have to hold off the infected as you slowly move through a town and constantly break down. I can't really see anymore new types of weapons because they're all covered (assualt rifle, shotgun, sniper rifle, pistol, melee weapon, grenade launcher, machine gun). I'm hoping that I sticks with the tried and true L4D formula but throws in a couple tweaks to make things interesting.

 

[Danpascooch]

There have to be some new twists, but I wouldn't change the dynamic too much, after all, if I want to play a different game, I'd play a different game, I come to L4D series to play L4D gameplay

Exactly, and I come to L4D to enjoy L4D gameplay as well, which is why if I wanted L4D gameplay I'd play L4D. Thus, no sequel is needed. If L4D3 is the same game as L4D, why would I buy it? L4D2 is already an incremental update sequel; to add another to the series I think a greater departure from the original layout would be a good thing. Making a third version of the same game that simply changes location - even to a different country (hell, you can simulate that now by changing the in-game language spoken if you want) - seems exceptionally redundant. Sure, you could do it; personally, were it my game series, I'd want to do more.

I disagree, I want L4D style gameplay, but the sequels are nice as they breathe fresh maps and enemies and content into the gameplay style.

I love comedy movies, but even though they are all of the same genre, I could never just watch a single one over and over again.