It's no surprise that one of Valve's new lineups, Left 4 Dead, is a hit. Even its sequel received critical acclaim after plenty of people insisted they'd boycott the game on the principle that it was just an upgraded version of Left 4 Dead - some people going as far as saying the original Left 4 Dead was merely a beta (or those of us that just wanted to see HL3 instead!).

Every game studio has their misses, and Valve admits to nearly creating an extremely noteworthy one - you can read this hilarious article about it here .

Personally, I think it would've been a lot of fun killing off zombie-fairies.

To think that we might have very well seen a fairy game instead of a brutal, corpse and bloody organ-ridden is just...astounding.

I had intended to eventually get L4D... but I just learned that it's a FPS, not a TPS (third person shooter).

Blech... I *detest* FPS games. I guess I'll just look at the latest Resident Evil game instead.

Heh, fairies? Sounds amusing... in a train wreck sort of way. :D Good find on this.

I have a friend who doesn't like FPS games, like Mlai. That said, L4D and TF2 have to be first person on the basis that both games have opponents based on ambushing, thus requiring you to check your flanks every so often. Having a fully circular viewpoint would ruin that design mechanic and make them more generic shooters.

The article doesn't seem that hilarious to me. It's more sad. They brainstormed some ideas that didn't pan out, so they went back and decided to just rehash the same sort of gameplay they were already familiar with and tack on a theme that's already overdone in video games. This is what's wrong with the industry these days and why less games are grabbing my attention.

And honestly, first person and third person games tend to have minimal differences these days. Pulling the camera back a few feet doesn't make it impossible for enemies to ambush you or make it any less necessary to look around.

mlai
Blech... I *detest* FPS games. I guess I'll just look at the latest Resident Evil game instead.

I'm not a diehard fan of FPS's, but probably for different reasons than why you dislike them entirely.

But just to elucidate on Chernobog's post, it is true that TF2 and L4D are required to maintain that FPS viewpoint.

For TF2:
There's a class called the spy that relies on backstabbing an opponent - they're forced to be behind the player before they can do it. They also have the ability to cloak but there is a deactivation time to take them out of it. You can probably see now that having the ability to view your character's back would make evading this class trivial.

For L4D:
Zombie games are all over the place. But where this game excels is by putting that to a co-op experience (or versus mode which gives the game its lasting appeal). The pacing of this game is rather quick (these are fast zombies, like in 28 Days Later), so precise reactions require your flank to be well-protected as well (hence the co-op). Again, if you could see behind your character, it would be much easier to avoid being overwhelmed.

But I quite like TPS for most single-player shooters. Resident Evil and Dead Space are most notable to me for doing a good job of that. At first it took me some getting used to, but was rewarding when I did.

You can probably see now that having the ability to view your character's back would make evading this class trivial.

Not if it's combined with the cloaking ability. Also, there are ways to make a back attack work even with a third person perspective, it really depends on where the camera is and how the attack works.

Again, if you could see behind your character, it would be much easier to avoid being overwhelmed.

How do you figure? There are a lot of third person action games where it's incredibly easy to get overwhelmed. Being able to see your back isn't going to make it any easier to react to ten enemies who rush you from behind when you're still focusing on the mob in front of you if you still can't see them until they are already on top of you.

isukun
Not if it's combined with the cloaking ability.

Hm...sorry, having trouble seeing what you mean here. Are you saying the Spy should have a range of backstab such that it's still out of range of your camera?

When a Spy decloaks (I forgot to mention this), they also have a cloud of smoke appear around their character. FPS players are very twitchy, so cloud of smoke=strafe to the right/left. Even as someone that barely plays TF2, if I see some guy materialize behind me, I'm automatically going to turn around and shoot them as an instinct.

As for L4D, it's more the pacing the game. Slow zombies, yeah, I could see TPS working there. But in L4D, one minute you think you're fine, next thing you know a zombie ran up behind you and has already taken down 20% of your health from 3-4 hits. I could react if I noticed a zombie head pop up in TPS in time. FPS though, I'd really love that cover fire from another player to protect me.

Hm...sorry, having trouble seeing what you mean here. Are you saying the Spy should have a range of backstab such that it's still out of range of your camera?

I'm saying you can compensate for the extended visual range by changing how the move works. Allow them to perform the move straight out of the cloaking ability so they don't have time to react or have the move dash in so players can time it.

Slow zombies, yeah, I could see TPS working there.

That just seems backwards to me. With fast zombies, you'll have maybe 2-5 frames of reaction time when running at 60fps. Nobody has reflexes that fast especially when you factor in lag from online play. You'll be taking damage before you get a chance to dodge.

We're not talking about a TPS where you chara is in the middle of the screen. The camera is much closer to your chara's shoulder so you only see his upper torso, not even his legs. That's really close to his back.

The thing with TPS is, being able to see your own back substitutes for your IRL peripheral vision and sense of touch (being hit from behind). In a FPS, it's like you're fighting in a suit of medieval armor and also you have some neural disease which makes you completely numb. The only clue that you're dying is red flashes on the screen, and even then you can't intuitively tell where it's coming from.

The other thing I hate about FPS is that you can't see your alter ego. It doesn't matter how cool his design or story is, you can't connect with him. All you ever see is the tip of a gun and maybe a hand. I f'ing hate that.

And that extends to all in-game movements which would normally give a character his "character." The big dude vaults over obstacles in Gears of War while tracer fire bounces all around him. That's looks cinematic! In a FPS, all you would see is the screen bob up and then bob down as your unseen chara "vaults over" obstacles. Yeah. Okay. It might as well have been a purple box that jumped.

isukun
I'm saying you can compensate for the extended visual range by changing how the move works. Allow them to perform the move straight out of the cloaking ability so they don't have time to react or have the move dash in so players can time it.

I get you now. In theory that would balance out the TPS, but it wouldn't balance out the overall game. Actually, Spy is something I play extensively, and if I could backstab immediately out of cloak, then killing sprees would come easy. Besides, Spy is much more fun playing covert than manic assassin.

The balance is also twofold. The deactivation time is intended to compensate for ping.

isukun
That just seems backwards to me. With fast zombies, you'll have maybe 2-5 frames of reaction time when running at 60fps. Nobody has reflexes that fast especially when you factor in lag from online play. You'll be taking damage before you get a chance to dodge.

Yeah, that's the thing. That 2-5 seconds in L4D is impossible to respond to in FPS view. That's why you do need that other person to shoot them off your flank. Did I mentioned the zombies also slow you down as they hit you? I'd have a much easier time avoiding that hit if I could see behind my character.

mlai
The other thing I hate about FPS is that you can't see your alter ego. It doesn't matter how cool his design or story is, you can't connect with him. All you ever see is the tip of a gun and maybe a hand. I f'ing hate that.

And that extends to all in-game movements which would normally give a character his "character."

That could be true, though Valve still does a good job of adding character to their avatars. You can press a button to taunt with them (which gives you a TPS view temporarily), they'll sporadically shout out witty phrases , or the company will release pretty amusing videos based off of them . You can tell they still care about things like that.

Keep in mind that Valve panders usually to the hardcore crowd of gamers. I like your analogy to FPS views mlai, some people even joke around that sniping is basically "Point and click Adventures" I mean, they're not far off. But heaven forbid we take away that beloved first-person perspective - for on that day, devilspawn rises to the surface from underneath, fire descends from the sky, and eventually the entire universe implodes.

That 2-5 seconds in L4D is impossible to respond to in FPS view.

2-5 FRAMES, not seconds. I'm talking about less than 1/10th of a second to respond. It's impossible to respond to even if you see it coming. Being able to see it, however, would heighten the sense of urgency and fear factor, which would actually add to the game.

It would take a little more than 2-5 frames for a zombie to enter your screen and attack you. The first time a zombie pops out, sure, I'd be surprised and probably fall victim to their attack. After that though, reacting to it would be a breeze. I had the same feeling in Dead Space. Yeah, they can have some zombie pop out at you and the first, maybe even by the tenth time or so it will get to you. But half way through the game, that zombie was on the ground before it could even advanced towards me. It's muscle memory.

The nice thing about TPS is that it does establish that cinematic style of gameplay. But L4D capitalizes in co-op. If I could cover my own back just fine, it throws that needed group cohesion out of the window.

It would take a little more than 2-5 frames for a zombie to enter your screen and attack you.

No, it really wouldn't. Not with the camera position mlai is talking about. It would take even less for enemies with projectile or distance attacks like smokers, hunters, boomers, chargers, jockeys, tanks, and spitters to hit or incapacitate players.

Well, let's reason this out. A projectile would probably take about that long to appear, being ~33ms. However, rendering a full character would probably take about 116-167ms. That's about 7-10 frames, which is a pretty reasonable amount of time to react to something. But that's not even considering the projectile argument is invalid because the zombies in question that could harm you this way make a sound anyway to note their presence. Teammates will always tell you if there's a hunter, smoker, and spitter around (and with the tank, music actually plays signaling its arrival). So now we're just left with the plain ol' zombies, which typically can destroy a player in a matter of seconds.

If the behind-the-back argument isn't working for you, there's also just the fact that FPS is strictly 180 degrees. Push the camera back just a little, and you're already adding on a few more degrees to your FoV. So not only can you see them pop up from behind, but from an angle as well.

You know, there are reasons for FPS games existing:

- It's the least problematic camera angle for a 3D game.
- Some people find it more immersive.
- It personalizes to the viewer's experience, showing events unfold from the player's chosen viewpoint rather than a director's chosen camera angles.

But I get the feeling the first-person camera angle gets a certain amount of hate because it's so often used by space-marine shootfests, WW2 Private Ryan copycats, and virtually every game a foul-mouth twelve-year-old Xbox-Live user would enjoy. It's not really fair.

I don't think Bioshock would have had quite the same effect in third-person. Bioshock had an important point to make about the character you were playing as, and the point was made better when that character was YOU and not some pre-designed character you were pretending to be.

Could Left 4 Dead have been done in third-person? Definitely. But I'll bet all three of the points I mentioned above were factors taken into account when they decided. It seems to me like first-person would be the best way to feel like you're in a horror movie, and that sentiment is reinforced by the way the game lists YOU as the actor playing the character in the game credits and pre-game movie posters.

Oh FPS isn't an inferior form of gaming. It's just a specific form of gaming which I don't like. But then I don't like musical buttons games either (Guitar Hero), so it's all personal preference.

((If you want to spend that much time/effort/money on a game, learn to play a REAL guitar fcol. It'll even help you pick up chicks, double win.))

Resident Evil immersed me just fine. I was plenty tense playing that. FPS just annoy me because it artificially constrains your senses. If we're in the VR age where I can don a pair of goggles, and in-game I can just turn my head to see around me, then I would fully approve of the FPS pov.

>Options
>Enable Developer Console
>`
>bind "n" thirdpersonshoulder
>n

I see what you're saying, mlai. And my little FPS rant wasn't meant to argue against your previous post about the camera angle. I've just seen a certain amount of hatred toward those types of games lately elsewhere, when I feel like there really are some good ones that chose the first person view for valid reasons.

Resident Evil is a very interesting example. I couldn't play the earlier ones because the controls drove me NUTS but the fixed cameras definitely were immersive and at certain times terrifying.

When you compare the Resident Evil games to Left 4 Dead, it's interesting to see that one chose to reach immersion by putting you inside the character you play, and the other chose to have you voyeuristically watch the character you control from carefully selected fixed angles... Yet, they both worked.

Personally I love first person games. I really don't get the hate for them, granted a few years back I wasn't too keen on them but once I got used to them I found them very enjoyable.
Also I agree with hawk about the earlier resident evil games. That said a lot of third person games are using the over the shoulder view which is basically a first person view with the characters head and should obscuring you view instead of just the gun.

However, rendering a full character would probably take about 116-167ms. That's about 7-10 frames, which is a pretty reasonable amount of time to react to something.

What are you talking about? I just don't see where you come up with this. Rendering a full character takes 1 frame. If it takes 7-10 frames to actually render a character, there is something seriously wrong with your code. Still, I'm not talking about rendering a full character, I'm talking about the amount of time an enemy is on screen before they do damage or can't be dodged. With a close in camera like the one mlai was referring to, you only get 1-2 feet of visible space behind the character. A fast moving enemy does not give enough warning to be dodged.

Bioshock had an important point to make about the character you were playing as, and the point was made better when that character was YOU and not some pre-designed character you were pretending to be.

That's great for Bioshock, but not really the approach they took with Left4Dead. Left4Dead has definite pre-designed characters that the player pretends to be. They each have different visual designs and personalities that are independent of the player's actions in the game.

isukun
That's great for Bioshock, but not really the approach they took with Left4Dead. Left4Dead has definite pre-designed characters that the player pretends to be. They each have different visual designs and personalities that are independent of the player's actions in the game.

Yeah, that's a pretty good point. They definitely weren't going for the "blank slate hero" in Left 4 Dead.

I do still think it fits with the idea of you becoming an actor in a zombie horror movie. I'm sure that idea gets only so much mileage with other people.

left dead wouldn't work so well third person though, and bear in mind it is by valve who based on half life tend to have predetermined characters in FPS's.

isukun
What are you talking about? I just don't see where you come up with this. Rendering a full character takes 1 frame. If it takes 7-10 frames to actually render a character, there is something seriously wrong with your code. Still, I'm not talking about rendering a full character, I'm talking about the amount of time an enemy is on screen before they do damage or can't be dodged. With a close in camera like the one mlai was referring to, you only get 1-2 feet of visible space behind the character. A fast moving enemy does not give enough warning to be dodged.

Well, I double-checked my coding, and I'm pretty sure it's optimized. And I grabbed my timing function from a professional source, so I do know that that's right. Perhaps I should've thrown this into C instead of Python, I'm not sure. It seemed to check out to me because I remember: alright, pre-rendering takes longer than scripting an action. So yeah, it seemed to check out for me.

But before I get started on technicalities, I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean by minimal visible distance between camera and character. Can you please give me an example of this in a particular game? I studied Gears of War, Resident Evil, and Dead Space (most of those are the games that mlai mentioned), and they definitely support my argument of easily reacting to a flanking zombie.

Actually, how about scratch all that. This topic needs more discussion about fairies!

The more you try to talk technical or business when it comes to gaming, the more I doubt you ever had any real experience in the industry.

and they definitely support my argument of easily reacting to a flanking zombie.

Not really. None of those games take the same approach as Left4Dead in enemy design, function, tactics, or AI. Plus they are all at their core single player games. Left4Dead is faster and gives you less warning to what is coming because it is designed as a multiplayer experience. Enemies charge quickly and often from directions you aren't expecting in order to promote teamwork within the game. You don't get that in Gears of War, Resident Evil, or Dead Space. Enemies are much more likely to sprint at you suddenly, jump in from off screen, or incapacitate you with a distance attack in Left4Dead. Left4Dead also has a much heavier emphasis on sending large mobs of enemies at you, often from multiple directions and they aren't nearly as slow as the enemies from the games you've listed.

There aren't a lot of examples of third person shooters that take the approach Left4Dead does in terms of flanking enemies, but at the same time, there aren't a lot of examples of first person shooters that do, either. Most games that pit the player against the AI are structured around a single player experience. Hitting from behind is considered a cheap shot and gamers don't really care for that kind of game mechanic so developers tend to keep most combat oriented in front of the player. The only other game that comes to find for me where enemies come from all sides to rush and overwhelm the player is Earth Defense Force 2017, which is a third person shooter.

isukun
The more you try to talk technical or business when it comes to gaming, the more I doubt you ever had any real experience in the industry.

Ouch. But then again, that old expression concerning the pot and kettle comes to mind.

Anyway, concerning L4D being faster just goes back to a point I made earlier: slow zombie games work in TPS extremely well. It's all a part of that cinematic that they're trying to capture.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say, are you arguing based on the fluidity of controls? Because then I could see where you're coming from. Trying to turn around in the typical TPS takes longer than it would in an FPS. In FPS it's all based on mouse sensitivity. In TPS you have to literally watch your character shift their weight before executing a full about-face. So yes, technically a TPS viewpoint reaction is inherently slower because of controls. My reaction time though? Instincts would have whirled me around before that zombie even hit. Not to mention I could've strafed to the left, turned around, then shot them. Or better yet, just run forward, turn around, shoot them. That would be even easier. Once again, that partner I had watching my back is almost unnecessary.

Ouch. But then again, that old expression concerning the pot and kettle comes to mind.

I know enough about the subject to know that it doesn't take 7-10 frames to render graphical assets on the screen. You use multiple passes when rendering to add effects, lighting, and textures to a frame, but it is still displayed as a single frame. When the fps is displayed on a game, it represents each fully rendered frame. When it says something is running at 30fps, it means the assets on the screen are being rendered in full with effects, textures, and geometry 30 times each second, not 3. Passes are typically handled in memory these days and then brought to the screen in a single pass (or two for interlaced graphics).

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say, are you arguing based on the fluidity of controls?

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Average human reaction time is around .2 seconds. If something pops onto the screen faster than that, most people won't have enough time to react to it.

I guess that's true when you consider geometric projections, and that is what every game uses today. My rendering program was making use of ray casting, which requires probably ten times the amount of calculations. I'm going to have to re-asses that.

Still, you make it sound like it takes 2 frames for a zombie to appear in your screen and then lunge at you. Like I said, looking at the viewpoints from the games I previously mentioned (Gears of War, Resident Evil), if I had that viewpoint in L4D, it would be insanely easy to dodge them. That was my original thinking with the whole 7-10 frames ordeal. A zombie appearing in your screen, stepping forward 1-2 steps, then reaching out to attack you? I can't see how that would take 2 frames to execute. Programmer or not, it seems impossible. It's like trying to make a comic that depicts a character lunging at another but represented by two frames. If you initially had them in the air in the first frame, then it would be possible (and yes, you had a point with the projectile argument, except the fact that these are occasions where your teammates would call it out anyway). Starting from the ground though, I don't see how it could work.

A zombie appearing in your screen, stepping forward 1-2 steps, then reaching out to attack you? I can't see how that would take 2 frames to execute. Programmer or not, it seems impossible. It's like trying to make a comic that depicts a character lunging at another but represented by two frames.

The comic is a bad example, since technically that can be done in one frame in a comic, and would work better that way.

With the distance the characters are moving, all you would see in a game like Left4Dead, is one step forward (if the enemy even comes onto the screen) and the attack animation. Enemies also don't stop and then attack, they perform their attacks while moving. Check some gameplay videos and you'll see that the enemies frequently cover that distance and attack the player in three or four frames. That's still well below the .2 seconds mark.

and yes, you had a point with the projectile argument, except the fact that these are occasions where your teammates would call it out anyway

Last I checked, you could do that in first person shooters, too, so I'm not following your use of the word "except" there.

Even if everything you have been saying is true, I still don't see how backing up the camera wouldn't give the player more of an advantage than if it were in FPS format. Not all of the lesser zombies attack as they're running, either. I can't tell you how many times I sit there and notice that my health has been dropped about half way, then turn around and it's a generic zombie clawing at my character. That's just bad teamwork, generally, someone is supposed to cover the opposite direction.

When a horde of zombies comes charging at you and your guns are blazing, usually you're not going to check behind you, hoping the teammate of yours covers that side.

When you spoke of projectiles, that exception arises because the only time it occurs in the game is by some sort of special zombie. A spitter launches acid, a tank throws cars/concrete slabs, a hunter leaps toward you, a smoker unleashing their throat/whatever that this is...all of them are special circumstances. You're either going to notice them first by sound, by music, or by a teammate calling out. No one ever calls out a generic zombie coming for you. They'll just shoot it down themselves, because they aren't going to do something unexpected.

Anyway, getting back to the FPS debate, how about we think of it in terms of scenario. Think about anytime you'd unleash the horde - what's the first thing your team does? No Mercy is probably one that everyone has done by now (L4D1, by the way), and when you reach the gate, everyone before the patch sat in a corner with their backs to the wall. That way, they could funnel all of the zombies to the direct front of them, which eliminates the necessary group cohesion. They just point and fire. And then there's the famous closet trick in the last mission of Death Toll. The final area in the house was a joke once everyone started using the closet technique. I'm just saying that TPS emulates this sort of sidestepping the difficulty. I know for a fact that I wouldn't be overwhelmed nearly as often if I could see that higher-density pack of generic zombies behind my back.

Let's recap. Your whole "beef" in this latter part of the thread is that TPS makes the game genre too easy, right?

blindsk
Even if everything you have been saying is true, I still don't see how backing up the camera wouldn't give the player more of an advantage than if it were in FPS format.

This is the same "advantage" that you would have, if you possessed in-game peripheral vision like IRL, and you can feel the direction of attack by tactile (touch) sense like IRL.

So I wouldn't consider having these IRL things as "advantage". I consider not having them as "artificial disadvantage".

I can't tell you how many times I sit there and notice that my health has been dropped about half way, then turn around and it's a generic zombie clawing at my character. That's just bad teamwork,

No, this is bad game design inherent in FPS. Why should a game force the player to live in the shoes of a man with a neck brace, glaucoma and polyneuropathy? That's the only way a man IRL would allow a zombie to claw at him until he's half-dead, and "not notice."

When you spoke of projectiles, that exception arises because the only time it occurs in the game is by some sort of special zombie. A spitter launches acid, a tank throws cars/concrete slabs, a hunter leaps toward you, a smoker unleashing their throat/whatever that this is...all of them are special circumstances.

The discussion here is about FPS in general. L4D comes up as a specific example on occasion, but the discussion isn't limited to L4D.

I know for a fact that I wouldn't be overwhelmed nearly as often if I could see that higher-density pack of generic zombies behind my back.

You keep thinking TPS means you get like 3 yards of "safety zone" buffer behind your chara's back. Where are you getting this idea from???


Please tell me how this pov will give you all the time in the world to react to a horde of zombies running up behind you.
What it does do, is intuitively tell you that you're being attacked from behind-left, behind-center, behind-right, or behind-air, as soon as it is happening.