I'm surprised there haven't been any threads on this lately.
So yeah, I'm fully aware that the game isn't even close to the end of its anticipated lifespan (last game took 5 years until they dropped support and it's still alive and kicking), but it's been 3 years, at least for those who didn't participate to the EA. It's already quite long compared to most games in the industry.
Personally, KF1 had the best personality, but KF2 had near-perfect gunplay. I played both games over 450hrs each so I think I kinda enjoyed them. I rooted for both even though I was aware of their respective fatal flaws. KF1 was limited in its budget and scope, while KF2 was trying too hard not to look like its older sibling while trying too little to capitalize on its potential. Oh, and let's not forget about their mutual flaw: their tendency to be repetitive.
So this has made me ponder for awhile, is KF3 even worth making? If that was already in the dev's intention to do so, what should the game bring to the table over its older siblings?
Well I'm just a dude sipping Canadian beer on a cold evening, not some genius with decades of experience in videogame-making who thinks he knows more than anyone for the future of the franchise, but I think I have a few ideas that I'd like to discuss.
Let's start with the big one: repetitiveness:
Klling Floor has always been a solid shooter with reliable gameplay mechanics. Okay, welding has always been near-useless, as if they wanted to add at some point some kind of tactical touch ala Rainbow Six or Swat, but they eventually scrapped the idea and only left out the ability to weld wooden DOARS with a blowtorch.
I think that the strenght of the franchise is its easy-to-read, straightforward approach. You shoot everything, preferably in the head, until there is no one left, you buy better dakka at the trader, then rinse and repeat. I think it's also where lies the main flaw: at some point there's little room for improvement. You reach a point where you can reliably finish games on Suicidal/HOE and then realize that it's everything that the game can throw at you.
KF2 has done a great job however at diminishing the feeling of doing the same thing over with the addition of different guns that do different effects, but they ultimately all have the same learning curve and basic style of operation. All melee weapons feel the same, some just smash harder or do something cool with their heavy attack.
What I'd like to see in the next installment is weapons with different learning curves: some are streamlined, easy to use and master, while others take more time to learn, but once you get the hang of them, they show to be powerful means of destruction, at the cost of as soon as you mishandle them, it might cost you your life. Monster Hunter is a great example of what I mean.
One thing I have noticed with most guns in KF2, is that most of them were balanced to be used in most situations and environments. You can for example start spamming your RPG-7 in a cramped corridor with little consequences, besides the cost of your ammo at the end of the wave. i think such weapons shouldn't be as easy to use, at least all the time. Some weapons should be balanced for a more in-your-face style, while some others will actually get you killed if there isn't at least a few meters of breathing room. Some weapons will not work at all in constricted maps while others will shine at defending chokepoints. Right now most weapons can be used on any maps in all impunity and this may severely affect loadout variety.
Enough with weapons. Let's talk gameplay: I'd like to see more room to tactical thinking. Maybe we could see some use to welding after 3 games? in the first one, shutting down doors was useful to create choke points where you could concentrate your fire, but keeping said doors shut was quite difficult even as a maxed-out support unless another player gave a hand from time to time. Flash-forward to KF2, welding doors is actually near-useless and will actually get you killed more often than they'll offer a tactical advantage. I've always recommended not to weld door in the second game since they take so little effort from the Zeds to break down, and they are near-impossible to hold alone as a maxed-out Support.
I really liked the addition of perk-specific grenades and I'd like to see them again in the next game. Freezing or tazing scrakes for easy, efficient takedowns was a breathe of fresh air and ironically made the support's and commando's grenades lackluster in comparison. Maybe we could see some dynamic destruction? Throwing a grenade at a wall or obstacle will blow a chunk off of it to your advantage, but Zeds will also learn to do the same eventually. Husks could also blow through walls on higher difficulties, adding to the element of variety and chaos.
I think there should be more than one way to approach a map. Some that are more straightforward, some that take a little more planning but offer in return a diminished cost in effort and resources.
Let's talk about the lore and personality of the game.
Some people will say that lore isn't important, and they are right to some point. Lore is not important for the casual player to follow, but it makes a great baseline to draw new ideas from. It helps create a culture around which people gather, connect and relate, and by consequent shapes an identity to the work. You can't deny that an artwork with a rich backstory is easier to renew than one which is shallow and by consequent relies heavily on what it can show in the now rather than what it can provide over time.
I think Killing Floor 3 should embrace what made the first game so unforgettable: the cheesiness, the cheap British humor, its categorical refusal to take itself too seriously, and the gritty horror reminiscent of a bad horror movie from the 80's, instead of running from it. A son looking like his father doesn't make them both the same person...it makes them related.
Doom 2016 and the upcoming Eternal did it: they stayed close to their roots while offering something new in return too. And hell, you'd be surprised at the abysmal depth of the Doom lore, and only a microscopic part of it is actually shown in the game.
I'd like to see some more objective modes that reveal more on the world of KF. The Steampunk guy was fun, but he was essentially just blowing noisy air. Nothing that he says is actually relevant and he is only present for the comic relief.
I think the next installment should focus more on developing its own identity and avoid falling into the trap of becoming yet another generic shooter with flashy guns, while staying close to its roots and providing something new to the table that the last two games couldn't.
Hell, maybe we could see some radical changes like activable perk skills, destructible environments, weapons with a learning curve, characters with actual perk/ability bonuses (i.e Mr.Foster gains slightly more dosh per kills while Lt. Masterson has bonus handling with assault rifles), less focus on raw skills to give place to tactical thinking...I think all of these would fit right into the game.
So yeah, if you made it through my essay of a post, I thank you for your time and consideration. I'm almost all out of beer, so I'll leave this to y'all. What's your opinion about the possibility of a third sequel and what would you think should be added?
So yeah, I'm fully aware that the game isn't even close to the end of its anticipated lifespan (last game took 5 years until they dropped support and it's still alive and kicking), but it's been 3 years, at least for those who didn't participate to the EA. It's already quite long compared to most games in the industry.
Personally, KF1 had the best personality, but KF2 had near-perfect gunplay. I played both games over 450hrs each so I think I kinda enjoyed them. I rooted for both even though I was aware of their respective fatal flaws. KF1 was limited in its budget and scope, while KF2 was trying too hard not to look like its older sibling while trying too little to capitalize on its potential. Oh, and let's not forget about their mutual flaw: their tendency to be repetitive.
So this has made me ponder for awhile, is KF3 even worth making? If that was already in the dev's intention to do so, what should the game bring to the table over its older siblings?
Well I'm just a dude sipping Canadian beer on a cold evening, not some genius with decades of experience in videogame-making who thinks he knows more than anyone for the future of the franchise, but I think I have a few ideas that I'd like to discuss.
Let's start with the big one: repetitiveness:
Klling Floor has always been a solid shooter with reliable gameplay mechanics. Okay, welding has always been near-useless, as if they wanted to add at some point some kind of tactical touch ala Rainbow Six or Swat, but they eventually scrapped the idea and only left out the ability to weld wooden DOARS with a blowtorch.
I think that the strenght of the franchise is its easy-to-read, straightforward approach. You shoot everything, preferably in the head, until there is no one left, you buy better dakka at the trader, then rinse and repeat. I think it's also where lies the main flaw: at some point there's little room for improvement. You reach a point where you can reliably finish games on Suicidal/HOE and then realize that it's everything that the game can throw at you.
KF2 has done a great job however at diminishing the feeling of doing the same thing over with the addition of different guns that do different effects, but they ultimately all have the same learning curve and basic style of operation. All melee weapons feel the same, some just smash harder or do something cool with their heavy attack.
What I'd like to see in the next installment is weapons with different learning curves: some are streamlined, easy to use and master, while others take more time to learn, but once you get the hang of them, they show to be powerful means of destruction, at the cost of as soon as you mishandle them, it might cost you your life. Monster Hunter is a great example of what I mean.
One thing I have noticed with most guns in KF2, is that most of them were balanced to be used in most situations and environments. You can for example start spamming your RPG-7 in a cramped corridor with little consequences, besides the cost of your ammo at the end of the wave. i think such weapons shouldn't be as easy to use, at least all the time. Some weapons should be balanced for a more in-your-face style, while some others will actually get you killed if there isn't at least a few meters of breathing room. Some weapons will not work at all in constricted maps while others will shine at defending chokepoints. Right now most weapons can be used on any maps in all impunity and this may severely affect loadout variety.
Enough with weapons. Let's talk gameplay: I'd like to see more room to tactical thinking. Maybe we could see some use to welding after 3 games? in the first one, shutting down doors was useful to create choke points where you could concentrate your fire, but keeping said doors shut was quite difficult even as a maxed-out support unless another player gave a hand from time to time. Flash-forward to KF2, welding doors is actually near-useless and will actually get you killed more often than they'll offer a tactical advantage. I've always recommended not to weld door in the second game since they take so little effort from the Zeds to break down, and they are near-impossible to hold alone as a maxed-out Support.
I really liked the addition of perk-specific grenades and I'd like to see them again in the next game. Freezing or tazing scrakes for easy, efficient takedowns was a breathe of fresh air and ironically made the support's and commando's grenades lackluster in comparison. Maybe we could see some dynamic destruction? Throwing a grenade at a wall or obstacle will blow a chunk off of it to your advantage, but Zeds will also learn to do the same eventually. Husks could also blow through walls on higher difficulties, adding to the element of variety and chaos.
I think there should be more than one way to approach a map. Some that are more straightforward, some that take a little more planning but offer in return a diminished cost in effort and resources.
Let's talk about the lore and personality of the game.
Some people will say that lore isn't important, and they are right to some point. Lore is not important for the casual player to follow, but it makes a great baseline to draw new ideas from. It helps create a culture around which people gather, connect and relate, and by consequent shapes an identity to the work. You can't deny that an artwork with a rich backstory is easier to renew than one which is shallow and by consequent relies heavily on what it can show in the now rather than what it can provide over time.
I think Killing Floor 3 should embrace what made the first game so unforgettable: the cheesiness, the cheap British humor, its categorical refusal to take itself too seriously, and the gritty horror reminiscent of a bad horror movie from the 80's, instead of running from it. A son looking like his father doesn't make them both the same person...it makes them related.
Doom 2016 and the upcoming Eternal did it: they stayed close to their roots while offering something new in return too. And hell, you'd be surprised at the abysmal depth of the Doom lore, and only a microscopic part of it is actually shown in the game.
I'd like to see some more objective modes that reveal more on the world of KF. The Steampunk guy was fun, but he was essentially just blowing noisy air. Nothing that he says is actually relevant and he is only present for the comic relief.
I think the next installment should focus more on developing its own identity and avoid falling into the trap of becoming yet another generic shooter with flashy guns, while staying close to its roots and providing something new to the table that the last two games couldn't.
Hell, maybe we could see some radical changes like activable perk skills, destructible environments, weapons with a learning curve, characters with actual perk/ability bonuses (i.e Mr.Foster gains slightly more dosh per kills while Lt. Masterson has bonus handling with assault rifles), less focus on raw skills to give place to tactical thinking...I think all of these would fit right into the game.
So yeah, if you made it through my essay of a post, I thank you for your time and consideration. I'm almost all out of beer, so I'll leave this to y'all. What's your opinion about the possibility of a third sequel and what would you think should be added?
Last edited: