[QUOTE=doomevil;28621325][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdugWbiUyCo[/media]
Sadly, It's only an interview and some of the scenes from the trailer. :sigh:[/QUOTE]
Fucus.
Heavily fucused on melee combat.
[QUOTE=Mikedestruct;28622359]Ha, fucking told you its not gonna be serious.[/QUOTE]
Damn trailers.
[QUOTE=Mikedestruct;28622359]Ha, fucking told you its not gonna be serious.[/QUOTE]
It still is serious. But it's not heavily "OMG THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN" serious.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;28623090]It still is serious. But it's not heavily "OMG THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN" serious.[/QUOTE]
*slippery slope fallacy goes here*
People can't expect simulation games for this genre, it just wouldn't work.
20 weapons/items? Not even Quake or Unreal Tournament let you carry that much. I sure hope it's weight based, so you could carry 20 small weapons like knives or chose to carry 2 large ones like an axe and a sledgehammer.
Even still, I'm hoping this won't be quite a DR2 clone(It's not going to be close I think), and even though it's not totally serious, I'm quite happy with that really. PC modding community will change that I'm sure.
Honestly, I just don't get the point in nay saying all the time. I'm usually hopeful about games and very rarely feel like I'm truly let down. Maybe that's just me.
[editline]15th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=acds;28623522]20 weapons/items? Not even Quake or Unreal Tournament let you carry that much. I sure hope it's weight based, so you could carry 20 small weapons like knives or chose to carry 2 large ones like an axe and a sledgehammer.[/QUOTE]
I'm thinking inventory system sort of like Stalker, where it's all weight based and items don't stack.
Oh god must get :gizz:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28623579]I'm thinking inventory system sort of like Stalker, where it's all weight based and items don't stack.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather there was a system which tried to model what you can reasonably carry as a human.
So you have pouches/holsters, a backpack and your hands.
You store your weapons in your holsters (one over the shoulder slot for big weapons, two smaller slots for smaller weapons).
Your on hand items in your pouches (variable number of pouches based on character/outfit).
Your backpack for storing backup supplies and key items which is subject to a weight limit and also has a limited number of storage spaces somewhat like RE4. You can't take anything out of your backpack when you're mid-combat (except for quest items).
And finally two hand slots that allow you to pickup items from around the environment without having to store them in your inventory slots first to use or equip them.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Khorn;28612386]Resident evil had no real explanation in the beginning except that enough bites turned you into zombo-chow.
Dead rising I think had an explanation, but Frank was slowly succumbing to the parasite. As for Chuck, no idea.
[/QUOTE]
Actually in RE2, it was heavily implied that if the infected people (who were bitten from zombies) died, then they would turn into zombies.
Yea, I figured that. But just cause its implies doesn't mean much. In outbreak, everyone was infected, even if not bitten. Like an airborne virus that eventually kill/turned you. As far as I remember, it was never fully explained.
Besides, the whole mutant creatures thing then later in RE4, parasites, kinda killed it for me.
And don't forget the terrible movies of Resident Evil, where some zombies mutated into digging machines.
I think it'd be pretty interesting if you were playing co-op, and your partner dies, you look over to see him standing up amongst the undead, as an undead.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Khorn;28627247]
And don't forget the terrible movies of Resident Evil, where some zombies mutated into digging machines.[/QUOTE]
Oh dear Christ, don't let the Dead Island movie be as bad as these. Not only did they somehow manage to turn the campy nonsensical badness of the games into just painful horribleness, but they also somehow made a script that is uncannily reminiscent of a fanfiction made by a 13 year old.
What I'm saying is that I hope Dead Island: The Game: The Movie doesn't turn out to be a story about some woman played by *insert attractive actress here* who has unexplained psychic powers that do what the plot needs them to while the actual characters are played by people who look nothing like their in-game counterparts and are sidelined for the incredible awesomeness of *insert attractive actress here*, and isn't directed by a complete bell-end who directed Event Horizon who mistakes "stupid and overblown" with "YEAH HARDCORE EFFECTS WOOO SLOW MOTION BITCHES!!!!"
On the topic of the infection being a gameplay element, I found it pretty neat how in RE:Outbreak File #2, you could turn into a zombie if you die from the T-Virus infection and are playing co-op, it's just that I found it incredibly annoying how you [b]always[/b] had the virus and there was no way to even reduce it's progress IIRC. If they were to implement it in Dead Island, I'd say that you should be bitten first before it starts to take effect, but have some sort of plot device that removes it "temporarily" until you get bitten again.
Could have it were you get bitten, and a very slow timer starts. You can obtain medicine that reduces it and slows it to stop. But the medicine is rather rare, like the guns.
Every time you get bit, the timer gets pushed more until you grab another medicine.
But now we are just taking it to far. May as well stick with the whole immune thing now.
[QUOTE=Lance99;28620381]Some new info I think:
-crafting includes things like an electric axe(axe+wires+battery+metal plate) and "sticky bomb"(knife+explosive+watch)
-you will be able to carry 20 weapons at once, with 8 bound to quick-slots. The makers decided on such a high number of items to enable the players fight off multiple enemies' types quickly.
-you will be able to repair weapons using money (mysterious merchant again?)
-heroes have their own fatigue(late?)
-Techland thinks of implementing two ways of fighting, one more complicated (consoles mostly, as it involves using the stick)
-author describes a situation, where he [b]broke the arms[/b] of a zombie and the creature began to attack with it's head
-three character development trees: fury, fight and survival
-cars!
-fast travel between safe areas
-possibly interesting plot with nice atmosphere (pools full of bodies)
[b]Finished![/b][/QUOTE]
brb putting all points into Fury
DEAD ISLAND: VIKING EDITION
also, I don't know why people are freaking out about "seriousness," which is code for "as much realism as I want, but not too much." I doubt Techland would give you the ability to cripple/KO zombies if all you were going to do ingame is hack and slash at 'em Dead Rising style.
[editline]15th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sgt. Khorn;28630113]Could have it were you get bitten, and a very slow timer starts. You can obtain medicine that reduces it and slows it to stop. But the medicine is rather rare, like the guns.
[b]Every time you get bit, the timer gets pushed more until you grab another medicine.[/b]
But now we are just taking it to far. May as well stick with the whole immune thing now.[/QUOTE]
One word: Zombrex. No.
Really I'd be fine if death just meant you had to start again character wise, it'd allow the developers more leeway to try some unique and interesting things, things that aren't really feasible if the game is being designed with the intent that the player must absolutely be able to complete the game no matter what.
Plus I'd love it if I had to hunt down my zombified body, kill myself and loot my quest items, that'd be a unique experience.
[QUOTE=Riutet;28630370]Really I'd be fine if death just meant you had to start again character wise, it'd allow the developers more leeway to try some unique and interesting things, things that aren't really feasible if the game is being designed with the intent that the player must absolutely be able to complete the game no matter what.
Plus I'd love it if I had to hunt down my zombified body, kill myself and loot my quest items, that'd be a unique experience.[/QUOTE]
It would be neat, but since there's a skill tree and other character development stuff, people would be pretty pissed to suddenly lose what they thought were permanent stats. Also, you'd only be able to enforce such a system by not letting the player save at will (quicksaving etc.) which is generally a terrible idea, especially in an open-world game.
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;28630299]One word: Zombrex. No.[/QUOTE]
The problem with Zombrex was how tedious it was in Dead Rising.
It totally ruined your ability to have as much fun as you wanted because there was always that little timer in the top corner telling you when playtime is over, basically keeping you on a short leash forcing you to do the missions and not do what you want to do.
I think it'd translate much better if once you get it, that's it, you're safe for another (X amount of time) without having to make a mad dash back to some arbitrary point to have it administered. The other suggestion, that it simply eradicates the virus until the next time you get bit is a better idea though, it means there's more of an incentive to play carefully because playing recklessly may mean a quick trip to looking for pillsville. Being put on a timer makes you go at a pace you don't want to go because slowing down means you're wasting safe time, that'd both make you prone to making more silly mistakes and sort of ruin your experience also.
[QUOTE=Riutet;28630523]The problem with Zombrex was how tedious it was in Dead Rising.
It totally ruined your ability to have as much fun as you wanted because there was always that little timer in the top corner telling you when playtime is over, basically keeping you on a short leash forcing you to do the missions and not do what you want to do.
I think it'd translate much better if once you get it, that's it, you're safe for another (X amount of time) without having to make a mad dash back to some arbitrary point to have it administered. The other suggestion, that it simply eradicates the virus until the next time you get bit is a better idea though, it means there's more of an incentive to play carefully because playing recklessly may mean a quick trip to looking for pillsville. Being put on a timer makes you go at a pace you don't want to go because slowing down means you're wasting safe time, that'd both make you prone to making more silly mistakes and sort of ruin your experience also.[/QUOTE]
I suppose the whole "get medicine to cure self until next time" thing could work, but definitely not every time you get bit. In fact, there will probably be a zombie type in the final game that "poisons" you in some way--slowing you down, draining your health, making you unable to attack, or some combination of those. It's pretty common in games that have monsters in them.
"Hey, this zombie killing is quite fun! I wanna go over to the upper casino areas to get stuff for better weapons!"
THE TRUTH DISAPPEARS FOREVER
[editline]15th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Riutet;28630523]The problem with Zombrex was how tedious it was in Dead Rising.
It totally ruined your ability to have as much fun as you wanted because there was always that little timer in the top corner telling you when playtime is over, basically keeping you on a short leash forcing you to do the missions and not do what you want to do.
I think it'd translate much better if once you get it, that's it, you're safe for another (X amount of time) without having to make a mad dash back to some arbitrary point to have it administered. The other suggestion, that it simply eradicates the virus until the next time you get bit is a better idea though, it means there's more of an incentive to play carefully because playing recklessly may mean a quick trip to looking for pillsville. Being put on a timer makes you go at a pace you don't want to go because slowing down means you're wasting safe time, that'd both make you prone to making more silly mistakes and sort of ruin your experience also.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't make any sense to have a cure when it's the beginning of an outbreak.
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;28630436]people would be pretty pissed to suddenly lose what they thought were permanent stats.[/quote]
Let them be pissed, gratification isn't the only valid response videogames are able to evoke, dying should make people angry, it should make people upset, it should be a negative experience (negative doesn't mean invalid mind), or else it becomes a meaningless, dull trial and error barrier to content. Dying should mean loss, loss of something that the player cares about, but which doesn't necessarily bar them from playing on.
[quote]Also, you'd only be able to enforce such a system by not letting the player save at will (quicksaving etc.) which is generally a terrible idea, especially in an open-world game.[/QUOTE]
Not at all, you should still be able to save at will.
Let players save their progress as is, quicksaves and proper saves that don't revert progress in any way, and let the players who just want a straight experience with no setbacks play as they wish.
But which also allows players who do not wish to savescum, to abstain from doing so.
It doesn't need to be enforced at all, let the player decide whether he wants a different experience or not.
[editline]16th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;28630588]It wouldn't make any sense to have a cure when it's the beginning of an outbreak.[/QUOTE]
teh gubmint did it, they acknowledge it and have deployed healycure vials at various locations over the country
It's a videogame, there's tons of ways you can have a cure at the very start of the game, doesn't even need to be a cure in the vial-y sense that we usually think of it.
[editline]16th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;28630582]I suppose the whole "get medicine to cure self until next time" thing could work, but definitely not every time you get bit. In fact, there will probably be a zombie type in the final game that "poisons" you in some way--slowing you down, draining your health, making you unable to attack, or some combination of those. It's pretty common in games that have monsters in them.[/QUOTE]
If done correctly, it could probably would work very well, whether it'd be implemented correctly is another matter though.
[QUOTE=Riutet;28630626]Let them be pissed, gratification isn't the only valid response videogames are able to evoke, dying should make people angry, it should make people upset, it should be a negative experience (negative doesn't mean invalid mind), or else it becomes a meaningless, dull trial and error barrier to content. Dying should mean loss, loss of something that the player cares about, but which doesn't necessarily bar them from playing on.[/QUOTE]
Except having your character get wiped on death WOULD make everything you did "invalid." Also, given the choice (load a save or start a new character), I think the vast majority of players would simply hit quickload--to the point where it's not worth spending development time putting in a feature that almost nobody will use.
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;28631126]Except having your character get wiped on death WOULD make everything you did "invalid."[/quote]
Not at all, because the consistency of your past actions aren't dependent on the character who performed them remaining alive. If you opened a door as your now dead character, that door would remain ajar despite you inhabiting a new character, and the same goes for more significant actions.
[quote]Also, given the choice (load a save or start a new character), I think the vast majority of players would simply hit quickload--to the point where it's not worth spending development time putting in a feature that almost nobody will use.[/QUOTE]
If that which determines what features make it into the game, is the number of people who are going to allow themselves to experience it, then design wise the game is very much lacking in vision, and the developers too determined to be efficient.
Now you can argue that you are right, that they should concentrate on the features that more players are more likely to use, which is correct in a number of ways, and I can argue that they should try to push the bar and add something new and interesting into the mix regardless of whether the majority of people will enjoy or use it, and be correct too.
I wish for Techland to not take an entirely economical approach to designing their game, that "this feature would be cool to have if we can do it right" is a valid reason to try and add it, and that it's reaction from the general player base, whom have the method required to circumvent the feature, is not the final word on whether that feature gets added. I'm aware it's fairly idealistic, but a balance between what most people will use and what would be nice to have in the game needs to be struck, otherwise you end up like Bioware.
By taking on a new, inexperienced character every single time you make 1 mistake while keeping story progression will utterly destroy any kind of difficulty curving or quest system.
The zombies can't get stronger because, you know, then you'd have no fun in the middle of the game when you have to start playing as a Lvl 0 Tourist wielding a coffee cup versus mutant bone-knife super zombies.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;28631409]every single time you make 1 mistake[/quote]
You assume that dying is inevitable, that being bit is instant death, it is not.
[quote]while keeping story progression will utterly destroy any kind of difficulty curving or quest system.[/quote]
I disagree, considering this game is going for the RPG-lite design, the player's ability to survive should not be but the sum of his player character's level and ability. The player should be able to advance through the game and thrive using knowledge attained from play, levels and abilities should act like advantages, powerups, status which is valuable but fleeting, something to be protective of but something that you don't rely on entirely. I don't know how Dead Island works at all, only what has been said, but you really should be able to play without taking too much damage provided you play smart.
[quote]The zombies can't get stronger because, you know, then you'd have no fun in the middle of the game when you have to start playing as a Lvl 0 Tourist wielding a coffee cup versus mutant bone-knife super zombies.[/QUOTE]
Hypothetically, if Techland were making the game with the feature I was talking about as a key feature, one would assume that they would account for the player being overwhelmed later on in the game by providing alternate ways to complete missions, or alternate missions. I'm not saying they should add this feature to what they currently have now, you can't really add game changing mechanics into a game so late into the development process without some serious issues or some major revisions.
[QUOTE=doomevil;28621325][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdugWbiUyCo[/media]
Sadly, It's only an interview and some of the scenes from the trailer. :sigh:[/QUOTE]
What? You CAN'T kill children? BULLSHIT AND SHENANIGANS!
[QUOTE=0v3rkill2;28639403]What? You CAN'T kill children? BULLSHIT AND SHENANIGANS![/QUOTE]
gives it M instead of A O or some shit :v:
[editline]16th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JoeSibilant;28630436]It would be neat, but since there's a skill tree and other character development stuff, people would be pretty pissed to suddenly lose what they thought were permanent stats. Also, you'd only be able to enforce such a system by not letting the player save at will (quicksaving etc.) which is generally a terrible idea, especially in an open-world game.[/QUOTE]
oh god fallout with no saving :suicide:
I wonder if it's that hard to add an option for sandbox and hardcore sandbox modes = randomized quest + hardocore version means you have only one life. This would be separate from the campaing or might use some elements from it. Simple, yet guarantees lots of fun.
Valve check out the Dead Island trailer.
[QUOTE=Eurogamer]Techland's eye-catching Dead Island trailer, which shows a reverse-time account of a young girl on a tropical holiday island being torn away from her parents, become a zombie and eventually be flung out of a window, turned heads - but what did Valve, the maker of Left 4 Dead, perhaps the best zombie game of this generation, think?
"It's pretty awesome. It's really good," Left 4 Dead writer Chet Faliszek told Eurogamer.
"I think it's great, but I just had a baby this year and I just had a weird feeling," offered writing partner Erik Wolpaw. "The violence towards kids is unpleasant. I'm not offended by it, but it's unpleasant in a way that makes it difficult to watch.
"But it looks cool. An open world zombie game would be awesome."
Left 4 Dead is a four-player co-op first-person shooter that sees players battle against hordes of zombies as they desperately head for safety.
Dead Island, due out this year, is also a four-player co-op zombie survival game, but it takes place on an island.
It has a heavy focus on melee fighting - lopping zombie's arms off with sharp objects and staving their rotten faces in with blunt objects. Guns exist, but ammo is scarce.
The game's also got RPG guts - character classes, skill development and weapon customisation.
While the trailer got gamers talking, and indeed caused Dead Island to trend on Twitter, some remain sceptical that it does not accurately reflect the video game it promotes.
"That's what I'm curious about as well," said Faliszek. "But I'll tell you what, it brought me in and I want to know more about the game."
Wolpaw agreed: "Telling it in reverse was a neat filmic thing. Coming out of it, I still don't know anything about the game, but as a way to reintroduce... hey guys, remember this game we talked about three years ago? Here it is.
"It was hardcore. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the game."
Dead Island was revealed way back in 2007, and despite Techland announcing that everything was well and good in 2009, it had been assumed to be in limbo. Some suggested Techland was waiting for Left 4 Dead and L4D2 to come and go.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=0v3rkill2;28639403]What? You CAN'T kill children? BULLSHIT AND SHENANIGANS![/QUOTE]
Something's wrong with you if the lack of being able to kill children is that disappointing
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
