See. This is why I asked how far is too far at the very beginning of this thread. If your goal is to make a valid artistic statement through some kind of horrible event, then yeah that can be considered art. If your goal is to whip up interest in a product through total misrepresentation of that product through some kind of horrible event, then maybe you are going too far.
Crass and manipulative.
Or maybe they had the opportunity to make a short film set in their world to help drum up interest for the game. Maybe, just maybe, we can consider the trailer on its own merits (of being very emotional by reminding many of us about what we care about and cherish).
If art can be measured by how much of your humanity it brings to the surface, then the trailer did that for many, many people.
Art that exists to generate interest in selling a product is generally called marketing. Emotions are fine. Using those emotions to sell a product is a fine line.
Also I really don't like that last line there on account of how many people were going "Pfft. Parents being offended at the trailer? They're just being stupid."
Have we actually seen gameplay or are we all assuming it will just be Dead Rising+?
There was a teaser in '07 that seemed to show the player grappling with a zombie over a lead pipe. Also all the screen shots, thanks to their fantastic engine, gives off a "realistic" tone. Which lead me and many others to think it'd be as I described.
These incoming previews from GDC seem to contradict, or take these things and over-the-top them.
What would an electrified machete even do? I mean, what's the point to it? It's not going to "taze" them, they're zombies, their muscles obviously have no impact on their abilities (I mean, otherwise they wouldn't be able to move what with the atrophy, rigor mortis and being dead), it isn't going to make it slice better... just... whats the point of that type of thing in anything other than a Dead Rising arcadey-style, whacky game? If you're tazing zombies, no matter what else is in your game, you are on Dead Rising's level of arcade. The GDC articles almost make the game seem schizophrenic, stuck somewhere between the game expected and a straight action game.
None of this is meant to condemn Dead Rising, by the by. It's just we already have that franchise.
See. This is why I asked how far is too far at the very beginning of this thread. If your goal is to make a valid artistic statement through some kind of horrible event, then yeah that can be considered art. If your goal is to whip up interest in a product through total misrepresentation of that product through some kind of horrible event, then maybe you are going too far.
Crass and manipulative.
Or maybe they had the opportunity to make a short film set in their world to help drum up interest for the game. Maybe, just maybe, we can consider the trailer on its own merits (of being very emotional by reminding many of us about what we care about and cherish).
If art can be measured by how much of your humanity it brings to the surface, then the trailer did that for many, many people.
Art that exists to generate interest in selling a product is generally called marketing. Emotions are fine. Using those emotions to sell a product is a fine line.
Also I really don't like that last line there on account of how many people were going "Pfft. Parents being offended at the trailer? They're just being stupid."
No, I am not saying what you think I said.
When I saw the trailer, as a father, it hit hard. It was upsetting and made my eyes a little wet. It made me want to give my son a hug.
That is what I am talking about. When I see photographs of the Great Depression, I am reminded of how fortunate we are and once again want to embrace my family.
The trailer served to remind many, many people of their humanity. Some took offense, yes. Some were abivalent. Thats art, man.
Wait, so because art is used to sell a product, it is marketing? So advertisements can't be art?
What about an art show? Those pieces are all trying to sell a product, other pieces by that artist. Just because it is in a gallery with a $3000 price tag beneath doesn't mean its different from a commercial that tries to sell a $40000 car. What makes them different is their substance. A commercial may or may not be art.
I'm not saying YOU were saying it. That's a perfectly valid sentiment you had. I was commenting more on that tendency I was seeing a lot of on the internet to call folks who really didn't like the trailer stupid and say they just didn't get it, when in fact it was quite the opposite. Those parents, I'd argue, got the trailer even MORE than the people complaining about them.
Advertisements can be art, absolutely. They can also be incredibly misleading and unevocative of the product they're trying to sell, and pin interest not on the content of the object itself, but on the quality of the advertising. The trailer is undeniably making a powerful emotional statement. However, in doing so, it's also COMPLETELY misrepresenting the product it's trying to sell. It's good art, but piss poor advertising, meaning it's failing in one of its major responsibilities. It's very easy to be swayed into a product based on emotion instead of the product itself, and it's important to be aware of that distinction. Remember how excited you were at seeing the trailer for Attack of the Clones?
I'm not saying YOU were saying it. That's a perfectly valid sentiment you had. I was commenting more on that tendency I was seeing a lot of on the internet to call folks who really didn't like the trailer stupid and say they just didn't get it, when in fact it was quite the opposite. Those parents, I'd argue, got the trailer even MORE than the people complaining about them.
Advertisements can be art, absolutely. They can also be incredibly misleading and unevocative of the product they're trying to sell, and pin interest not on the content of the object itself, but on the quality of the advertising. The trailer is undeniably making a powerful emotional statement. However, in doing so, it's also COMPLETELY misrepresenting the product it's trying to sell. It's good art, but piss poor advertising, meaning it's failing in one of its major responsibilities. It's very easy to be swayed into a product based on emotion instead of the product itself, and it's important to be aware of that distinction. Remember how excited you were at seeing the trailer for Attack of the Clones?
I don't know about that. They're trying to sell me a zombie game
nailed it...
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I'm not saying YOU were saying it. That's a perfectly valid sentiment you had. I was commenting more on that tendency I was seeing a lot of on the internet to call folks who really didn't like the trailer stupid and say they just didn't get it, when in fact it was quite the opposite. Those parents, I'd argue, got the trailer even MORE than the people complaining about them.
Advertisements can be art, absolutely. They can also be incredibly misleading and unevocative of the product they're trying to sell, and pin interest not on the content of the object itself, but on the quality of the advertising. The trailer is undeniably making a powerful emotional statement. However, in doing so, it's also COMPLETELY misrepresenting the product it's trying to sell. It's good art, but piss poor advertising, meaning it's failing in one of its major responsibilities. It's very easy to be swayed into a product based on emotion instead of the product itself, and it's important to be aware of that distinction. Remember how excited you were at seeing the trailer for Attack of the Clones?
I don't know about that. They're trying to sell me a zombie game
nailed it...
Hah, we could all argue about what exactly the trailer sold us on til we are blue in the face. Some of us saw the trailer and thought the game would be more of a survival simulation game, while others just saw the trailer simply as a CGI movie letting us know a game was being made.
Will it be a good game for what it is? Probably. Was it what I personally was hoping for after seeing and analyzing a trailer? No. But hey, that's on me for over-analyzing a CGI movie introducing a game.
Decoy on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
Well, as far as what we can expect from this game we can look at Techland's track record. Which isn't horrible at all. They've produced several entertaining games that are mainly by the numbers shooters with some interesting features. Innovation really isn't their thing though.
Well, as far as what we can expect from this game we can look at Techland's track record. Which isn't horrible at all. They've produced several entertaining games that are mainly by the numbers shooters with some interesting features. Innovation really isn't their thing though.
That's pretty much the only thing that keeps me interested in the game. The game sounds cool and all, but unless demo/impressions are very positive I'll wait to get it.
Well, as far as what we can expect from this game we can look at Techland's track record. Which isn't horrible at all. They've produced several entertaining games that are mainly by the numbers shooters with some interesting features. Innovation really isn't their thing though.
That's pretty much the only thing that keeps me interested in the game. The game sounds cool and all, but unless demo/impressions are very positive I'll wait to get it.
It's awesomeness dropped down a level when I saw the GT's GDC interview with the developer...
I guess an electric machete is ok, but it isn't logical (engineering one not the usability of it). I understand most inexperienced zombie fighters wouldn't know how to wield a machete to decapitate on the first few blows. Just like in the movie trailer the father wielding the axe only managed to cut off the hand off zombie woman and cleave into the shoulder of fat zombie. Fat zombie pulled it out like it's no big thing. The ability to stun when you can't one shot a zombie is a plus... but the idea that you can build one without it accidentally backfiring on you is mystifying. Like you're some engineer/Mac Guyver they didn't tell you were.
Children zombies should always be in play if you want realism. You had it in the movie trailer, there should be no reason why you back out in the game if you claim realism. The interview had me scoffing how the developer said there were no children zombie, but the trailer had a child zombie to show realism.
I'll still keep an eye out for this game... but I don't think I'm "head-over-heels-must-buy-this-day-1-fanboy".
Well, as far as what we can expect from this game we can look at Techland's track record. Which isn't horrible at all. They've produced several entertaining games that are mainly by the numbers shooters with some interesting features. Innovation really isn't their thing though.
They've made some impressive games that were pretty innovative.
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood was a fantastic shooter with some excellent multiplayer and coop components. The wild thing is that it mixed up linear AND open-world segments together. First couple missions were wide open areas, but with linear goals and a directed path. As you progress through the story, you encounter even wider expanses with lots of little missions, shops, and such to explore and encounter.
It honestly was the first western video game I have ever played and enjoyed. Red Dead Redemption followed less than a year later and did a bit better, but differently.
COJ:BiB is a great experience and a stellar story. If they do even half as good on story and flow, this will be a great game.
tldr; Play Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. Just play it. Everything from Civil War -era trench warfare, horse and wagon chases, indian attacks, bandits, and desperados.
I need to put that on my Goozex list now. I need it back.
When developer Techland played Dead Island for me today, they chose the stereotypical "video game black guy" character. As he ran around slicing up zombies and bashing in their heads, he would exclaim things like, "Daaaaaamn, that bitch was huge!" and "You a dead bitch now!" Imagine hearing that sort of commentary over the trailer that depicted the tragic death of a young girl.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I'm out.
Wow. Picky much?
Sorry it won't be a playable Zombie short film. Its a video game. Why are you surprised by this?
Would you rather him be musing to himself about racial profiling or the first time he was ever oppressed for his skin color? Why are you the least bit surprised that one of four video game characters has one-liners?
If you honestly thought that the game was about you playing a little girl running from the undead, you have a poor sense of what makes a fun game.
Haunting Grounds by Capcom was actually all kinds of awesome. You played a young girl trapped in a large estate who occasionally comes across some... unsettling characters that she needs to run away from and hide to stop from being eviscerated. Also had an awesome dog character (Lewie) that I'd liken to the horse in SotC... Buuut it seems I'm behind in the discussion
When developer Techland played Dead Island for me today, they chose the stereotypical "video game black guy" character. As he ran around slicing up zombies and bashing in their heads, he would exclaim things like, "Daaaaaamn, that bitch was huge!" and "You a dead bitch now!" Imagine hearing that sort of commentary over the trailer that depicted the tragic death of a young girl.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I'm out.
Wow. Picky much?
Sorry it won't be a playable Zombie short film. Its a video game. Why are you surprised by this?
Would you rather him be musing to himself about racial profiling or the first time he was ever oppressed for his skin color? Why are you the least bit surprised that one of four video game characters has one-liners?
If you honestly thought that the game was about you playing a little girl running from the undead, you have a poor sense of what makes a fun game.
Haunting Grounds by Capcom was actually all kinds of awesome. You played a young girl trapped in a large estate who occasionally comes across some... unsettling characters that she needs to run away from and hide to stop from being eviscerated. Also had an awesome dog character (Lewie) that I'd liken to the horse in SotC... Buuut it seems I'm behind in the discussion
Plus it had a very unique flavor of horror. Sure, getting mauled to death by zombies is one thing, but when you're a young woman trapped in a scary castle forced into an illfitting garment, and being chased by, among other things, a giant who wants to play with you like a doll, and a homunculus who wants to cut you up because she's jealous that you have ovaries, it takes on a VERY creepy and unique subtext.
When developer Techland played Dead Island for me today, they chose the stereotypical "video game black guy" character. As he ran around slicing up zombies and bashing in their heads, he would exclaim things like, "Daaaaaamn, that bitch was huge!" and "You a dead bitch now!" Imagine hearing that sort of commentary over the trailer that depicted the tragic death of a young girl.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I'm out.
Wow. Picky much?
Sorry it won't be a playable Zombie short film. Its a video game. Why are you surprised by this?
Would you rather him be musing to himself about racial profiling or the first time he was ever oppressed for his skin color? Why are you the least bit surprised that one of four video game characters has one-liners?
If you honestly thought that the game was about you playing a little girl running from the undead, you have a poor sense of what makes a fun game.
Haunting Grounds by Capcom was actually all kinds of awesome. You played a young girl trapped in a large estate who occasionally comes across some... unsettling characters that she needs to run away from and hide to stop from being eviscerated. Also had an awesome dog character (Lewie) that I'd liken to the horse in SotC... Buuut it seems I'm behind in the discussion
Plus it had a very unique flavor of horror. Sure, getting mauled to death by zombies is one thing, but when you're a young woman trapped in a scary castle forced into an illfitting garment, and being chased by, among other things, a giant who wants to play with you like a doll, and a homunculus who wants to cut you up because she's jealous that you have ovaries, it takes on a VERY creepy and unique subtext.
The sounds made when you're caught by Daniella as the "You Died" end-screen splashes on the screen are messed up
edit: Holy crap I just watched the announcement trailer, now I get why people are annoyed that this is some L4D/Borderlands/Dead Rising hybrid. Goddamnit, I am too. That trailer is amazing and having a sterotypical black male coming in from stage left swinging an electrified machette screaming "You a dead bitch now!" just... argh!! It's like a video version of bullshotting
On the bright side, I'm now looking forward to the inevitable mashup trailer of that sad piano music queued up to footage of a black guy cutting up zombies with his awesome electric machete and screaming "YOU A DEAD BITCH".
On the bright side, I'm now looking forward to the inevitable mashup trailer of that sad piano music queued up to footage of a black guy cutting up zombies with his awesome electric machete and screaming "YOU A DEAD BITCH".
Advertisements can be art, absolutely. They can also be incredibly misleading and unevocative of the product they're trying to sell, and pin interest not on the content of the object itself, but on the quality of the advertising. The trailer is undeniably making a powerful emotional statement. However, in doing so, it's also COMPLETELY misrepresenting the product it's trying to sell. It's good art, but piss poor advertising, meaning it's failing in one of its major responsibilities. It's very easy to be swayed into a product based on emotion instead of the product itself, and it's important to be aware of that distinction. Remember how excited you were at seeing the trailer for Attack of the Clones?
Side note, hopefully the people responsible for making the trailer were the ones who pushed for it and not the marketing department. I kind of doubt it. But it's a nice thought that they may go on to pursue more artistic endeavors and just used this as a medium. Never know.
I may be naive.
I agree with you that it misrepresents and such, but I'm trying to look at a positive future outcome.
After going through the recent info dumps and everything else, I think I've whittled my hopes and concerns down to one question: are the zombies still gonna' be brutal like in the trailer? If getting caught by the zombies means replay #46291 of the "neckbite, neckbite, groan, unit death/game over screen" song and dance then fuck it. I wanna' see victims having their flesh and muscles and organs ripped out, and I wanna' hear them scream.
Sorenson on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
It's kinda funny how that sort of thing has been around in film since Night of the Living Dead, yet we haven't seen that level of dismemberment in a zombie game. Games like Soldier of Fortune have already taken that to the extreme, so it's not like it hasn't been done before.
Perhaps it's fear that the cannibalistic overtones would narrow the audience?
Earlier in the thread there was mention about a revolutionary graphic tech that these developers had put in that detailed the zombies getting chopped up, something about layers of damage showing through.
Well, according to another article, that was dropped. Apparently people didn't notice it enough. So, now the zombies can get hurt and lose limbs, but you don't cut through layers of skin, muscle, then bone. Apparently, it cost them too much performance.
It's a Kotaku article, so standard caveats about that and all, including concerns about their new layout.
After going through the recent info dumps and everything else, I think I've whittled my hopes and concerns down to one question: are the zombies still gonna' be brutal like in the trailer? If getting caught by the zombies means replay #46291 of the "neckbite, neckbite, groan, unit death/game over screen" song and dance then fuck it. I wanna' see victims having their flesh and muscles and organs ripped out, and I wanna' hear them scream.
...no, you're not going to see chewing and eating of random NPC victums, but that's just a guess.
AWWWWWWW, FUCK. That would've been fucking AMAZING, especially if the specific ways in which the zombie was damaged/degraded affected its behavior, like being able to tiptoe past the ones that've had their eyes gouged out or whatever or just plain ignore the ones with their lower jaw detatched since they can't bite you for shit. Though if it's more of a performance issue than people just not caring than I guess I can understand.
I suppose it's gonna' come down to VA and sound work, then. If we can hear ligaments tearing and bones cracking and people screaming in honest-to-god terror I'll bite.
Earlier in the thread there was mention about a revolutionary graphic tech that these developers had put in that detailed the zombies getting chopped up, something about layers of damage showing through.
Well, according to another article, that was dropped. Apparently people didn't notice it enough. So, now the zombies can get hurt and lose limbs, but you don't cut through layers of skin, muscle, then bone. Apparently, it cost them too much performance.
It's a Kotaku article, so standard caveats about that and all, including concerns about their new layout.
Hah, I wonder if they ever stopped to think that the reason testers aren't noticing the "curls of split undead flesh, severed muscle and tendons and hacked bones" is because they changed the focus of the game from a slower paced, emotional story of a father trying to reunite with his wife and daughter to a fast paced, co-op arcade game where you carry electrified machetes, spout of "You a dead bitch now!", and kill dozens of zombies every minute.
Side note: You know, I'd buy this day 1 if everything they mentioned in those articles was the same, but the island was changed to Isla Nublar.
Decoy on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
You know, Sorenson, you're coming off as a bit of a psycho.
AWWWWWWW, FUCK. That would've been fucking AMAZING, especially if the specific ways in which the zombie was damaged/degraded affected its behavior, like being able to tiptoe past the ones that've had their eyes gouged out or whatever or just plain ignore the ones with their lower jaw detatched since they can't bite you for shit. Though if it's more of a performance issue than people just not caring than I guess I can understand.
I suppose it's gonna' come down to VA and sound work, then. If we can hear ligaments tearing and bones cracking and people screaming in honest-to-god terror I'll bite.
Maybe if that now-mythical survival based open-world game we've been discussing after the initial trailer was launched, but in the reality of "You a dead bitch now" protagonists... Slim to none is my bet, mate.
edit: The phrase "You a dead bitch now" is really becoming synonymous with disappointment
You know, Sorenson, you're coming off as a bit of a psycho.
Normally I don't give a shit about gore and the like - hate Saw and Hostel and all those other cheap goresploitation flicks, don't care for extended bloody murder shots, so on, so on - but zombie stuff without people getting ripped apart and eaten is just wrong. It's like oldschool wizards without fireballs and magic missiles or zeerust sci-fi without chrome and dickrockets, those are huge parts of their respective entities, and after so many years of zombie games making that rather glaring omission the prospect of a game finally showing how and why zombies are such horrifying fuckers has me bouncing off the walls.
That's not a bad point, actually. Zombies in modern culture have been spread so thin and are so varied that we're really starting to lose sight about why they were terrifying in the first place; they don't just kill you, they tear you apart like rabid animals and eat you. It's like why sharks are terrifying, except its your daughter/son/wife/husband etc. The cocktail of primal fear that dates back to our oldest of genetic fathers which screams in our mind that the WORST thing possible is to be eaten, mixed with the shocking emotional trauma of being faced with a love one who now isn't but still is but isn't but is... That's something that gaming hasn't addressed.
That's not a bad point, actually. Zombies in modern culture have been spread so thin and are so varied that we're really starting to lose sight about why they were terrifying in the first place; they don't just kill you, they tear you apart like rabid animals and eat you. It's like why sharks are terrifying, except its your daughter/son/wife/husband etc. The cocktail of primal fear that dates back to our oldest of genetic fathers which screams in our mind that the WORST thing possible is to be eaten, mixed with the shocking emotional trauma of being faced with a love one who now isn't but still is but isn't but is... That's something that gaming hasn't addressed.
Bringing back the bummer that the game won't be like the trailer at all
Egos on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
Part of the reason why we aren't seeing a zombie game like that is that playing through a game is a different experience than reading a book or watching a film. Seeing it happen to characters on the page or screen is one thing. Even if you identify heavily with those characters, they aren't you. But in a first person perspective game, the big draw is you become the character. A game like Amnesia is too freaky for a lot of people to play, and that doesn't get into the kind of cannibalistic terror that we are talking about. When that terror is inflicted on you, as the games avatar, it may be too much horror to make a game like this profitable.
Sure there will be an outlier in the gaming community that's like fuck yeah, but I'll put money on it not being the majority. You don't go into years and years of development hell like this game has and come out of it wanting to sell to a small, perhaps even tiny slice of the market. At the end of the day, most gamers play games for fun, to unwind after the mundane stresses of the every day world. A game featuring undead cannibalism where you get to witness yourself and others being torn apart and eaten alive isn't going to sell like they need it to sell.
Yeah, I know people would bitch and moan about it like crazy, but I always have this fantasy of a zombie game where you can't quicksave and can only save at your home base or whatever, you always have to go out and scrounge for supplies and such, and if you get bit once, that's it. Maybe you only have an ingame hour or so to find an antidote if you want to be nice, but you're on your way to becoming a zombie because you fucked up and got cocky. Generally speaking, I feel like games are too scared to make the player feel risk. Deaths in games are usually just "Ah shit, time to reload", but we've all had that moment where we're low on health and suddenly realize we haven't saved in like two hours, and suddenly you're way more invested, you're afraid, just like your character would be.
Basically, if you get bit once, you a dead bitch now.
l337CrappyJack on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
I'd play that. One of the reasons I think Metro 2033 has such excellent tension is the waypoint system they use. I know some people hated it and it definitely doesn't work for every game or player out there. Yet in the right kind of game limited save systems are a great design decision to create that kind of tension you are talking about.
I LOVE Demon's Souls for that same sort of thing. If you die, you have one chance to find your corpse so you can pick up all the souls (currency/XP) you had on you. If you die before you get it, it's ALL GONE.
That return trip was always heart-pounding.
l337CrappyJack on
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Yeah, I know people would bitch and moan about it like crazy, but I always have this fantasy of a zombie game where you can't quicksave and can only save at your home base or whatever, you always have to go out and scrounge for supplies and such, and if you get bit once, that's it. Maybe you only have an ingame hour or so to find an antidote if you want to be nice, but you're on your way to becoming a zombie because you fucked up and got cocky. Generally speaking, I feel like games are too scared to make the player feel risk. Deaths in games are usually just "Ah shit, time to reload", but we've all had that moment where we're low on health and suddenly realize we haven't saved in like two hours, and suddenly you're way more invested, you're afraid, just like your character would be.
Basically, if you get bit once, you a dead bitch now.
The problem is that the market for games still consists largely of tens of millions of whiny children. Not "children" in the sense of adults being petulant, but actual children. It doesn't matter if the game has an M label on it or not, nobody is willing to take the risk in making a game where being stupid hurts you really, really badly and makes the game just about unplayable. Kids are fantastic at being stupid and these days, nobody is going to make something like, say, Megaman 2 simply because kids would bitch about it being too hard and give up.
That being said, I really would like a game with a limited save system provided it does have a single-use quicksave system. Not so much for the sake of making the game easier, but simply so you can save any time and come back later.
Also, it would be pretty rad if you got one single shot with any given character, but finding new survivors lets you play as them. So getting extra "lives" means risking what you have already and people would be inclined to use the least effective survivors in order to preserve the better ones.
Also, it would be pretty rad if you got one single shot with any given character, but finding new survivors lets you play as them. So getting extra "lives" means risking what you have already and people would be inclined to use the least effective survivors in order to preserve the better ones.
I think that being heavily focussed on melee is going to be key in creating the tense atmosphere this game needs.
I was a bit upset that they would have some military grade weapons available; I'd be more than happy if they had said, 'okay, maybe once every few real time hours you will find a revolver that's loaded with six rounds, that's it'.
Make it so the the revolver is actually easy to use and powerful, just make it very, very rare
edit: no offline co-op makes me still will buy and play it though
Posts
Art that exists to generate interest in selling a product is generally called marketing. Emotions are fine. Using those emotions to sell a product is a fine line.
Also I really don't like that last line there on account of how many people were going "Pfft. Parents being offended at the trailer? They're just being stupid."
There was a teaser in '07 that seemed to show the player grappling with a zombie over a lead pipe. Also all the screen shots, thanks to their fantastic engine, gives off a "realistic" tone. Which lead me and many others to think it'd be as I described.
These incoming previews from GDC seem to contradict, or take these things and over-the-top them.
What would an electrified machete even do? I mean, what's the point to it? It's not going to "taze" them, they're zombies, their muscles obviously have no impact on their abilities (I mean, otherwise they wouldn't be able to move what with the atrophy, rigor mortis and being dead), it isn't going to make it slice better... just... whats the point of that type of thing in anything other than a Dead Rising arcadey-style, whacky game? If you're tazing zombies, no matter what else is in your game, you are on Dead Rising's level of arcade. The GDC articles almost make the game seem schizophrenic, stuck somewhere between the game expected and a straight action game.
None of this is meant to condemn Dead Rising, by the by. It's just we already have that franchise.
No, I am not saying what you think I said.
When I saw the trailer, as a father, it hit hard. It was upsetting and made my eyes a little wet. It made me want to give my son a hug.
That is what I am talking about. When I see photographs of the Great Depression, I am reminded of how fortunate we are and once again want to embrace my family.
The trailer served to remind many, many people of their humanity. Some took offense, yes. Some were abivalent. Thats art, man.
Wait, so because art is used to sell a product, it is marketing? So advertisements can't be art?
What about an art show? Those pieces are all trying to sell a product, other pieces by that artist. Just because it is in a gallery with a $3000 price tag beneath doesn't mean its different from a commercial that tries to sell a $40000 car. What makes them different is their substance. A commercial may or may not be art.
Advertisements can be art, absolutely. They can also be incredibly misleading and unevocative of the product they're trying to sell, and pin interest not on the content of the object itself, but on the quality of the advertising. The trailer is undeniably making a powerful emotional statement. However, in doing so, it's also COMPLETELY misrepresenting the product it's trying to sell. It's good art, but piss poor advertising, meaning it's failing in one of its major responsibilities. It's very easy to be swayed into a product based on emotion instead of the product itself, and it's important to be aware of that distinction. Remember how excited you were at seeing the trailer for Attack of the Clones?
I don't know about that. They're trying to sell me a zombie game
nailed it...
Hah, we could all argue about what exactly the trailer sold us on til we are blue in the face. Some of us saw the trailer and thought the game would be more of a survival simulation game, while others just saw the trailer simply as a CGI movie letting us know a game was being made.
Will it be a good game for what it is? Probably. Was it what I personally was hoping for after seeing and analyzing a trailer? No. But hey, that's on me for over-analyzing a CGI movie introducing a game.
That's pretty much the only thing that keeps me interested in the game. The game sounds cool and all, but unless demo/impressions are very positive I'll wait to get it.
Twitter
It's awesomeness dropped down a level when I saw the GT's GDC interview with the developer...
I guess an electric machete is ok, but it isn't logical (engineering one not the usability of it). I understand most inexperienced zombie fighters wouldn't know how to wield a machete to decapitate on the first few blows. Just like in the movie trailer the father wielding the axe only managed to cut off the hand off zombie woman and cleave into the shoulder of fat zombie. Fat zombie pulled it out like it's no big thing. The ability to stun when you can't one shot a zombie is a plus... but the idea that you can build one without it accidentally backfiring on you is mystifying. Like you're some engineer/Mac Guyver they didn't tell you were.
Children zombies should always be in play if you want realism. You had it in the movie trailer, there should be no reason why you back out in the game if you claim realism. The interview had me scoffing how the developer said there were no children zombie, but the trailer had a child zombie to show realism.
I'll still keep an eye out for this game... but I don't think I'm "head-over-heels-must-buy-this-day-1-fanboy".
They've made some impressive games that were pretty innovative.
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood was a fantastic shooter with some excellent multiplayer and coop components. The wild thing is that it mixed up linear AND open-world segments together. First couple missions were wide open areas, but with linear goals and a directed path. As you progress through the story, you encounter even wider expanses with lots of little missions, shops, and such to explore and encounter.
It honestly was the first western video game I have ever played and enjoyed. Red Dead Redemption followed less than a year later and did a bit better, but differently.
COJ:BiB is a great experience and a stellar story. If they do even half as good on story and flow, this will be a great game.
tldr; Play Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. Just play it. Everything from Civil War -era trench warfare, horse and wagon chases, indian attacks, bandits, and desperados.
I need to put that on my Goozex list now. I need it back.
Haunting Grounds by Capcom was actually all kinds of awesome. You played a young girl trapped in a large estate who occasionally comes across some... unsettling characters that she needs to run away from and hide to stop from being eviscerated. Also had an awesome dog character (Lewie) that I'd liken to the horse in SotC... Buuut it seems I'm behind in the discussion
Plus it had a very unique flavor of horror. Sure, getting mauled to death by zombies is one thing, but when you're a young woman trapped in a scary castle forced into an illfitting garment, and being chased by, among other things, a giant who wants to play with you like a doll, and a homunculus who wants to cut you up because she's jealous that you have ovaries, it takes on a VERY creepy and unique subtext.
The sounds made when you're caught by Daniella as the "You Died" end-screen splashes on the screen are messed up
edit: Holy crap I just watched the announcement trailer, now I get why people are annoyed that this is some L4D/Borderlands/Dead Rising hybrid. Goddamnit, I am too. That trailer is amazing and having a sterotypical black male coming in from stage left swinging an electrified machette screaming "You a dead bitch now!" just... argh!! It's like a video version of bullshotting
Games are art.
Something like this?
Twitter
Blog||Tumblr|Steam|Twitter|FFXIV|Twitch|YouTube|Podcast|PSN|XBL|DarkZero
Side note, hopefully the people responsible for making the trailer were the ones who pushed for it and not the marketing department. I kind of doubt it. But it's a nice thought that they may go on to pursue more artistic endeavors and just used this as a medium. Never know.
I may be naive.
Perhaps it's fear that the cannibalistic overtones would narrow the audience?
Well, according to another article, that was dropped. Apparently people didn't notice it enough. So, now the zombies can get hurt and lose limbs, but you don't cut through layers of skin, muscle, then bone. Apparently, it cost them too much performance.
It's a Kotaku article, so standard caveats about that and all, including concerns about their new layout.
That Heartbreaking Dead Island Family? They're not in the game.
EDIT: So, my guess is Sorenson, that to answer to your question above
...no, you're not going to see chewing and eating of random NPC victums, but that's just a guess.
I suppose it's gonna' come down to VA and sound work, then. If we can hear ligaments tearing and bones cracking and people screaming in honest-to-god terror I'll bite.
Hah, I wonder if they ever stopped to think that the reason testers aren't noticing the "curls of split undead flesh, severed muscle and tendons and hacked bones" is because they changed the focus of the game from a slower paced, emotional story of a father trying to reunite with his wife and daughter to a fast paced, co-op arcade game where you carry electrified machetes, spout of "You a dead bitch now!", and kill dozens of zombies every minute.
Side note: You know, I'd buy this day 1 if everything they mentioned in those articles was the same, but the island was changed to Isla Nublar.
Maybe if that now-mythical survival based open-world game we've been discussing after the initial trailer was launched, but in the reality of "You a dead bitch now" protagonists... Slim to none is my bet, mate.
edit: The phrase "You a dead bitch now" is really becoming synonymous with disappointment
Boys and their electric machetes. 8-)
Bringing back the bummer that the game won't be like the trailer at all
Sure there will be an outlier in the gaming community that's like fuck yeah, but I'll put money on it not being the majority. You don't go into years and years of development hell like this game has and come out of it wanting to sell to a small, perhaps even tiny slice of the market. At the end of the day, most gamers play games for fun, to unwind after the mundane stresses of the every day world. A game featuring undead cannibalism where you get to witness yourself and others being torn apart and eaten alive isn't going to sell like they need it to sell.
Basically, if you get bit once, you a dead bitch now.
That return trip was always heart-pounding.
The problem is that the market for games still consists largely of tens of millions of whiny children. Not "children" in the sense of adults being petulant, but actual children. It doesn't matter if the game has an M label on it or not, nobody is willing to take the risk in making a game where being stupid hurts you really, really badly and makes the game just about unplayable. Kids are fantastic at being stupid and these days, nobody is going to make something like, say, Megaman 2 simply because kids would bitch about it being too hard and give up.
That being said, I really would like a game with a limited save system provided it does have a single-use quicksave system. Not so much for the sake of making the game easier, but simply so you can save any time and come back later.
Also, it would be pretty rad if you got one single shot with any given character, but finding new survivors lets you play as them. So getting extra "lives" means risking what you have already and people would be inclined to use the least effective survivors in order to preserve the better ones.
Now THAT'S a game mechanic I could enjoy
I'm less joyful with how this game is slowly turning out... Though I still think it'll be worth a play.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
I was a bit upset that they would have some military grade weapons available; I'd be more than happy if they had said, 'okay, maybe once every few real time hours you will find a revolver that's loaded with six rounds, that's it'.
Make it so the the revolver is actually easy to use and powerful, just make it very, very rare
edit: no offline co-op makes me
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
It's also detailed here
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke