|
No lie, that pisses me off. Official talking heads said numerous times leading up to and immediately following the release "If it sells well we'll patch in co-op."
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
Jonny Retro posted:tl;dr They may be able shoe horn some sort of half rear end multiplayer in, but they'd much rather wait until the next game and continue to focus on things they can do whole rear end. Too much to hope for local multiplayer either since framerate issues are bad enough as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
I'll keep it short and say I'm very disappointed. I understand why it can't happen, but I was so excited for co-op.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:No lie, that pisses me off. Same. It certainly kills a lot of the replayability for me; I'm starting to burn out on the single player and was hoping that co-op with a friend would breathe some life back into it. Still an amazing value for what we paid for it but yeah definitely disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
On one hand, I'm seriously upset that co-op most likely won't be a thing in this game. I'd absolutely love to play co-op and could easily see myself dumping loads more hours into this. On the other hand, they've garnered enough good will from me that I'll happily throw money at whatever next game they make.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Get old. Your video game playing friends either have children or die. Then you will not mourn multiplayer as much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:No lie, that pisses me off. Which would you prefer, them to shoehorn a buggy rear end lovely co-op system that doesn't work and breaks poo poo, simply to say 'We have co-op', or for them to make a game designed with co-op in mind from the ground up to ensure it's the smoothest system they can imagine? I for one am not in need of instant gratification.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:Get old. Your video game playing friends either have children or die. Then you will not mourn multiplayer as much. E-Tank posted:Which would you prefer, them to shoehorn a buggy rear end lovely co-op system that doesn't work and breaks poo poo, simply to say 'We have co-op', or for them to make a game designed with co-op in mind from the ground up to ensure it's the smoothest system they can imagine? Besides, our options aren't 'Coop now, nothing else ever' or 'New game eventually, no updates now.' They sold over 500k units at $20 a pop, it's getting a bigger budget sequel regardless. Besides that, this game from the very beginning was a trial run for them to start developing the tools for their dream zombie MMO. Unless the game bombed horribly and Microsoft pulled funding/burried the IP their next game is a multiplayer focused zombie game in the spirit of State of Decay. They've been asking for feedback/ideas on the MMO since before this game even began developement. I wouldn't be nearly as upset if they didn't say flat out, multiple times in fact, that it was going to be added. I understand the nature of developing games and unfufilled promises and all that, but this was like a week ago. Then they come back with "Nope, never said that. We want to but Microsoft..." Still a fantastic little game for $20, but that does tarnish it a bit. Dirty Karma fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Jonny Retro posted:tl;dr They may be able shoe horn some sort of half rear end multiplayer in, but they'd much rather wait until the next game and continue to focus on things they can do whole rear end. E-Tank posted:Which would you prefer, them to shoehorn a buggy rear end lovely co-op system that doesn't work and breaks poo poo, simply to say 'We have co-op', or for them to make a game designed with co-op in mind from the ground up to ensure it's the smoothest system they can imagine? Another thing I suspect we'll see in the near future, is likely a major re-imagining of a bunch of zombie-ish survival horror-ish games to have a ton more "base management". Like, immediately. I would rather Undead Labs put their money toward a nice vacation for everybody, and then on to the huge co-op-oriented sequel (which would not be an MMO, it will burn them down if they seriously try that.) coyo7e fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
^^^ I definitely can't see an MMO working, but I could see an ambitious heavily co-op oriented game focusing on a persistent world like SoD. It would be awesome if your friends could drop into your world and take over survivors in your enclave while you play, and run out to meet you or just go off on their own to gather supplies and do stuff. Even better if there's some procedural generation in the map this time, so every gameworld is a little different and there's more of a focus on exploration. ^^^Jonny Retro posted:tl;dr They may be able shoe horn some sort of half rear end multiplayer in, but they'd much rather wait until the next game and continue to focus on things they can do whole rear end. I respect that and am okay with this decision. As long as sandbox mode totally loving rules I am going to be totally loving stoked. I tried starting up an all-random-survivors game and my goodness is it ever fun. The game spawned me some insane hardass ex-military FPS protagonist named Aleksander with improved shooting, improved fighting, improved wits, Powerhouse, and a grizzled-badass beard, and I proceeded to own motherfuckers all over town with him until I rescued an enclave and made friends with a woman with crazy hair who used to be a bike messenger and has improved Cardio and Powerhouse (  ). The two of them seem to have more interesting personalities than the nonrandom story dudes, probably because I can project my imagination onto them more, and while Aleksander is pretty scary with his crowbar and scoped silenced hunting rifle, Crazyhair Bikemessenger is fast as a goddamn motherfucker and can relentlessly slaughter everything in her path with a heavy axe and a Diplomat revolver. Seriously that revolver is loving sweet - it draws in the blink of an eye, inflicts ridiculous damage, uses a common ammunition type, reloads reasonably fast, and is light and rugged as hell. I've started just using Aleksander for jobs requiring stealth or for taking down scarier Freaks with ranged headshots, and spending the rest of the time rocketing around town like a skinny female Flash with a lumber axe and a hand cannon. That woman is loving unstoppable.tl;dr: If you usually just max out Marcus and play as him all the time, consider starting an all-random game. It's a blast. Angry Diplomat fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:No lie, that pisses me off. Thing is, though, this was never said. (Or if it was, please provide a link.) From what I understand, and everyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, high sales was only one of several factors that had to fall into place before co-op mode would even be considered. Once their internal sales targets were met, then they would have a discussion with Microsoft about the possibility of adding co-op. At this point MS probably gave them the go ahead to explore this possibility and it was only recently (i.e. the last few days) that it was determined that co-op would be a no go. At no time was there ever a promise to add co-op. Though, I suppose some of the dev’s enthusiasm about the possibility may have led some to the wrong conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Angry Diplomat posted:^^^ I definitely can't see an MMO working, but I could see an ambitious heavily co-op oriented game focusing on a persistent world like SoD. It would be awesome if your friends could drop into your world and take over survivors in your enclave while you play, and run out to meet you or just go off on their own to gather supplies and do stuff. Even better if there's some procedural generation in the map this time, so every gameworld is a little different and there's more of a focus on exploration. ^^^ I got burned on my latest all random. Killed off Marcus, Maya, Sam, Ed, and Jacob and ALL my replacements but two, have Pack A Day! EDIT: Random plays are the most fun, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
El Seven posted:Thing is, though, this was never said. (Or if it was, please provide a link.) It absolutely was, no mincing of words, no misunderstanding. Undead_Sonya (dev) posted multiple times on the forums in multiple different threads that "if the game sells well, we WILL post in coop." Went searching but such posts have been removed, or more often the entire thread that involved them. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:It absolutely was, no mincing of words, no misunderstanding. Undead_Sonya (dev) posted multiple times on the forums in multiple different threads that "if the game sells well, we WILL post in coop." No dude, I'm sorry. I've dug through their forums everyday for months, and they've always been careful to use words like "hope" "dream" or "possibly". There's no great conspiracy here. If you look in the OP I used "they hope to add at least co-op post launch" for that very reason. Yes, in the game development world that usually means it's a sure thing, but sometimes it just means what it means. And Undead Sanya is not a dev she's their community rep. She doesn't even live on the same coast as the rest of the team. This sucks most definitely, but they've been hinting at it for the past few weeks. girth brooks part 2 fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Well I'll chalk it up to a flawed memory then, but regardless we're not getting coop and I'm not a fan of their "it'll slow down/take money away from our next project" mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:Well I'll chalk it up to a flawed memory then, but regardless we're not getting coop and I'm not a fan of their "it'll slow down/take money away from our next project" mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
How do you figure? They are in bed with Microsoft, money isn't an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:How do you figure? They are in bed with Microsoft, money isn't an issue. Despite Microsoft being a huge a company and SoD being a surprise hit, that doesn't mean they will be willing to throw tons of cash at an indie game company. Personally, I think the idea of tossing multi-player on sounds like it sort of misses the point of the game, but that's just me. I don't even have Gold, though, so the whole idea is lost to me anyway. If we're going to talk pipe dreams, I wish there was a way to create your own survivors from scratch. Yeah, it may defeat the point of randomized people, but I think it would be fun to make myself, my wife, and our friends in the game. Speaking of randomized survivors, I took Marcus out for his suicide march and the survivor that replaced him was...Maya. Maya exactly. Now I have two identical Maya's. I was going to kill them off, but I have now decided to kill any survivor I can control that isn't a Maya. Two against the world, man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:Speaking of randomized survivors, I took Marcus out for his suicide march and the survivor that replaced him was...Maya. Maya exactly. Now I have two identical Maya's. I was going to kill them off, but I have now decided to kill any survivor I can control that isn't a Maya. Two against the world, man. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:I like it! A "Mayan Apocalypse"... 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:Despite Microsoft being a huge a company and SoD being a surprise hit, that doesn't mean they will be willing to throw tons of cash at an indie game company. Calling Undead Labs an indy game company is a serious stretch(even if it's somewhat true). In a world without Minecraft, State of Decay owns every single Arcade sales record.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:Despite Microsoft being a huge a company and SoD being a surprise hit, that doesn't mean they will be willing to throw tons of cash at an indie game company. Personally, I think the idea of tossing multi-player on sounds like it sort of misses the point of the game, but that's just me. I don't even have Gold, though, so the whole idea is lost to me anyway. It's not exactly an 'indie company'. It's a new studio, yeah, but it's a new studio jam-packed with high-profile industry veterans and run by the lead programmer from loving World of Warcraft, the game which has pretty much made all the money in the world. Still see your point, though - surprise hit or no, it's only been out for a few weeks and is still their first game, so I can understand Microsoft being hesitant to sink more money into something that, from their perspective, still might turn out to be only a passing fad, or the one good game Undead Labs ever manages to produce. Also, I'm probably in the tiny minority that really doesn't want this to be multiplayer. What the gently caress is wrong with just making a really good single-player game occasionally? Instead of making an MMO why not make a more fully-featured singleplayer game with a larger game world and more in-depth systems?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
I like single player games but I still would like co-op for my friends. What I don't want is an MMO though. I don't want to deal with thousands of other random shitheads doing everything to gently caress up around me. MMOs in general just are really not my thing. Sure, I'm probably the minority, but hell... I really can't see how they can pull an mmo off that won't be ruined by it's community if not it's design.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
I am perfectly cool with waiting until a sequel that has co-op from the start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Drakenel posted:I like single player games but I still would like co-op for my friends. What I don't want is an MMO though. I don't want to deal with thousands of other random shitheads doing everything to gently caress up around me. MMOs in general just are really not my thing. No, I'm with you. I see a very large difference between co-op and MMO. It would have been nice to have a friend or two pop into my game to smack down big bastards, but I'm happy with what I have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Also, I'm probably in the tiny minority that really doesn't want this to be multiplayer. What the gently caress is wrong with just making a really good single-player game occasionally? Instead of making an MMO why not make a more fully-featured singleplayer game with a larger game world and more in-depth systems? Absolutely nothing. I don't like being misled, or the 'bait n switch' tactic. I would have 0 problems if they said from the start that coop wouldn't be possible. I don't want some crazy 32 person lobbies, but having a buddy hop in to play whack a zombo? For sure! It would require 0 balancing tweeks, since the game is already piss easy and noone expects coop to be challenging here. And yeah, I think trying to go down the MMO route will be a very costly blunder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Count me in as well as being disappointed by no coop at all. I also read that Coop was planned if the game sold well, which was what pushed me into buying it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
When you guys speak negatively about MMO co-op, would you'd be okay with something Day Z style where you have multiple servers with dozens of players or would you dislike that as well? I'm not sure the game's central premise of handling a community would really support more than a half-dozen players at most considering any one player has to be able to switch out with a spare. If you have 12 characters in the community and 6 players, they'd all only get to switch out once before everyone in the community was tired/sick/hurt/dead. I think the game or its sequel could benefit from more monster types, especially something that can be deadly at range. Screamers can be a bitch if you get to close to their AoE because they can stagger you at key moments, and ferals are pretty much always scary while Juggernauts are really only a worry if you have an AI partner who basically suicides into them. Bloaters and SWAT zeds are a non-issue (though Soldier Zeds are pretty threatening.) This game needs something like the Jockey or Spitter from Left 4 Dead to either put you in compromising positions or reach out and touch you at a distance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:Absolutely nothing. I don't like being misled, or the 'bait n switch' tactic. I would have 0 problems if they said from the start that coop wouldn't be possible. I don't want some crazy 32 person lobbies, but having a buddy hop in to play whack a zombo? For sure! It would require 0 balancing tweeks, since the game is already piss easy and noone expects coop to be challenging here. I don't think it was an intentionally misleading statement, or a bait n switch. I think they thought they could do this faster than they could, and it just...turned out not to be so. I mean I think we've all said things previously that we believed to be true that turned out not to be. I know I have. Edit: Lotish posted:When you guys speak negatively about MMO co-op, would you'd be okay with something Day Z style where you have multiple servers with dozens of players or would you dislike that as well? The problem I think here is that MMO games are usually not in any sense of the term 'games'. They are usually just virtual theme parks. You go around speaking to people in stilted dialogue and get told to do asinine quests over and over again, the same drat quest, in the same drat way that everybody else is doing. The idea of having an MMO sandbox is kind of interesting, but the fear is that they'll feel like they have to 'WoW it up' because MMOs are loving expensive to make and keep going. That requires investors and investors are the dumbest animals on the face of the earth. When asked for money, they demand everything be just like everything else because that is what will supposedly sell. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:You don't understand how coding works.... I very much do. I said it would require no "balancing tweeks" not That it was as simple as 'push button, new coop mode.' What the hell are you going on about? Bad day at the cubicle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:I very much do. I said it would require no "balancing tweeks" not That it was as simple as 'push button, new coop mode.' Something like that. Sorry, I'll edit it to be a bit less ranty. I guess I'm mostly irritated because you're fussing about how you don't get Co-op and I'm over here practically hanging on every bit and piece of news about when it's coming to PC. I don't have an Xbox 360 so I just played it a bit at my friends house. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Something like that. Sorry, I'll edit it to be a bit less ranty. I guess I'm mostly irritated because you're fussing about how you don't get Co-op and I'm over here practically hanging on every bit and piece of news about when it's coming to PC. I don't have an Xbox 360 so I just played it a bit at my friends house. Last time they mentioned the PC release, they said not in the next three weeks. Which was kind of odd, so it wouldn't surprise me if we start hearing more about it come August.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Lotish posted:When you guys speak negatively about MMO co-op, would you'd be okay with something Day Z style where you have multiple servers with dozens of players or would you dislike that as well? I'm not sure the game's central premise of handling a community would really support more than a half-dozen players at most considering any one player has to be able to switch out with a spare. If you have 12 characters in the community and 6 players, they'd all only get to switch out once before everyone in the community was tired/sick/hurt/dead. I wouldn't even want that. Just an option to add Friend X to the list of people who can join your "world". I haven't really thought it through, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
^ Hell, I'd be suffice with local split screen only.E-Tank posted:Something like that. Sorry, I'll edit it to be a bit less ranty. I guess I'm mostly irritated because you're fussing about how you don't get Co-op and I'm over here practically hanging on every bit and piece of news about when it's coming to PC. I don't have an Xbox 360 so I just played it a bit at my friends house. All good. If it makes you feel better while a good value at $20 on xbla, I can't imagine I'd be happy with the same $20 spent on Steam for it. It's different from the current norm enough to be good, but it plays more like a great tech demo for an actual future game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
They literally used the "if it sells well enough we'll be able to include co-op" as an unofficial selling point. Now that it's the best-selling original XBLA title it's time to dial back on what they previously promised. Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
I would literally like for someone to source these quotes about co-op being a guarantee if the game sold enough (which is a laughably nebulous point to try and hold someone to, in any case.) All I hear are these claims that all of those posts were removed from the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
^ The foil hat part of my post was a joke, I don't think there's some grand conspiracy at work here, just shady marketing tactics. To play devil's advocate for a second: Even of they didn't, and let's say they hypothetically always uses "hope, want, or dream" in their wording. Isn't the very fact that every other post a new person saying "dude, you said you would add it. What the gently caress?!" enough a cause for concern? As CEO at what percentage do you start listening to the people who believe you promised them the moon with no way/intent to deliver. 25? 50? 100?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
If we're counting: I don't recall them as promising co-op and was instead very pleasantly surprised by the sandbox mode announcement. I'm way more interested in the latter anyhow - a replayable open world SoD would be the best thing. Isn't the no-money aspect of their announcement being exaggerated? My takeaway was that it'd be significant effort for them to do co-op well in terms of time - 9 months - and so they chose to use those resources elsewhere. Not sure if it ever mentioned money as the constraint. I'd prefer to see a superb single-player SoD with more patches that balance and refine the game we have than a shoved-in MP mode that weakens other aspects of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
I burned out on this game so loving fast it's unbelievable. I absolutely loved it at first but once the gloss wore off I simply can't be bothered to play it. The game is way too easy and once you're good at tackling zombies the threat is almost zero. The worst part though is that their "simulation" is an absolute joke. I'm not at all sure that any of it actually even works but the biggest failing is that there is no pressure on the player at all once they can play the game. Food? Medicine? If you search around even a bit you are swimming in them and they are meaningless. There is no tension in the survival aspect of the game at all. I had great fun and easily got my money's worth because smashing zombie heads is just plain fun but they really need to look long and hard at the "simulation" and do some major tweaking to balance or put in a ton of tunable options or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
^ this right here is the meat of why I'm diapointed. There's next to no challenge and that kills the tension and fun. Coop would bring the fun at least, since I highly doubt they can do much about the challenging part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 13:11
|
|