|
 Pardon me I just noticed you were enjoying this a little too much and I thought I'd stop to let you know. Come on, you don't see me making GBS threads up the Skyrim thread just because that game has received acclaim an order of magnitude greater than what it deserves.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Jonny Retro posted:Are you really going to start throwing a fit because I dared to have fun loving around with the game? Are you high, or just feel obligated to rush in and defend since you're OP? I called it good and great in the very paragraph you quoted. If that is your version of throwing a fit, i don't even know what to say.. And if you took a few seconds to look, or read what I wrote; you'd see that we posted within the same minute of each other, implying I hadn't even seen your post. I was addressing Soonmot's "It was the longest I've ever played an Arcade game.", which is crazy considering it's been out for a month, compaired to cumulative time on anything else on an 8 year old console... hence my list of older timesink games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:Are you high, or just feel obligated to rush in and defend since you're OP? I called it good and great in the very paragraph you quoted. If that is your version of throwing a fit, i don't even know what to say.. You could have pointed that out in your post. It looked like you were saying that because I said I played it 40-50 hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:Are you high, or just feel obligated to rush in and defend since you're OP? I called it good and great in the very paragraph you quoted. If that is your version of throwing a fit, i don't even know what to say.. Maybe Plants vs Zombies saw more play? I don't care for Minecraft, dislike platformers as well as FPS's and the other Popcap puzzle games are finished in a day or two. I've spent entire days off playing this, that's not something that I do for arcade titles. The simple fact is that most of what is published on Arcade either doesn't appeal to me or loses my interest quickly. I tend towards third person RPGS or action titles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Jonny Retro posted:You could have pointed that out in your post. It looked like you were saying that because I said I played it 40-50 hours. You want me to point out that I wasn't addressing a post which was made at the same time I made mine? I'm glad people enjoyed the game and it sold so well, hell I put 20ish hours into it myself. Dumb derail aside.... back on topic. Sandbox DLC? Any word on what their plan is with that? I really hope it's not just replishing scavenge spots... Enjoy!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:It's a good game for its pricepoint, and a great demo for hopefully laying the groundwork for a fleshed out sequal. However, I can't see it being a huge timesink. It starts out looking amazing, but you quickly realise there's no real depth and for a game trying to make zombies scary again its absolutely simple to survive forever. Its really only "simple" to survive forever if you were in this thread from the beginning and used the info in here to take the path of least resistance. If you just jump into the game and have to learn naturally how to survive it is very much a learn as you go process(one that I personally found very fun). But really I just like collecting resources, seeing my stockpiles go up, and building a home base with a good selection of useful survivors with interesting stories to them(that I made up in my head based on their attributes and in-game experiences). You say that there's no depth but really they've added a completely new aspect to the genre that no other zombie game has attempted. To me "no depth" describes a game like Dead Island where the fun of hacking zombies to pieces is all there is to it, once you get bored of that the game is over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Its really only "simple" to survive forever if you were in this thread from the beginning and used the info in here to take the path of least resistance. If you just jump into the game and have to learn naturally how to survive it is very much a learn as you go process(one that I personally found very fun). I bought it day 1, when there was no real info in the thread. I lost exactly 1 person while controlled, and that was trying to get grenade acheivement. Reflexes, Powerhouse, or Marksman make any survivor superman. Cars, stamina boosts, stealth and drop kicks make the rest close. I love what they were going for. My dream zombie game is basically what they envisioned: Scary, seriously dangerous zombies. Stealth scavaging for supplies. Managing a group of survivors against zombies, bandits and moral. Upgradable RPG-lite upgrades for survivors. I just wished they would have pushed release back 6 months. Not necessarily possible, but it could have really helped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:I bought it day 1, when there was no real info in the thread. I lost exactly 1 person while controlled, and that was trying to get grenade acheivement. Reflexes, Powerhouse, or Marksman make any survivor superman. Cars, stamina boosts, stealth and drop kicks make the rest close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So you played the game before they released the patch which properly balanced a lot of stuff such as the easy-mode stamina boost items that never wore off, and then drove around all the time so, "welp, too easy, nobody sane would play it more than however much time Dirty Karma has decided that it should be played for." I did a blind first playthrough after the 2nd update. I too also only ever lost 1 character, when I learned juggernauts can rip you in half. The only stockpile resource I ever had trouble with was ammo, and the penalties for low ammo was completely ignorable. Hell I even ignored making outposts for a long rear end time. Jacob's "find a new base" mission lead me to the truck depot, so I never had to really scour for a better home. Getting dropped by a swarm of zombies is not nearly as dangerous as I expected. There are an abundance of cars everywhere that have infinite fuel and require no time to hotwire or anything. You never have to fight other survivors. Don't get me wrong. I really liked this game. But it could really stand to add a more brutal, roguelike difficulty setting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Mylan posted:I did a blind first playthrough after the 2nd update. I too also only ever lost 1 character, when I learned juggernauts can rip you in half. The only stockpile resource I ever had trouble with was ammo, and the penalties for low ammo was completely ignorable. Hell I even ignored making outposts for a long rear end time. Jacob's "find a new base" mission lead me to the truck depot, so I never had to really scour for a better home. Getting dropped by a swarm of zombies is not nearly as dangerous as I expected. There are an abundance of cars everywhere that have infinite fuel and require no time to hotwire or anything. You never have to fight other survivors. You make some good points, and I agree that I'd love to try a more brutal, harder difficulty. But some people are saying that the game is so easy that it takes all of the tension out of it, and I really don't feel that way. If nothing else the game succeeds in making me feel like I'm in danger all the time, even if it may not always be the case. Also, talking only about survivors dying is leaving out the times when I can see poo poo is hitting the fan and I have to run like hell and abandon whatever "mission" I was on at the time. I guess when it comes down to it I'm creating a lot of the tension in my own mind, but the game-world and atmosphere allow me to do that without it feeling false.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Mylan posted:Getting dropped by a swarm of zombies is not nearly as dangerous as I expected. There are an abundance of cars everywhere that have infinite fuel and require no time to hotwire or anything. You never have to fight other survivors. Those are the two things I hope they add options to tinker with Sandbox mode. Some sort of way to reduce the number of times you can get up from the downed position, and a way to reduce the number of cars or add random starting damage to them I think would go a long away in improving the challenge. Dirty Karma posted:You want me to point out that I wasn't addressing a post which was made at the same time I made mine? If you really want to go that route, you had nearly five minutes to edit it in before I made that other post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So you played the game before they released the patch which properly balanced a lot of stuff such as the easy-mode stamina boost items that never wore off, and then drove around all the time so, "welp, too easy, nobody sane would play it more than however much time Dirty Karma has decided that it should be played for." Yes, played before the patch hit. Not even close on a any other point though. I'm a packrat and subconciously horde consumables in any game, think it's a habit from so much Resident Evil a few decades ago, so I left the safehouse EVERY time with: large backpack, 1 melee, 1 gun and 30 spare bullets. Health/Stamina/Explosives were barely used unless my inventory was full and I needed the room for a new gun to put in the locker and never use. I also rarely drove anywhere unless it was across the full map, partially because it felt like 'easy mode' and partially because, pre-patch at least, my cars were all on fire and never being repaired. Hell, I never even found out you could get back up after being downed until I went on my grenade suicide mission. And where people getting that I care so much how much time/enjoyment anyone is getting out of this game. The only thing I found incredulous is that someone put more time into this then any other Arcade game in Xbox history. I already explained this... Have fun, play this poo poo for 12 hours a day!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
I dunno where I stand on the no survivor battle thing, it's sort of refreshing to not have the game fall back on the 'real monster is man!!!' thing but I think there could have been 1 or 2 missions where you do have to take down a human.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
FAT WORM OF ERROR posted:I dunno where I stand on the no survivor battle thing, it's sort of refreshing to not have the game fall back on the 'real monster is man!!!' thing but I think there could have been 1 or 2 missions where you do have to take down a human. I could care less about a deep message about the nature of man or whatever. What I would like to see is competition with other survivor groups. They could slowly empty the area around them, leaving you to decide to try and cooperate with them, trade, or attack them and try to steal their supplies, or even wipe them out to prevent them from looting a juicy area. Likewise they could have their own dispositions, so some want to befriend you and some want to rob you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:And where people getting that I care so much how much time/enjoyment anyone is getting out of this game. The only thing I found incredulous is that someone put more time into this then any other Arcade game in Xbox history. I already explained this... Have fun, play this poo poo for 12 hours a day! Maybe that came out a little differently than you thought it came across? Some people apparently will put more time into a given game than you consider realistic however, I see no reason to drop in on a thread and tell someone to go play Puzzle Quest because LOL they spent 40 hours on a game you weren't engaged by.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:You stepped in a big pile of poo poo by rolling into a game's thread and then telling people to play Peggle instead of the game that the thread is about.  Seriously, you give way to much a gently caress about games. I have like 30 posts in this thread dating back over a month. I didn't roll into poo poo to bash it. I didn't drop in here suddenly. I didn't even tell anyone to play anything, much less loving Pop Cap. Are you really so dense as to construe me saying I put a couple dozen hours into State of Decay as it was unengaging? I'm not sure which is sadder, this illiterate derail, that this is the most traffic this thread has seen since 'No Coop' chatter died, or the fact that the people seeing red have admittedly shelved it in a month.. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Dirty Karma posted:
The vast majority of the posts you've made were you being upset about multiplayer, and this hardly is the first time you've been obnoxious to somebody in here. Maybe if it weren't for those things people wouldn't think you're rolling in here just to thread poo poo. I'm not saying your posts don't have merit, but you choose incredibly rude ways to make your point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Less then half, but what can I say? I really wanted some coop shananigans! I also don't think I was an rear end in a top hat to anyone, but subjective tastes and all that jazz. Fair enough, I'll gladly dissapear unless I have something constructive to add and let everyone else get back to discussing the game...
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Can my post please be the end to this useless derail? I'm replaying to try out different Home Bases, and I found that I really like the Alamo, especially for its location. Sure, it's small, but there's really no benefit to getting a massive group of survivors anyway. The sniper's perch is the highest one in the game, and it's surrounded by the most dense area for scavenging. Also even though you can set up only 4 outposts, you can put them in really great spots - the grocery store is right next door, provides a steady stream of food and a HUGE outpost safe zone, then to the west there is the police station for a steady stream of ammo, and to the south is the Fire Department for yet another HUGE outpost safe zone. One word of warning though for the Alamo is do NOT rush through doorways, there's one door in particular that I was able to reproduce a 100% hard lock crash if I busted through it (the one directly under the ladder) I also moved to the farmhouse to try it out. It's comfortable and probably the most "pretty" home base you can get. The main drawback though is its impossible to get a dense "safe zone" of outposts around it, since you can only create outposts in buildings/structures. Other than that, it's pretty nice. The remote locaiton isn't too big of a deal, as you can just drive straight to your destination across the fields for the most part. The last Safe House I have yet to try is the Fairgrounds. I'll probably save that for my 3rd playthrough. I noticed on one of the recent patch notes they said they improved the fences around the fairgrounds to make it easier to navigate - can anyone sound off if that's true or not, or let me know their opinion of the Fairgrounds in general? Am I missing any safe houses in this list below? Church Savini House Warehouse Farmhouse Fairgrounds Alamo
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
I kind of want to tear down my outposts because they make the game too safe. Even just taking down the one on the gas-station next to the trucking depot has opened my base up for invasion or routine assault by roaming undead, which makes leaving the base exciting by itself! Haven't made the Fairgrounds my base, but I did make it an outpost before the patch and then played around a bit post. Prepatch even as an outpost it was tricky to get around, but afterwards it was a lot more straightforward to get to the places with good guns and dump them into the vault. I wish there was something I could do with all these damned guns I have. Trumbull Valley is packed to bursting with firearms, but most of them are just boring ol' pistols cluttering up my inventory. Actually would be neat if we had a button for toggling through weapons like we do for toggling through consumables, because then I could send someone out with a gun in each pocket and have a showdown with the hordes. marshmallow creep fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Mental Midget posted:Am I missing any safe houses in this list below? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Mental Midget posted:Am I missing any safe houses in this list below? There's also the Ranger Station on Mt. Tanner you go to during the tutorial. You can go back to it once you do the Memento mission, and it's actually free with no survivor minimum I believe. I've never seen a cost for it at least. It's fairly useless, but it could make for interesting gimmick run. You may want to mention that crash in their Bug Report Forum In other news apparently their aiming to support XP for the PC Version. http://forums.undeadlabs.com/showthread.php?22578-Roundup-Thread/page3 Undead Sanya posted:Nothing you all don't know, probably, unless you were curious about the intended op system for the PC version. (Planning to go back as far as Windows XP, in case you were worried.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Jonny Retro posted:In other news apparently their aiming to support XP for the PC Version.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Korlac posted:This is weird to me. If they don't want to spend the time/money to develop multiplayer then why the hell are they wasting dev cycles on XP. It's a 10+ old OS and shouldn't even be considered for support at this point. Yeah, I have no idea on this one. I thought it was kind of weird too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
CryEngine 3 can run on XP in the first place?  I thought CE2 on XP was pushing it as it was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Croccers posted:CryEngine 3 can run on XP in the first place? At first I thought it might have been a few XP users crying on their forums (and it still might be that since I haven't checked to confirm) but if they're going by that mentality then Multiplayer should still be a top priority for them considering the amount of community outcry that went towards that feature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
While digging through their official forums seeing if they gave any hint as to why they're supporting XP, I found out a couple of other things. First, new stream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAWtpnYVwlc&feature=c4-overview&list=UUp41cPNSr4b6aICLNRWykfA (Skip to 3:55 for some sweet car on house action) I haven't watched it, so this is just what people on the forums were saying was in it, but the game is coming to Steam Early Access. They also apparently talked about Sandbox mode a bit. Apparently you can survive for however long you'd like, and then load all the survivors up on a bus. When you take the bus the game re-rolls the valley to make it more difficult, things like fewer supplies and tougher zombies. You can apparently use the bus/re-roll as many times as you'd like and it will keep getting progressively more difficult. EDIT: Oh and they reaffirmed that the PC version is coming out this year, but still haven't narrowed it down beyond that from what I could tell. EDIT2: TU3 will add the ability to bring people along with you. girth brooks part 2 fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Jonny Retro posted:First, new stream: quote:"Wherever we take State of Decay into the Future, Multiplayer will be at the absolute heart of the experience." It's poo poo like this that gets them into trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Korlac posted:It's poo poo like this that gets them into trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Why? Because they want to make their next game multiplayer? They got in trouble for saying that they would include multiplayer in this current state of decay and we got the wishy washy "Well we never PROMISED we'd add multiplayer." It just sounds like their mouths are writing checks that their rear end can't cash later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
I know XP is insanely old, but all the computers at my office use it except those used by supervisors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Lotish posted:I know XP is insanely old, but all the computers at my office use it except those used by supervisors. This is because most companies don't want to spend the money to update their IT infrastructure. I understand this mentality but frankly it's a little crazy because they probably spend a lot of money in IT resources to work around issues that have already been solved in future OS releases. It's not like people expect to be able to use Cisco routers for 10 years, or 10 year old versions of VMWare. Hell, when handing out mobile devices to employees companies don't hand out 10 year old Blackberries or 10 year old iPhones. EDIT: Are iPhones even 10 years old?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Lotish posted:I know XP is insanely old, but all the computers at my office use it except those used by supervisors. If I'm reading the graph right, according to Wikipedia it's apparently the second most popular OS behind 7. Who knew? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems EDIT: Korlac posted:This is because most companies don't want to spend the money to update their IT infrastructure. I understand this mentality but frankly it's a little crazy because they probably spend a lot of money in IT resources to work around issues that have already been solved in future OS releases. I'm assuming this is why it's still so popular, and is probably throwing the statistics off. Maybe Microsoft has something to do with it? girth brooks part 2 fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
EDITJonny Retro posted:I'm assuming this is why it's still so popular, and is probably throwing the statistics off. Maybe Microsoft has something to do with it? I made a comment but then thought better of it. It wasn't anything bad, I just need to be careful how I talk about this topic. Korlac fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
They will make a poo poo load of money when they put this up on steam, I really hope they do aswell because the more people that can get to play this the better. Alot of people are posting bad things about this game but I have to say I really enjoyed it, it does get easier once you figure out how to beat the zombies but as with most zombie movies all it takes is for the wrong thing to happen at the right time and your character is dead. Sandbox mode with sliders changing the difficulty sounds like a great idea hope they add it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
I wouldn't doubt that XP is the biggest footprint outside of 7 however, as of April next year (provided MS doesn't extend it again, which is very unlikely,) it will quickly become necessary to move away from it for anything that's not a critical system that wouldn't ever go near a threat. Between security threats, lack of MS supporting it any farther, and a lack of 64 bit integration on most XP installs (I don't think I've seen more than a handful of XP pro 64 installs ever, if at all).Korlac posted:This is because most companies don't want to spend the money to update their IT infrastructure. I understand this mentality but frankly it's a little crazy because they probably spend a lot of money in IT resources to work around issues that have already been solved in future OS releases. And yes, people do expect to use 10 year old routers. All the loving time. 10 year-old versions of VMware would likely work pretty well (provided you've paid for a support contract to get updates and patches, most likely,) because it was 64-bit compatible in 2003. iPhones haven't existed for anything like 10 years yet, and yes, companies can and will hand out ancient phones for company use - we give out feature phones and flip phones all the time, because all the people who receive them need to be able to do is place and receive calls, and we don't give a poo poo about them surfing the web on their fancy-rear end company-provided phone, they can buy those themselves. And I still think it's nuts to say that UL is digging a hole by talking about intending to add multiplayer to future SoD game releases. It'd be dumber if they didn't. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:my work uses EEG machines that rely on 30 year-old components and which run on win98 poo poo like this is so bizarre when you actually run into it. I work for my state's Medicaid division and while all of our computers use Windows 7, the actual software we use to interact with the database dates back to the early 80s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
I work as an educator in Texas, and the state database is so old and busted it cannot fully support any browser more advanced than Internet Explorer 8 (or so they keep telling us), a browser so dated that many of the other sites we use for work don't support it at all. So in order to do work properly we have to have two sets of browsers, one four years old and one current.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Fair enough, from a raw hardware perspective you're right, these things can last from 20 to 40 years. But the Cisco IOS is only supported for 4-5 years before they make you upgrade. So yeah, don't expect your software to last that long.  EDIT: As far as the phones go, the companies I work with typically don't hand out older phones if the user needs to get company email. If all they need is a number, then you're absolutely right on that end also. Korlac fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
losonti tokash posted:poo poo like this is so bizarre when you actually run into it. I work for my state's Medicaid division and while all of our computers use Windows 7, the actual software we use to interact with the database dates back to the early 80s. I know a guy who runs a land surveying business, and the office has a modern computer for email and web browsing and a pair of old computers for working - a 20-year-old computer running Windows 3.1 and a 15-year-old laptop running Windows 98. It turns out the software you need for surveying work is really loving expensive, and the older versions still serve the purpose fine, so he's never bothered to upgrade. It's really weird seeing all three machines set up on the same desk, all running at the same time. There's a lot of old poo poo like that hidden away quietly doing its job if you know where to look for it. A lot of factories still use industrial control computers that date back to the late 70s/early 80s, and a few universities still have decades-old computers in a basement somewhere hooked up to the network (the one I attended had a lot of the student records handled by a set of big-rear end tape drives rigged up to a single controller unit that were all older than I was, and data was entered using a program that was written in 1973). UNIVAC computers are apparently particularly popular for this, because they're durable, reliable, and ridiculously secure. The drat things haven't been manufactured since the 1960s and the company still provides technical support and spare parts for them because there are just so many legacy customers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 04:46
|
|
