Dead Rising 2: Case Zero Review

By Christian Donlan Published 1 September, 2010

Vertical slice (and dice).

Version tested: Xbox 360

After half an hour of knocking the undead around with a trashcan, I suddenly realised that "zombie" would be a pretty good word to play in Scrabble. It's not a game-changer necessarily, but lay that across a triple score tile, preferably landing the Z on some kind of letter multiplier, and you've got yourself a handy boost if you're getting behind. This is the sort of thing that tends to happen whenever you play Dead Rising. You get into the zone, you start busting heads, and pretty soon you find yourself thinking about stuff like Scrabble.

Dead Rising 2: Case Zero is a bizarre idea: a slick chunk of pre-release DLC, a playable prologue for a game that hardly seems likely to thrive on story. If you're in a grumpy mood, you could be forgiven for writing this off as an expensive demo. If you're feeling a little more charitable, however, you'll notice the finer points - the chummy cluster of Achievements, the fact that you can grind your character up to level five and then import that status into the full game when it arrives - and it becomes something a little more benign. Let's call it a cheap piece of fan-service that players are more than welcome to ignore.

Set two years before the events of Dead Rising 2, Case Zero gives you a little bit of insight into the early days of the series' new protagonist Chuck Greene, and tells you what he gets up to before he reaches Fortune City and starts shoeing zombies on a daily basis. Chuck - who looks like a direct-to-video Paul Newman - and his infected daughter Katey have wound up in Still Creek, a limp sprawl of motels and gas stations strung across a dusty patch of sun-scorched earth just outside of Las Vegas.

'Dead Rising 2: Case Zero' Screenshot 1

There's more vertical clambering in Dead Rising 2, by the looks of it, but it's hardly Assassin's Creed yet.

The astonishingly long and uninteresting opening cut-scene shows the big man getting his truck pinched, and sets up the basic predicament: the town's filled with shambling undeads, the military is set to arrive before the day is out, and unless Chuck can get his daughter some Zombrex - an anti-zombifying medicine which I believe contains Bifidus Acti-regularis - she's going to start drooling and biting off chicken heads. Also, if Chuck could gather together five parts of a motorbike (this kind of thing thrills old people like me, as it brings back memories of the original ToeJam & Earl), he might be able to get out of Still Creek before anything tragic happens.

What this breaks down into is an introduction to the central mechanics of the sequel. Most of them - scavenging for weapons, trying on ridiculous clothes, smacking people over the head - will be pretty familiar to veterans of Willamette Mall, as they're also the central mechanics of the original game. A handful of them are new, however.

Zombrex: that's new for starters, and in Case Zero it amounts to yet another clock to watch in a game that's already piling on the time pressure. Finding medicine for Katey, accidentally giving it away to a stranger during a side-mission, and then looking around for even more doesn't really make much sense in a micro-game that already has a fairly tight deadline in place. That said, it allows the developers to incorporate a series of different endings, and ensures that there's an extra sense of panic as the minutes tick down to the arrival of the military (who will take Katey away if they find her). It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the more expansive plotline of the main game.

Combo weapons are new, too, and they're something of a mixed blessing, really. Built by combining two ordinary items - nails and a baseball bat make a nasty spiked bashing stick, drills and a bucket become something pleasantly indescribable - they allow you to level your character up faster if you use them and are generally a little flashier to mess around with.

They're brilliant fun to put together - some of the recipes are ghoulishly inventive - but while they've been given fairly short life spans to ensure that you still have reasons to pick up ordinary weapons as you head around Still Creek, anybody hungry to gain real experience boosts is going to want to use them pretty much exclusively, and that means greedy players will find themselves braving the loading screens and nipping back to the safe house every five minutes to construct another one. That's kind of annoying.

Otherwise, the core of the game revolves around ferreting out bike parts while you rescue citizens and mash the undead. Still Creek's small but intricate, and there are plenty of secrets to uncover and locked rooms to open as you piece your ride back together. Being a Dead Rising title, Case Zero is more in need of an inventory than a review, really. If you want to hit people over the head with cacti, wrenches, serving trays, gumball machines, 2x4s or a good old bench, you're going to be pretty happy.

'Dead Rising 2: Case Zero' Screenshot 2

The natty little animation that plays as you build combo weapons provides the game with one of its rare moments of style.

Movement is still fairly clumsy, attacks are sluggish, weak animation is hidden behind bright splashes of claret, and a particularly awful moment where I had to steer an epileptic trolley with a motorbike frame in it through oncoming masses was so deeply frustrating I actually bit off a sizable chunk of my own couch, but there's still some resilient nugget of mindless fun at the centre of Dead Rising that means that none of this matters quite as much as it should.

It's something to do with the glacial pace of your levelling, and the mindless toil that makes up your itinerary. Capcom's judicious use of brutal, spirit-shredding monotony is not something I'd want too many other developers to rely on, but in the demented shopping spree that brings life to Willamette Mall and Still Creek, it works better than it should.

Chalk this up as another paradoxically satisfying botch, then. Despite a dozen little annoyances, despite that sluggish pace and some dated visuals, Case Zero remains a lazy pleasure to plod through as you divide your time between story missions and a therapeutic culling of the masses. The question now, then, is whether Dead Rising's shonky white trash charms can stretch to encompass another full-length game.

7 / 10

Dead Rising 2: Case Zero is available to download now, exclusively on Xbox Live, and costs 400 Microsoft Points.

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Christian.

About Christian Donlan

Chris Donlan writes about games for Eurogamer and some magazines. His heroes include Eugene Jarvis, Errol Morris, and Linus Van Pelt.

Read more articles from Christian by visiting the Christian Donlan archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (155) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Goodfella #1 1 year ago

    Wasn't keen on the first game so after reading that I won't be making the same mistake twice.

  • tossetaz #2 1 year ago

    Sound like good old slashy fun, especially at that price but comments like "Movement is still fairly clumsy, attacks are sluggish, weak animation is hidden behind bright splashes of claret" and those about the dated visuals makes me wonder if the game is strong enough for a full length, full price title?

    But then again, we didn't really play the first one to experience great graphics and a detailed stoyline.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 14:07

  • dr_zoidthrob #3 1 year ago

    It's an odd one, to be sure. I like it, but not enough to buy the full game - which of course, I don't need to now. A free demo would've made more sense (for me, anyway).

  • AbracadaverAK #4 1 year ago

    I was very surprised at how similar to the original this was. At first, it was frustrating and a little disappointing, but then I remember everything I loved about the original and found myself wanting more.

    It is, unsurprisingly, the length of a demo though. It's not made me any less enthusiastic for DR2; With a bigger map and a lot more weapons/story element, any fan of the original should be happy.

    Also, if you're anything like me and escorting the idiotic survivors drove you insane, you'll be pleased to know they can actually fend for themselves much better now.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 14:12

  • SAMagic #5 1 year ago

    I loved the first game for its novelty and was glad that the developers admitted it was "really Japanese" (Or so such - something about their design decisions) so I was looking forwad to this... from what I've heard so far it seems to be too similar to the original. Like other people have said, I'm not paying 400 points for a demo. If the final version has a harsh difficulty curve, very tight timed missions and other general annoyances, I'm certainly not buying it on release, if at all.

    Also, can someone tell me how this case affects DR2's story? Surely the start of DR2 would be Chuck discovering the zombies, or are he and Kate already aware and they bump into them in Fortune City?

    Edit: There's a demo as well? Colour me surprised. I was under the impression this was all we were getting before release.

    Edit 2: The trial is well worth a go, it's really fun, but I still have reservations over what sort of sequel this is going to be.
    Edited by 2 at 01/09/10 @ 16:21

  • rojjer #6 1 year ago

    See... now THIS I'd have given 4/10.

    Played the demo and almost fell asleep, dire.

  • Sir_TimAlot #7 1 year ago

    Loving this!!! closing doors and remaining on the inside of the building isn't quite as easy as it should be but still got me totally pumped for the full games release.
    COMBO WEAPONS = INFINITE FUN

  • irve77 #8 1 year ago

    strange you can get a demo of the paid for demo !

    i loved DR so i'm awaiting DR2 with a heavy sense of dread hoping that they can make a decent game

  • Silent-Hal #9 1 year ago

    Why does it seem like every single major non-fighter Capcom release this gen has been bogged down by some mind-bogglingly stupid design choices? From Dead Rising's incredibly arbitrary time constraints, to Devil May Cry 4's blatant copy and pasting to Resident Evil 5 and Lost Planet 2's botched co-op implementation... not exactly the powerhouse they were in the PS1/PS2 days are they?

  • Entity #10 1 year ago

    I like the approach they've taken to release a "Prologue" before the games release. Yeah, a demo of the main game would also be good, but at least this stands up in its own right. I'd be pissed about paying for a demo, but stangely was happy to part with 400 MP to see how this worked.

    7/10 seems like a fair score.

  • spenner #11 1 year ago

    Let me take pictures or its not gonna happen

  • richarddavies #12 1 year ago

    If this is a demo then it's a pretty big, feature packed demo. Im liking it myself.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 14:22

  • CrispyXUK64 #13 1 year ago

    You don't need to return to the safe house to combine weapons, there's plenty of workbenches around in the town.

  • PlugMonkey #14 1 year ago

    I'm not paying 400 points for a demo.

    If you don't want to pay the whopping £3.40 for the prologue, then why not just download the free demo?

  • ZizouFC #15 1 year ago

    Please someone help me...

    I still can't seem to get this to download. Is it likely that it will be unlocked once it is officially released on the 3rd of September (as per the Eurogamer news story)?

    I know im not the only one having these region issues, but most seem to have sorted them out by now.

    Ok maybe I imagined the 3rd of September release date, but still, this has never happened to me before. I can't even get the trial like others can...

    PS: Im guessing there won't be a Shank review?
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 14:31

  • andywilkie35 #16 1 year ago

    Only tardos call this a demo.

  • M83J01P97 #17 1 year ago

    This very definitely isn't a demo, and yeah, it's not like your being forced to pay for it... you can still download the trial and just play that if you wish.

    Not sure where you got September 3rd from ZizouFC. It came out yesterday (31st August).

  • coolbritannia #18 1 year ago

    I loves me some dead rising.

  • eiremcm #19 1 year ago

    Two points :

    1) As Crispy says there's a handful of workbenches scattered around town so you don't have to return to the Safe House to make new weapons.

    2) You can pick up the trolley that's causing you so much grief and run through the zombies with it held overhead.

  • menage #20 1 year ago

    I think it's the one of the best pieces of DLC ever. A steal at 400 points as well.

    I'm glad it's not that different form DR, apart from smoother controls and less annoying AI. Would have been the same old game as the rest then.

    I might even buy DR2 now.

  • dingo75 #21 1 year ago

    Gonna get the full version since Capcom brings it out on the PC.
    Have to suport such a bold move by them. :)

  • mingster #22 1 year ago

    It's a shopping trolley its probably got a wonkey wheel and veers to the left.

  • photoboy #23 1 year ago

    I'm surprised the reviewer had problems controlling the trolley containing the bike. I used the trolley to mow down zombies for half an hour to get the "Kill 1000 Zombies" achievement. It's the only "weapon" in the game that doesn't break after a short-ish period, so it's the best way to do that one I think. I wouldn't recommend doing that one on your first run as the time limits are pretty tight if you don't know where you're going to begin with.

    It's also worth noting that there are two other work benches out in the main part of the city, so you don't have to wait for the garage area to load to combine items (the oars with the chainsaws is my favourite). Sadly the reviewer is spot on about the load times, they are surprisingly long for a title installed to the hard drive. I can only hope they spent time optimising loading on the main game...

    Other than that minor niggle, I really enjoyed Case Zero. I didn't really get on with the first Dead Rising, the single save slot and idiotically suicidal survivor AI made it a real annoyance. Both those are thankfully fixed in this game.

    I think the other thing that could become a problem are the time limits. There were several times on my first run through Case Zero where I was thinking "Stop fucking timing me on everything and just let me explore the town and kill some zombies in my own time"! I don't really see what benefits these time limits bring, other than to prevent you from enjoying exploring the sandbox and finding ever more interesting ways to kill zombies... Oh well, it's only a bit of a pain when you're first learning the game.

  • Lord_Gremlin #24 1 year ago

    I wonder if they'll release any demo on PC and PS3. After all, it's a sequel to a game that never came for these platforms.

  • ZuluHero #25 1 year ago

    In the old days we only got 'demos' on magazines and had to pay £5.99 for the privilege. Nobody bought it for the toilet paper attached to the disk.

    As others have said, this isn't really a demo, its a fully featured story with beginning and end (well THREE endings) and achievements and everything. Think of it more like a standalone XBLA game and you won't be far wrong.

    Great Game this, and LOADS of replay!

  • lordofthedunce #26 1 year ago

    tardos

    sounds like a time machine for idiots

  • Entity #27 1 year ago

    The 3rd September date was on the Hands-On for Dead Rising 2 (at the very end) that EG did.

  • Vyggo #28 1 year ago

    Finished my first succesful run yesterday, and will play it again to rescue survivors and use all the combo weapons. This was some of the most fun I had this year, great game. This is not meant to be played through only once, and the time limited stuff forced you to make decisions/set priorities which is actually really awesome in a sandbox game.

    My original intention was to just play this and not get the full game, but this succesfully made me want to get the full game as well. Hats off Capcom, your plan worked (at least for me).

    Oh, and I love the "I am not paying for a demo" comments. Shows how quick many gamers are to cry wolf, good to know for the next DLC discussion.

  • PlugMonkey #29 1 year ago

    I liked the time limits from DR1. It made a refreshing change to be told "This person needs your help NOW" and it to mean now rather than in 6 weeks time when you've finished a bunch of irrelevent side quests.

  • darkmorgado #30 1 year ago

    I wish people would stop referring to this as a demo.

    It's about 6 hours of content in a gaming area that isn't in the sequel, with a separate story that isn't in the sequel as well as achievements. None of this content will feature in Dead Rising 2 (aside from, presumably, some of the weapons).

    So it's not a paid-for demo, its an exclusive XBLA title that serves to bridge the narrative gap between DR1 and DR2. And for only 400msp, well... it has more content and replay value than some full-priced retail releases. So it's hardly bad value either.

  • speedjack #31 1 year ago

    Dead Rising is (like Crackdown) a Marmite game.

    Some love it, others hate it - your mileage may vary.

  • muscleblade #32 1 year ago

    I wont be getting DR2 because of Reach, but this will probably be a taste of what im missing so i bought this.

  • irve77 #33 1 year ago

    @ Vyggo

    Actually i would argue that most DLC is a complete waste of money...

    but that said I made a comment about how it's funny that you get a demo of the demo and got neg'ed for it .. guess people made up there minds this was a paid for demo before it came out and don't want to let the facts get in the way of that assumption.

    @TerryWogan

    THANK YOU ... as someone who loves the first game and who thinks that all that needed changing was to give you more than one game save it's good to hear what other fans of the first one have to say. Fallout3 aside i've played more dead rising than any other game on my 360 , and Mass Effect 1 aside it is my favorite game on the 360. My biggest fear was that they would fluff this sequel up.

    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 15:11

  • MrBeast #34 1 year ago

    So it's up to 6 hours long and only 400 points? Then it's already better value then Kane & Lynch 2 :D

    Now if only I could download it. Thanks for regional restrictions, Microsoft. I'm only in bloody Ireland!

  • darkmorgado #35 1 year ago

    I made a comment about how it's funny that you get a demo of the demo and got neg'ed for it

    Presumably because, as I and others have pointed out, Case Zero IS NOT A DEMO
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 15:17

  • miiiguel #36 1 year ago

    For all its problems (idiosyncrasies ?), Dead Rising is already part of this gen's history and probably gaming history. I also found DR1 a very dificult game, not in usual "dificulty", more of dificult conceptualy (at least for a western gamer). Though (I'm also enlisted to fight in Reach) I need to have this. And DR2. History.

    multi-edits: Wine at lunch. Best I can...
    Edited by 3 at 01/09/10 @ 15:16

  • chasejamie #37 1 year ago

    What's wrong with the timed missions? It's part of the game. Really wouldn't be any excitement if you could stroll through the tasks at a leisurely pace. It's challenging, stressful, but great fun. Like a lot of games used to be. Mwa.

  • menage #38 1 year ago

    @Terry

    I agree, EG really is playing there games while doing something else lately. Come on EG, at least get your freaking facts straight for once. This must be the 100th time already I caught shit that simply isn't true or reeks of lazy.

  • Entity #39 1 year ago

    "Presumably because, as I and others have pointed out, Case Zero IS NOT A DEMO"

    I'm guessing he means the trial version of Case Zero. Since some people have been calling the full version a demo and whatnot.

  • Carbon_Altered #40 1 year ago

    So this £4 DLC lasts longer than the £40 Kayne and Lynch 2?

  • kristo #41 1 year ago

    TerryWogan

  • kinky_mong #42 1 year ago

    It's already been said, but fuck it I'll say it again. Only morons think this is a paid for demo. It's prequel DLC if anything, the free demo available for this is the demo.

    and this review was obviously written by someone who played it for 15 minutes. There's plenty of work benches in the town, and the trolley controls are fine, I used that 30 second section to run down loads of zombies.

  • irve77 #43 1 year ago

    @darkmorgado

    erm .. exactly ....

    Sorry of my turn of phase reads badly for you so let me say once again

    YOU DON'T NEED TO BUY CASE ZERO .. you can play a demo of this XBLA game

    if it's a paid for demo asother people (not me) have said then why can you play it for free ?

    they assumed it was a paid for demo , they were wrong , they can't admit it !

    I'm not the one saying it's a demo

  • Masaroth #44 1 year ago

    For me this seems to have ironed out a lot of the issues i had with the first one notably the controls feel a lot tighter.

    I think the problem most ppl have with the dead rising series is that they dont seem to understand the game, as mentioned above its a game your not going to see everything on your first playthrough. I find i just mess around for my first playthough, try to level up a bit find where some decent weapons are e.t.c. You then use this knowledge and in-game xp to see more than you could before.

    Overall 400msp well spent and has turned dead rising 2 from a rent to a buy. The new devs seemed to have got the DR series and if Case Zero is anything to go by produced a cracking game

  • afghan_jones #45 1 year ago

    EG are generally excellent writers and journalists but quite bad at games. In fact, im fairly sure most of the EG writers dont actually like games at all.

    Consequently the site is brilliantly written, at a standard far beyond most games sites, but can be let down by missing or confusing key facts, coupled with the writers' general spackiness at playing games.

    Once you realise that though, its fucking lush.

  • menage #46 1 year ago

    @EarlBasset

    I don't necessarily think you have to complete WoW, Fallout 3 or Oblivion to write a review, if you put 100 hours in just tell me what you experienced then etc. Some games are impossible to finish quickly.

    But this, this 2 hour game???? WTF is my repsonse to that. Any dude that didn't find another workbench just went to the pub instead writing his review in beer imo.

  • darkmorgado #47 1 year ago

    @irve77

    Ah ok then, fair enough. I took the comment in isolation and obviously lost the context.

    Group hug!

  • PlugMonkey #48 1 year ago

    @ TerryWogan
    I also completely agree. I've done about half a dozen playthroughs of Dead Rising, and every one was completely different. I'd rather a 6 hour long game that I can replay four times without repeating myself than a 30 hour game packed with filler.

    Unfortunately I think Capcom did a very bad job of communicating the fact that you weren't supposed to be able to 'finish' the game on the 1st attempt.

  • darkmorgado #49 1 year ago

    @afghan_jones

    I think it's very much dependent on the writer. Kieron Gillen for example is both an excellent writer AND he loves his games. And you can always tell that Ellie has put quite a bit of playtime in, even if you don't like how she takes the mickey out of gaming conventions we just accept because that's how its always been done.

    But yeah, I see it as reflective on the writer and not the site as a whole, though I guess a bit more editorial scrutiny wouldn't go amiss.

  • Smoped #50 1 year ago

    Yeah, I'm halfway through my second playthrough, and only now I can seriously try for a perfect rescue record and so on. And it's the same kind of frustration/sense of being overwhelmed by the time limits on the first playthrough as in the original DR, but redoing it all doesn't seem like much of an issue here anyway, since the game's pretty short and the play area rather limited. I've been skipping all the cinematics this time round though. They're all incredibly dull.

  • irve77 #51 1 year ago

    @darkmorgado


    Me try write better next time :)

  • MisterFalseName #52 1 year ago

    @TerryWogan

    Absolutely spot on. Not usually one to complain about these things (life's too short, etc.) but this really is a pretty poor review - I too spotted the mistakes that implied it hadn't been played very long, as well as a general outline which went: "Negative, negative, negative, minor positive, negative, 7/10"

    I also agree that the only complaint in the loading times, but I can live with it. I actually think the "demo" is a good way of getting the thrill of Dead Rising for those who found the full original too big and aimless...

  • darkmorgado #53 1 year ago

    @MisterFalseName

    The only other review I've read (pretty sure it was GamesRadar) said that the loading times problem was because he was playing the review copy off a disc, not a HDD and that the actual downloaded game should have shorter loadtimes.

  • nevernow #54 1 year ago

    Quote from CVG:

    'Blue Castle also says that Case Zero will effectively serve as the demo for Dead Rising 2, as it will be out before the full game and "give gamers a good sense of how the game is going to play." Blue Castle also points out that it won't be free but say they have yet to set a price for it.'

    Apparently those retards and imbeciles (including me) who still consider this a demo are in good company.

    Source
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 15:57

  • MisterFalseName #55 1 year ago

    @darkmorgado

    Not sure - but this is my impressions, having downloaded it last night, so nothing to do with disk loading issues.

    Demo took an age to download too, now I think - I wonder if the servers were getting hit pretty hard?

  • darkmorgado #56 1 year ago

    @nevernow

    Missing the point much? While it could be called a demo in that it demonstrates the game mechanics of the sequel, it is not a demo in the sense of it including gameplay from the within the game.

    As said before, all of the content, gameplay, achievements and story contained in Case Zero is exclusive to itself and is not in Dead Rising 2.

  • irve77 #57 1 year ago

    @ nevernow

    yeah .. quote an article from Feb to make a point.

    you don't need to buy case zero you can play a demo of it for free .. so it does act as a free demo for DR2

    i'm actually quite please it's fairly cheap at 400 points seems like a nice slice of content.

  • Moribundman #58 1 year ago

    Agree with @TerryWogan. Come on Christian...

    EG have really started to get bogged down in snarky comments and low blows at perfectly decent games. No, not all big releases deserve to get 8/9/10 and hype should never subsume fair criticism, but reading reviews like Alan Wake, Crackdown 2, Mafia 2 you can see EG as a fringe flicking teenager obsessed with forced negativity and taking the piss.

    You don't even get valid criticism, you get someone coming into the review bored with a "can't be fucked" attitude, not playing the game to completion, and purely because they don't experience the second coming they sum the experience up with a few choice piss take soundbites.

    edit: If you want to make a living just slagging games off and picking them apart, take notes from Zero Punctuation. At least Yahtzee gives the impression that he's passionate about games. Christ, he even sounds more affectionate about the ones he despises than EG do about thoroughly solid games...

    I honestly think some of the writers spend more time and thought coming up with puns for straplines than they do analysing the games they're supposed to be reviewing.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 16:36

  • AC!D #59 1 year ago

    Mafia 2 and Kane and Lynch 2 got scored 4/10 but this broken crap got 7/10? I think this site is not for me anymore. I will stick around for news but the reviews over the last year have been terrible. It looks exactly the same as the original just even more broken with even more frame rate problems and the same irritating time gameplay mechanics.
    Edited by 2 at 01/09/10 @ 16:42

  • kangarootoo #60 1 year ago

    "I will stick around for news but the reviews over the last year have been terrible."

    Do keep us informed of your movements, won't you.

  • darkmorgado #61 1 year ago

    @AC!D

    Bye then!

    Don't let the metaphorical door hit your arse on the way out.

  • rojjer #62 1 year ago

    @ACID

    YES! Finally someone who see's the light too - all those dumbasses negging my other comment (feel free to neg away at this one sheepies!) are more than happy to swallow the repetitive bile that this game is and raise glasses to cheer the 7/10 score that this received. Bloody disgraceful.

  • karooo #63 1 year ago

    Agree with Acid EG reviews have become worse, Mafia 2 should have gotten atleast 7.

  • thepiedpiper #64 1 year ago

    that review read like a 4/10! ha!

  • miiiguel #65 1 year ago

    400 pts?! Realy?! I wish I could get "that" excited for ~ 5 Eur. See the light...

  • kangarootoo #66 1 year ago

    @rojjer

    "YES! Finally someone who see's the light too"

    What is this, some kind of play date matching website? Well done, you've found someone as equally purile as yourself. I'm sure you will be very happy together.


    "all those dumbasses negging my other comment (feel free to neg away at this one sheepies!)"

    People don't neg you to follow the crowd. We each discover the childish banality of your posts on our own.

    Seriously, who TELLS people that they are leaving a website and complains about it on the way out. If you really genuinely didn't care, you would just silently leave, instead of clawing for affirmation.

  • rojjer #67 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo

    I swear you're making this too easy, but here goes /deep breath

    "What is this, some kind of play date matching website?"

    I see, so "equally purile as yourself" has no meaning to you, even though you just wrote it? Brilliant /applauds kangarootoo

    I've come across your sarcastic comments before, you just sound elitist and up your own ass. Keep your comments to yourself (or better don't, I like a good laugh) at least my argument holds water - the 4/10 scores given recently were nothing more than attention grabbing headlines for google searches for "X game reviews". Sad.

  • Moribundman #68 1 year ago

    @karooo Indeed it should. Everyone's entitled to their opinion but it's worth noting EG's Mafia 2 review is the only one under 5.5/10, and most are in the 7-9 region. EG France gave it 10/10...

    I certainly don't read reviews just to get a publishers press release version, and I definitely appreciate hearing someone's opinion of a game, especially if its a massive let down. Strikes me that with Mafia 2 though, and to a lesser extent Alan Wake, EG had someone who didn't seem to want to play the game reviewing it.

    If people have been waiting months for a game to be released, they want to know if it fulfills its potential or is seriously flawed. So logically you'd expect someone who has really been looking forward to a game to be reviewing it. Those with pre-orders know whether to cancel them or not.

    I'm not into sports games. If someone got me to write a review of FIFA I wouldn't really be interested, I'd miss small details that add charm to the game, I wouldn't be engaged and I'd give it either a generic or a bad score. Lesson: Have someone who likes football games review FIFA. Don't make someone who never plays online review a game with a heavy multiplater element. Don't make people who religiously skip cut scenes review RPGs. Don't make CoD addicts review Wii Party. Etc etc.

  • Grievous1976 #69 1 year ago

    Nice to see the regular Moaners who actually manage to get Negative points on their comments (Maybe me after this but hey)
    To say i never liked the First Dead Rising, after playing this and finally getting into it it convinced me enough to re-buy the original game again NOT from games on demand anyway. but still a few people have argued whether this is a demo or not, as far as im aware it becomes classed as a full game (Not a Demo) when you get the chance to Unlock the Achievements.

  • kangarootoo #70 1 year ago

    @rojjer

    "I've come across your sarcastic comments before, you just sound elitist and up your own ass"

    That pretty much sums things up I'm afraid :)


    "at least my argument holds water"

    I'm not even sure what your argument is, and I certainly don't care. You see, I subscribe to the "who gives a f*ck about review scores" school of thinking, and I take objection to people that assume I am deluded as they are.

    I also object to people suggesting the reason I neg their post is because I am a sheep, or deluded (when the truth is that I only neg posts that are pointless trolling nonsense). You can conduct your own conspiracy threory as to the reviewing policy of this site if you wish, but please don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you is "in on it".

  • rojjer #71 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo

    "but please don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you is "in on it"."? I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Who else would be "in on it" other than the site responsible for the review?

    "I'm not even sure what your argument is, and I certainly don't care." Ok, good for you - stop quoting and or replying to me then please, it makes your point seem less valid.

    The "sheepies" comment was mainly directed at those that agreed with the 4/10 scores in recent weeks *without even having played the games* i.e. those that blindly read reviews then decide that game isn't for them.

    I applaud Capcom's decision to make a paid for game that gives out achievements and lets you carry elements over to the full retail game (you want a demo, download the trial), but I hate the fact that it feels like the first game with a few more Zombies on screen at once. Its just my opinion but one shared with 80% of the people I've talked to that have played the game, no way is it worth a 7/10 even when compared to the original.

  • darkmorgado #72 1 year ago

    Oh for god's sake rojjer, tell it to someone who cares. You lost the argument the second you started calling everyone sheep and flinging playground insults at kanga.

    Oh, and...

    Its just my opinion but one shared with 80% of the people I've talked to that have played the game

    There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. And it seems to me that as you are so blindly chasing after people who dislike the game in order to give them a hug or something, that you are ignoring people who enjoy it. The reverse scientific method - looking for evidence that supports a conclusion rather than drawing a conclusion from the evidence.

    There's a reason why that sort of reasoning is rejected, y'know.

  • photoboy #73 1 year ago

    @chasejamie

    "What's wrong with the timed missions? It's part of the game. Really wouldn't be any excitement if you could stroll through the tasks at a leisurely pace. It's challenging, stressful, but great fun. Like a lot of games used to be. Mwa."

    I think the problem is that Dead Rising forces time limited missions on you, rather than you choosing when to take them on. For example, GTA IV doesn't require you to go and speak to Roman within a time limit and then removes him from the game if you don't. You can go joy riding around Liberty City for hours on end and it doesn't prevent you from continuing with the story.

    Whereas Dead Rising basically tells you to stop whatever it is you're doing and focus on doing what it wants, when it wants. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think the game offers such a wonderful sandbox for zombie death, it's frustrating to have the game interrupting what you want to be doing. I actually preferred the demo to Dead Rising 1 to the full game, because it didn't expect me to rescue anyone, it just left me to find new ways of killing zombies! ;)

    Dead Rising is a bit like that annoying girlfriend who insists on deciding what you want to watch on the telly. Having said all that, I had a real blast playing Case Zero and would recommend it to anyone who did or didn't enjoy the first, as I think they've softened enough of the rough edges to make it worth playing.

  • nevernow #74 1 year ago

    @darkmorgado and irve77:

    There was a time when demos did not necessarily include gameplay taken from or appearing in the final game. This is not what defines a demo.

    This could have been a great demo, but they decided to sell it a standalone game. No big deal, it's cheap and enjoyable. A paid demo which happens to have a limited free version. Being an XBLA title, Achievements were mandatory so this is no proof for either thesis; stats carrying over to DR2 are a nice touch and an incentive to buy but are not enough to change the nature of the deal, IMO.

    Finally, the quote is from February but still comes from the developers, I don't see how age invalidates it.

    Repetead times I read about how demos are considered a waste of time and resources... One might fear DR2:C0 becoming an example of how to counter that.

    Oh, so when is the DR2 demo coming out? :p

  • darkmorgado #75 1 year ago

    @nevernow

    By that logic then, sequels using the same game engine and the same mechanics are all demos.

    So COD:MW is just a paid-for demo for COD:MW2. After all, they use the same game engine, they have different content but some similar elements and the same game mechanics. They also both have achievements, but that's pointless because achievements are mandatory anyway.
    Oh, and:

    This is not what defines a demo

    Said without any further elaboration as to why, or as to exactly what it is defined as.

    Do you see the flaw in your argument here?

    Edited by 2 at 01/09/10 @ 18:26

  • lavalant #76 1 year ago

    I know it's only 400ms points, but you can pick up the first game for roughly the same price in the used bargin bins, also will Dead Rising 2 play like this?? it didn't seem that much different from the first.

  • TheJuriel #77 1 year ago

    It's surprising how unchanged this is from Dead Rising 1. But, it is fun for what it is, and I heartily endorse companies releasing this sort of stuff for cheap (400 MSP) prior to release.

    It's an awesome addition to Arcade.

  • PlugMonkey #78 1 year ago

    @ nevernow
    "This is not what defines a demo"

    No, apparently what defines a demo is that it is free, regardless of the amount of content. So tell me, why should that be exactly?

    (Apart from every gamer's indignant right to demand whatever they damn well like AND have it for free, be that 'demos', or DLC that happens to share disc space, or DLC that happened to share production time, or in the case of L4D2 an entire fucking sequel just because it 'came out too soon'.)

    So, you have a free 'demo' and a much larger paid for 'demo'. And your only objection seems to be the semantics of what you consider the word 'demo' to mean (i.e. free). If they'd said 'sampler' instead, would that be OK? How about if they said 'prologue'. Seeing as that's what they actually did say...

    Because the stupidest thing of all amid this tidal wave of stupid is that they didn't even actually really say this WAS a demo in the first place. Did they? They said it was a stand alone piece of software that "will effectively serve as the demo". It's right there in your quote. This "will effectively serve as the demo". Does that mean the same thing as "this is a demo"?

    I currently have a bass sub that "effectively serves" as a footrest. Does that mean I was overcharged for it? I mean! I paid £100 for this fucking sub! Footrests only cost £10! How dare they! HOW DARE THEY SELL ME SOMETHING THAT ALSO EFFECTIVELY SERVES AS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD ON IT'S OWN BE CHEAPER! I AM BURNING WITH INDIGNANT RAGE!!

    ffs.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 20:13

  • darkmorgado #79 1 year ago

    @PlugMonkey

    I just spat out my wine reading that. Fantastic!

    "tidal wave of stupid" is now my phrase of the day.

  • Chazmeister #80 1 year ago

    The tight time limits are what put me off the first game, seems like they're even worse now, when I was hoping they'd ease off on the timed missions. Oh well looks like another miss for me.

  • nevernow #81 1 year ago

    Ok.

    @darkmorgado & PlugMonkey:

    I certainly do not consider games that share an engine and certain technical assets to be a demo of each other. In that case I would move the discussion to their price. Basic economy laws teach to cut the relationship between costs of production and selling price, and to only consider what the buyer is willing to pay. I don't like it, but that's the way it is and this would take us way too far.

    This said, I don't think my "this is not what defines a demo" needed elaboration. It seemed clear to me that "This" meant "the gameplay of the demo not being a part of the final, retail game".

    So what defines a demo? Well, it's free and it's a sample of something to come (for a price, usually). And samples are usually free, anyway. Your bass sub comparison may be fun but is not appropriate, and I'm sure you're aware of this. When devs want to go the extra mile, it's a bit of gameplay created for that purpose and not a chunk of the full game (which is still absolutely fine by me).

    I am seeing Case 0 as a potential taste of things to come, therefore my bitterness. Being an XBLA title, they were forced to provide a trial version, but next time, not on XBLA, it could be 5$/€/£ or nothing, with no trial and no proper demo. And the time after that, a big game like COD does that, thousands of people buy it and paid-for demos become the standard, while free demos start to disappear. I'm not saying it's gonna happen, but it's a possibility and I find it a bad one.
    In any case, it seems there's not going to be a demo for DR2, so it serves as a demo in a strong way. How much you weigh the fact that there's a free trial of Case 0 is subjective, but certainly relevant.

    Now about DLC which shares disc space with the main game. The fact the DLC is actually just a key sounds especially bad, but even when you actually download something, it's often (not always) something which was developed as part of the main title, then cut out because someone thought they could make some extra money through it. This might (might, the way I see it, not would) be fine if the grand total price of main game + DLC summed up to the price of a standard, pre-DLC-era game, but obviously this is not the case.
    I say create the game, don't cut out anything, sell it. No DLC? Fine. Wantt to create some more content and sell it? Fine, we'll decide whether to buy it or not. I'd like to see DLC as a process of addition, not subtraction and restoration.

    "Don't like, don't buy", I know. And I don't. But the fact is that everyone that does buy (completely within his rights, of course) effectively makes the gaming wolrd/environment/market worse for everyone. In my eyes, of course.

  • drumbaby #82 1 year ago

    "I wonder if they'll release any demo on PC and PS3. After all, it's a sequel to a game that never came for these platforms. "

    If they bring this out for PS3 then I may very well buy DR2. If not...nope. Capcom have got to start providing for PS3ers the same way they did for PS2ers. It was DMCs 1-3 (okay, not 2), all the Onimushas, and the first Monster Hunter that made them my favourite developer. Even Chaos Legion had me hooked despite its sadistic difficulty and OCD based gameplay. Shadow of Rome had the same kind of fascinating appeal, and RE4, when it finally arrived, utterly rocked. If you were a PlayStation 2 gamer you were well provided for by Capcom, and personally speaking I was always tempted to give a game a go if it had the Capcom badge on it, because of the many AAA games they were releasing...CL and SOR as examples.

    But it is their total lack of a PS3 Monster Hunter (yet a Frontier port on 360...wtf? And they dare to whinge about piss poor sales) and lack of DR1/ DR prequel on PS3 that has worn my patience with them pretty thin. Yes, DMC 4 was pretty decent, but that's just one game to get excited about in lieu of the tedious looking Lost Planet series, and imho I'm more concerned about the shitload of irksome exclusivity deals for all systems other than the one I've elected to put in that small space under my telly.

    Sort it out, Capcom. At the moment I associate you guys with PSP and nothing more. I no longer associate you with plentiful quality gaming, at least not on my system of choice.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 21:09

  • brseg #83 1 year ago

    How much is the price reflected in the score? I dont think it bodes well for the full release of DR2, the shortcomings will seem much bigger when you charge 35 quid.

  • Phantom_Dynamite #84 1 year ago

    This game is like Marmite people either love it or hate it, I loved the first one after playing the trial of this downloaded it and easily put in 4 hours straight so well worth the 400 msp. Im really looking forward to DR2 not expecting anything amazing just some good old fashion fun.

  • DDevil #85 1 year ago

    I'm enjoying the hell out of this. 400 points as well - bargain.

  • darkmorgado #86 1 year ago

    @Chazmeister

    You're missing the point though. You can ignore the missions completely. It doesn't give you a fat "GAME OVER" screen for not doing them. In fact, the first game had achievements for NOT doing them.

  • Razorus #87 1 year ago

    I found it pretty irritating but I love Dead Rising, so I gave it a chance.
    Anyone know how to get to Day Two? I had to restart the story twice because I ran out of time and kept messing up but once you figure out how to manage your time, it's actually possible to build the bike and save all civilians in one day.
    I really pushed it close with the zombrex (had to go to the casino, get money and buy more) and saving the gunman and his daughter and then giving the zombrex to Katy. Then of course you have to fight the boss, Jed, who is a complete arse.
    Luckily, I had the broadsword from the hunting store (strongly recommended) and it made quick work of him.
    You then have to escape on the bike but I reckon if you stay, you'll have to survive with the troops for a night. I have a save file just before then, so I'll check it out.

    Wow, I do ramble on don't I?

    Edit: On second thoughts, after reading other comments/essays here, I reckon I'm doing ok.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 21:29

  • photoboy #88 1 year ago

    @TerryWogan

    I have read all the comments thank you, I just happen to disagree. I get that the game wants to be different, I just don't think it's a very good idea. In Dead Rising 1 the game will give you someone to rescue and if you don't get on with it they will die. I didn't ask for that mission to start, the game foisted it on me. You're absolutely right, I don't have to do it, but if I don't do it right when the game wants, I won't get another chance. If these missions really are unnecessary, why does the game need to taunt me with messages saying "So-and-so has died" if it hadn't expected me to save them?

    If the person dies I can either reload or start a new game. Reloading means I still can't carry on with what I was doing and starting again is time consuming. I don't usually have the time to replay games over and over to try out different things, and the chances of me wanting to replay a game are diminished if I didn't enjoy it first time around.

    Maybe the time limits increase the tension, but my overriding memory is that they were just an annoyance. If Dead Rising 1 had been a bit more flexible I might have reached the stage where I would want to replay it over and over (I'm actually at that stage with Case Zero, I've completed it 5 times now), but Dead Rising 1 just annoyed me. I'm hoping that the multiple save slots and much improved survivor AI mean that Dead Rising 2 won't suffer from the same annoyances.

    To continue the GTA example, there were missions in GTAIV which would randomly pop-up on the streets or on the mobile phone. You didn't have to do them there and then and there was no penalty if you wanted to tackle them later. In Dead Rising you either do it when the game wants or never (short of finding the time to replay the whole game over again) and I think that's a real pity.

  • Vyggo #89 1 year ago

    "Nevernow: So what defines a demo? Well, it's free and it's a sample of something to come (for a price, usually). And samples are usually free, anyway. ... When devs want to go the extra mile, it's a bit of gameplay created for that purpose and not a chunk of the full game (which is still absolutely fine by me). "

    Glad we cleared that up, so it's not a demo because it's not free.
    ...and then you complain that you don't want to pay for a demo?
    I am confused.

    Oh, how I hate the slippery slope discussions. No, this is fine, but others will do evil things with it so I am against this guy doing what he does, even though it's fine on itself.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 22:06

  • nevernow #90 1 year ago

    @Vyggo:

    it took a second read but I got your point. :) I say if it's not free it's not a demo, then I complain that this non-free thing is actually a demo. Fair objection.

    Let's say a demo is supposed to be, should be and has always been free and a sample. Case 0 is bending this in a way I don't like.
    Old-school games like Doom bent this in a way I liked, it was called shareware. Maybe Case 0 is just an evil kind of shareware.

    And I honestly think videogames are on a slippery slope.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 22:33

  • TheNinkyNonk #91 1 year ago

    "I used the trolley to mow down zombies for half an hour"

    And people wonder why nerds get such a bad rap...

  • darkmorgado #92 1 year ago

    Let's say a demo is supposed to be, should be and has always been free and a sample. Case 0 is bending this in a way I don't like.

    I'd say it's not bending anything. You can look at it two ways - either it's an XBLA title for a lower-than-normal price and more content than many full price retail releases which serves as an introduction to the story of DR2, or it's a piece of DLC that preceeds the retail game it is attached to rather than succeeds it.

    Either way, it's not a demo, either way it's actually bloody good value for money (on a cost vs content scale), and either way you are not forced to pay for it in order to try it - being an XBLA release, you can download a free sample.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 23:13

  • androidave #93 1 year ago

    I've played this for a few hours and it just seems like more of the same but not quite as good tbh, I though dead rising played better, looked better and so far, was much funnier than dead rising 2.. It doesnt seem like theres much new and feels more like DLC for the first dead rising rather than a brand new game. I'l give it a few more hours, but if the full game is a 7/10 and pretty much the same I won't be buying it.

  • Collymilad #94 1 year ago

    People are moaning about the cost?

    A lot of places are saying it's 3 hours long, and it's 400MSP.

    Show me a 3 hour long demo. As for the game, I think it's brilliant, but then I was one of those people who actually enjoyed the first DR rather than sitting moaning about it's save system.

  • darkmorgado #95 1 year ago

    @Terrywogan

    +1

    I think the reason why most people don't "get" the mission structure of DR is the same reason why people fall over themselves to applaud Bioshock's "you're mentally conditioned to obey" twist. We've become so conditioned to follow commands in games that it's hard for us to imagine doing otherwise. Dead Rising challenges that convention by forcing us to disobey years of indoctrination in order to get the most out of the game. In that sense, it's actually breaking established gaming tradition, but so many people are so indoctrinated into the rule that they fail to see the point.

    I see it as a rather amusing psychological experiment.

  • darkmorgado #96 1 year ago

    I love the way that, in DR1, you can actually not even press a button on the controller and still get the "game won" achiev after 72 hours. I love how most of the achievements reward you for ignoring the timeline (all survivors rescued, all costumes worn, kill the entire population etc). I think that Dead Rising was the first game to actually use achievements to encourage experimental gameplay and move away from the rules. In fact, I recall that EDGE once did a feature based on this point (as part of a good achiev vs bad achiev article).
    And yet, as gamers, we are so used to following point A to point B that we slavishly follow those rules and forget that, actually, we might have the freedom to ignore those rules. To me, that's a true sandbox game. GTA to me isn't a real sandbox, because it waits for you to trigger the events and in that sense it is still fairly linear. In Dead Rising, it makes an overly-emphasised point (hi Otis!) to follow the mission structure, but actually the most fun is gained by breaking the rules - in a sense, its almost essential to break those rules due to the stats carrying over.
    I see it as a very subtle and clever commentary on linear game design, which seems to go over most people's heads.

    EDIT:

    For once, you're not given a checklist

    Well, my point is that you ARE given a checklist, but you are free to ignore it. Much as in real life, so many people make "to do"lists, but how many of us actually obey them? How many of us think "actually, it would be more fun if I do this instead?". Most games give you a checklist and then give you no choice to follow it. DR gives you a checklist, and it's up to you whether to follow it or not, and that's the part that everyone complains about because they are missing the point.
    You touched on this earlier with your "you're not FORCED to do the tasks" post, so I guess I am just clarifying my point.
    Edited by 1 at 02/09/10 @ 00:50

  • darkmorgado #97 1 year ago

    @TerryWogan

    Games would be a very boring place if they always stuck to established rules... hell, the world would be. If only we were experienced games programmers, I think we could make a pretty revolutionary game. As it is, I'm going to end up with a design brief that noone will touch because it isn't a linear 3PS.

  • CalmBlueOcean #98 1 year ago

    It's definitely true that the two groups, people who like DR and people who hate DR, are identical to "people who attempted to complete the storyline on their first playthrough" and "People who just fucked around for a few playthroughs first".

    However, that just underlines what a shocking bit of game design the structure of the game is. When sizeable hordes of people are driven away from a game because they don't understand how it works, that's some pretty epic failure on the part of the designers. It's not like the multiple play-through structure is really granting the game any nice benefits, it's just acting as a barrier to entry for the many gamers who have been conditioned to follow the narrative of a game.

  • Bumbuliuz #99 1 year ago

    If only Microsoft would let me buy this from Iceland where I live. I so loathe this region restrictions for us that live in un-official country's.

  • PlugMonkey #100 1 year ago

    @nevernow
    "Let's say a demo is supposed to be, should be and has always been free and a sample."

    Why? Why let's say that? Why should all 'demos' be a brief free sample? Why can't I have the option of seeing something more substantial? If a company builds something considerably more substantial for me to look at, why should they have to give it to me for free? Why do we have to keep doing everything exactly as it always has been in the past? If nothing is being taken away from you, why can't we have increased options?

    I often find that demos are so short that they are woefully inadequate in giving me a decent representation of the game in question. If more companies start giving me the option of sampling hours of (unique!) content for a few quid before I drop £40 on the full version, I certainly won't be complaining.

    Do you seriously think it is unreasonable of Capcom, in this case, to ask for £3 in return for hours of content. Give me that instead of a timed 3 minute demo any day (which incidentally, I believe you do still have). They should have to build all that content, and then give it you for free? Why?

    My bass sub example may have been extreme, but it is entirely relevent. You are saying that something isn't allowed to exist because it also serves the purpose of something else that is cheaper, or in this case free. What we're dealing with here is basically episodic content. There's one short cheap episode, and then if you like that, there's another bigger, more expensive episode coming after. That all sounds perfectly legitimate to me, and the only reason you have for objecting is that you've jammed it into a pigeon hole labled "FREE DEMO" and are keeping hammering it in regardless of how ill fitting it is.

    Basically, I think you either have to acknowledge that your definition of 'demo' isn't all binding, or you can acknowledge that this isn't a 'demo' by your definition.

    "but even when you actually download something, it's often (not always) something which was developed as part of the main title, then cut out because someone thought they could make some extra money through it. This might (might, the way I see it, not would) be fine if the grand total price of main game + DLC summed up to the price of a standard, pre-DLC-era game, but obviously this is not the case."

    Without wishing to open this whole bumper fun can of worms again, do you have any evidence of content 'often' being cut from the main game purely to scalp the consumer with DLC? Or of 'main games' not living up to the standards of a pre-DLC era game because of content being stripped and added back later?

    I get so sick of gamers today bitching about how they're getting ripped off, and how everything is a sign of the End of Days and the sky falling in and "they don't like where this is going". You get given exactly what you had before, AND the option of something extra, and so you complain. Games are bigger, flashier, longer, more compelling, more entertaining AND CHEAPER than they've ever been, and so you complain. It's extremely depressing.

    If Case 0 had come out on the MegaDrive it would have been £40.

    There would have been no demo.

  • PlugMonkey #101 1 year ago

    @ CalmBlueOcean
    "However, that just underlines what a shocking bit of game design the structure of the game is."

    No. No, no, no. It underlines how shockingly badly communicated the structure of the game is.

    The structure of the game is bold and refreshing. It has many, many, many huge advantages over the traditional system of RPG quests only kicking off when you tell them to. The fact that they never actually told anyone how they were supposed to approach it, however, was a monumental cock-up.

    I'm certain that was why the save structure was so arbitrary - to try and railroad you into giving up on completing the story on your first playthrough. Unfortunately, that was even more badly communicated.

  • kangarootoo #102 1 year ago

    "The reverse scientific method - looking for evidence that supports a conclusion rather than drawing a conclusion from the evidence."

    QFT.


    On subject, I played the demo last night. It was fun, but I'm still not happy about time limits. I got to the end though and wanted more, so I will spend the 400 points to give it its fair run. It will I suppose let me discover whether the bits I didn't like about DR1 are enough of a deal breaker, without spending very much cash.

  • kangarootoo #103 1 year ago

    @PlugMonkey

    "I AM BURNING WITH INDIGNANT RAGE!!" etc.

    That was some funny stuff you did there :)

  • rojjer #104 1 year ago

    @darkmorgado

    what. and what?

    I'm hoping you're not serious with your comments you made directed to me (calling him kanga kind of indicates he's your friend, digital or otherwise and therefore negates most of the points you're *trying* to make). I also did not call everyone sheep, only those that view Reviews as gospel and ignore games that get low ratings on this once great website. Again, this was state clearly, or so I though.

    All I'm doing is validating my argument, it is after all just my opinion. Please don't take these things too seriously, it sounds like you got quite worked up about it all - for that I apologise :-(

    And please don't call me a liar. Based on what I've found out by talking to *real* people, 80% of them (just a quick breakdown here, I spoke to 10 people and 8 of them, that's 8 of them) didn't like it at all. The other 2 really loved the first game and will probably make this a day one purchase - good for them, I'm glad they like it.

    Hows your argument looking now? Ah yes.. looking like the very same "playground insults" you were accusing me of. How nice.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #105 1 year ago

    400 msp = 125 comments?!

    Talk about value for money.

  • kangarootoo #106 1 year ago

    @TerryWogan

    I'm picking at details here, but i think you are being a little selective with your analysis.

    "Then start the whole story again from the beginning and do some of the missions, or don't!"

    But I want a third option. That third option is to stop doing the main missions, but CONTINUE to level up my character, and then pick up the main mission again WITHOUT losing my levelling progress OR having to repeat any missions.

    If I've missed something please let me know, but it seems to my eyes (and you seem to say as much) that the only two options are,

    1) continue the story at the pace the game sets, from start to finish, despite there being all sorts of sandbox fun to be had.

    2) let the story mission fail and have your sandbox fun, but then have to repeat all the missions you have already completed from the start if you want to keep the levelling up spoils of your sandbox fun.

    My issue with DR one was that there were two games going on. There was sandbox fun, and there was story. And if you picked story, you were in the long haul. You simply couldn't get part way through the story and then decide to put things on hold for some sandbox fun. If you decided to put the story on hold, you were in fact abandoning it. It was a one way door back to the start of the story.


    Why?!? This is my question. Put aside all this "its meant to be like that" apologist nonsense for a moment, and consider whether the route they have taken is genuinely honestly hand on heart, more FUN, than if they had done things the way I suggest.

    I played Oblivion to death (for an example), and one of the things that kept me at it for tens of hours was that if I got bored with something, I could piss off and do something entirely differerent. I played a bit of the way through the main story, then I went off and got the top rank in every build, then I came back and finished the story. If I wasn't allowed to do that, if I had to follow the missions in the order the game dictated and WHEN the game dictated (or lose my levelling progress), would I have put over 100 hours into it over the course of more than a year?

    The game that pretty much BEGS you to have sandbox fun, but then it tells you to pick one of two paths, only one of which contains that sandbox fun. Each to their own I guess, but for me that was a mistake and I'm sorry that mistake hasn't been fixed in DR2.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #107 1 year ago

    If a game wasn't made the way you wanted too it doesn't mean it's a "mistake". Actually that's kinda pretentious. The game wants to give the feeling of urgency.
    Like an article on GamesTM said, most ppl say they want different games, but when some come wiht a new idea... "oh what a mistake, it should be like Oblivion". Typical.

  • kangarootoo #108 1 year ago

    @rojjer

    "therefore negates most of the points you're *trying* to make"

    Nice blanket logic there.

    "it sounds like you got quite worked up about it al"

    Oldest trick in the book that one :)


    Anyway, loads of people use shortened versions of my ID, and kanga is simply the most common.

    I once claimed (based on no evidence whatsoever) to have the record for the most variants of my username used by other posters. People do it because kangarootoo is a faff to type (and because I'm awesome, obviously*).


    It feels a bit like we are ganging up on you here, so I'm going to duck out of this particular part of the thread. If I can be so patronising as to refer you back to your second post (which seems to have been an angry response to your first post getting negged) and suggest you learn a lesson.

    "all those dumbasses negging my other comment (feel free to neg away at this one sheepies!) are more than happy to swallow the repetitive bile that this game is and raise glasses to cheer the 7/10 score that this received. Bloody disgraceful."

    If you hadn't called everyone negging you a dumbass, or a sheep, or suggested they were "swallowing bile", or called it all "bloody disgraceful"... the entire following conversation between you and I and a few other posters would have been completely different and a whole lot more civil. Do you not agree?






    * as a heads-up, this is a joke to wind you up. Don't say I never give you anything.

  • kangarootoo #109 1 year ago

    @ziggy_played_guitar

    I am quite happy saying what I think is a mistake and what is not, because I belive I am saying it for objective reasons (insofar as possible). I have to do that every day, so its something I'm quite used to. I am not just going on what I prefer in a game, I am basing my judgement on what I think is right for the majority of players. I truly believe that the time limits are a negative element for a significant number of players, and that if things were different, the players that don't mind the time limits would also not mind their absence.

    That is why I consider it a mistake.


    Edit:
    "Like an article on GamesTM said, most ppl say they want different games, but when some come wiht a new idea... "oh what a mistake, it should be like Oblivion". Typical."

    Well firstly, you know I didn't say that. Secondly, the GamersTM quote is disingenuous. When people come up with a new idea that is genuinely good, people usually respond well. The problem is that most new ideas are, in the final cut, rubbish.
    Edited by 1 at 02/09/10 @ 10:23

  • ziggy_played_guitar #110 1 year ago

    I'm glad Capcom can look outside the mainstream then. Bless them. And the sheep. Minorities are cool and all that. Try Cod MW2, people like it a lot. Loads, the "majority". Follow the "majority".
    Edited by 1 at 02/09/10 @ 10:24

  • rojjer #111 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo


    ahhhaaa.. well played sir - I've been rumbled. Yes a lot of the content of my comments was worded to illicit an angry/annoyed response from people, I was in a not so great mood yesterday and this particular game had annoyed me even more, I was hoping for a fixed version of the first game but it felt like more of the same (this is just my opinion, I know that plenty of people love this game and that's great too, everyone is different after all).

    It was also partly do to with those weird 4/10 scores that certain games got recently on this site. Having played both I just can't see the validation of that scoring. V. strange.

  • kangarootoo #112 1 year ago

    @ziggy_played_guitar

    MW doesn't appeal to the majority because its gameplay is better.

    If you want to twist my words (again) because I critisised DR then be my guest, it makes no odds to me.

    I don't think that DR is better for the time limits, and I also don't think that the experience of hardcore DR fans would suffer if it were different. I think that some DR fans are simply reacting to any suggestion that the game they love could be improved.

    If the time limits had never been implemented the way they were, I've no doubt that you would love DR just as much as you do, AND other players would also enjoy the game more. I can understand your objection if a core of players have their experience spoiled by attempts to expand for the the majority, but I don't believe that is the case here. If you can change your game so that existing players are happy AND new gamers can also enjoy it more, that is simply good design.

  • kangarootoo #113 1 year ago

    @TerryWogan

    "You can't have that third option, because then it would just be GTA"

    Well that clearly isn't true, but I'll let is slide.


    "You just want grey sludge."

    You see, its comments like that which make me question your objectivity. There seems to be this worship of "being different" without caring whether the result is better. And people that suggest improvement is possible are derided as wanting some benign inferior mainstream vanilla version of the game.

    I want the same thing as you, I want a game that is as good as it could be. The difference is that I am happy to suggest that DR is flawed and could be improved, whereas you take offense at that suggestion.

    I feel like I'm pointing our the emperor has no clothes on, because everyone that has responded to my questioning the time limits does so either by telling me I am the death or artistic expression in games, or by responding with apologist "its supposed to be that way" type guff.

    You say that "you're trapped in a mall for three days", but seriously, are you really suggesting that a video game based on that set of events couldn't have incoporated the changes I am suggesting? People are fabricating barriers that simply don't exist. The removal of the game wide time limit is ENTIRELY possible, and nobody yet has given me a good reason for objecting to it.


    Sorry to hammer the point, but that is the devil's avocate's role.


    Edit: after your edit.

    "I really don''t see what the big issue with starting the story again is, either, because as mentioned before, it's not a long game if you just play the story through."

    So now we get to something with a bit of substance. If the game wide time limit was removed, the game wouldn't last very long. I guess that is an issue, and if you find that your favourite game is over in 5 hours, you would be unhappy about that.

    I might suggest that the time limit is therefore a bandage to cover another flaw in the title, but that wouldn't be quite honest of me. You see, removing the time limit might make the game short if I hammered along through the story line, but my point from the start is that I don't want to hammer through it. I could do my sandbox stuff, and still get 10+ hours out of it. I just ask the game to trust me to do that, instead of force me to spend the time replaying things.
    Edited by 1 at 02/09/10 @ 11:32

  • Mark1412 #114 1 year ago

    PlugMonkey telling it how it is. Kudos sir.

  • cw- #115 1 year ago

    that means greedy players will find themselves braving the loading screens and nipping back to the safe house every five minutes to construct another one. That's kind of annoying.

    It even tells you on screen that there are more available out in the city and that you don't have to go back to the safe house... how can you miss it? Takes up the entire screen!

  • ziggy_played_guitar #116 1 year ago

    @ kangarootoo : You wouldn't have the feeling of urgency without these time limits, would you? About the "worship of "being different"", that's wrong... diferent is just diferent. It's not better or worse, it's just diferent.
    Edited by 1 at 02/09/10 @ 12:08

  • kangarootoo #117 1 year ago

    "You wouldn't have the feeling of urgency without these time limits, would you?"

    Perhaps not, but is that a bad thing? I can understand the sense of urgency can be a good thing, but I think the way they have achieved that has come at too high a cost.

    And to be clear, I'm not advocating the removal of in-mission time limits. It is specifically the game-wide time limit that is at fault. By all means generate urgency, but not ALL the time.


    "diferent is just diferent. It's not better or worse, it's just diferent."
    I agree, but some of the comments in the thread suggest not everyone does.


    Talking of a sense of urgency, and going off on a tangent mildly, but its a subject I find interesting... The way to maintain any emotion is to provide contrast. Silent Hill isn't scary because its monsters are nasty, it is scary because its safe rooms feel so relaxing and then it asks you to step outside of them. Its the reason some badly made FPS games get boring - they throw action at you non-stop and the all important contrast is lost (its why MW1 was better than MW2). Good games know the value of contrast, as do good films and books.

    If something is urgent ALL THE TIME... it just stops being that urgent after a while.

  • chrisola #118 1 year ago

    I played the Trial (ie Free demo) and it let's you get as far as getting the Zombrex -- you get a good sample of the game.

    It's ok -- didn't like the long load times between doors \ the roof \ safehouse, and the framerate was awful in a couple of places. The cutscenes were poor and there was nothing which made me want to do anything but arse around...chalk that to the rubbish introduction to the characters making you want to skip the intro 30 seconds in!

    The intro to the first game was great, hopefully the full game starts off better than the prologue.

  • nevernow #119 1 year ago

    @darkmorgado & PlugMonkey

    Of course I have no "proof" about DLC. Only those directly involved know that. I still believe what I said to be the truth and I don't think I am getting more, but less than in the pre-DLC era.
    In the Megadrive era there were no demos, then things got better and I was happy about that. When I see things getting worse, I complain. Apparently you don't share my view and I think we can stop here.

    To also end the Case 0 discussion (at least from my side), I do prefer a shorter, less representative free demo to a richer, longer (which Case 0 is) sampler with a price tag AND no free demo. In this case, both options are available. We'll see how it goes in the near future. I fear short and free will be replaced by rich, carrying over, longer and paid-for.

  • MisterFalseName #120 1 year ago

    Actually Chrisola, I think that's a terrible sample. I had a feeling that's where the cut-off point would be and it really ruins it - essentially you get a long drawn out cut-scene and a very linear stroll to the top of the screen. You don't get any of what makes the game series great - the exploration, the time limited mission sections, the sandbox.

    I'd say that demo of the demo doesn't sound too representative - especially as the opening segment is when they pack the most loading screens in. Shame.

  • kangarootoo #121 1 year ago

    I thought the demo was too short, but then I guess it depends by whose requirements you measure such things.

    It was too short for me as I wanted to keep playing, but then I'll pay 400 points to keep playing which probably makes the length just right from the dev's point of view.

  • Monkey_Puncher #122 1 year ago

    Hang on a second, the reviewer had trouble pushing the trolley with the bike in it? Hahahaha! Are you serious? How could that be difficult? I'd say it's almost impossible to have any trouble with that section. I could understand you criticising the bike section at the end as that really didn't control well at all. But the trolley section? Did you only play 30 minutes of the game before reviewing or something?

  • Rack #123 1 year ago

    I'm with Terry Wogan in that is exactly how I played Dead Rising 1 and I absolutely adored it. I'll concede that Capcom should have made it clearer that you're supposed to keep playing after you fail a mission, I got it right away once I realised you keep your XP no matter what, but then I'm a weirdo who loves Dead Rising.

    A weirdo who loves Dead Rising who has no Internet and can't play this for another 2 weeks :(

  • Notallowedhere #124 1 year ago

    Dead Rising is about decision and consequence. You make your decision and the consequence of your actions are played out, there is none of that quick save stuff, or starting again to get the 'right' decision. There are no right or wrong decisions a bit like the real world there are just decisions and the only thing always against you is time, ultimately you have to live and die by your actions.

    Hasn't everyone thought "I wonder what would have happened in my life if I’d have done X, Y or Z instead" that’s what Dead Rising 2 offers you, a groundhog day where you can change decisions and see the outcome. I agree with other posters to drop the time limit would just turn it into another sandbox/open world game.

  • PlugMonkey #125 1 year ago

    "You simply couldn't get part way through the story and then decide to put things on hold for some sandbox fun. If you decided to put the story on hold, you were in fact abandoning it. It was a one way door back to the start of the story."

    I completely agree with this. I actually used a MU so I could have a 'mucking around' save and a 'story' save on the go at the same time. An imperfect solution, as none of the experience gained in my 'mucking around' save could be kept. However:

    I played Oblivion to death (for an example), and one of the things that kept me at it for tens of hours was that if I got bored with something, I could piss off and do something entirely differerent.

    I also played Oblivion to death, and it gives one of the best examples of the issue that I believe Dead Rising fixes, or at least has a pretty good stab at. Early in the game I left a captain of the guard waiting outside a door in a sewer for literally about three months. We were going to clear out a nest of those Mythic Dawn chaps, he asked me if I was ready to go in, I said "not quite yet" and I buggered off. I came back weeks later, with a healthy tan and head to toe emerald armour, and there he was still waiting. The whole narrative of the game basically breaks to pieces at points like that. You can't really sell me on the idea of a kingdom poised on the brink of absolute distruction when I know perfectly well that the Daedra will patiently wait until I'm good and ready.

    It's a broken narrative. Fundamentally broken. If you think about it, it’s actually quite farcical. And it's been broken in virtually every game I've ever played. Dead Rising gave me a desperate chase against the clock that I get a lot from movies, but never really get from games because the world always stops whenever I do. Why should it? Why shouldn’t failure be an option? I missed failure in games without evening realising it. God bless this and L4D and Demons Souls and Guitar Hero. Without failure, success is meaningless. I’ve relearnt that now.

    It was poorly communicated, harshly implemented and I gather that you didn’t like it very much (which is fair enough), but it’s not inherently wrong and for the people who ‘got’ it, it would have been a fraction of the game it was without it.

    I think you could have a ‘put things on hold’ option in Dead Rising, but it would have to exist separately from your story playthrough. Making it so you were told “This man needs your help NOW” and yet you could go any time you pleased after you’d finished faffing around making smoothies would ruin one of the game’s finest features.

  • kangarootoo #126 1 year ago

    @Notallowedhere

    "Dead Rising is about decision and consequence. You make your decision and the consequence of your actions are played out, there is none of that quick save stuff, or starting again to get the 'right' decision."

    But this is sort of what I class as the apologist stuff. I want DR to be about me having fun. It may well be about other things as well, but if being about decision and consequence means its not so much about fun, I don't see the value.


    @PlugMonkey

    Good point (at last) about the narrative. A solid good point, without any of the fluffy stuff. I don't hold it as important as some, but that doesn't mean its not important to others, I accept that.

    I guess this comes down to a suspension of disbelief. I've never been one to suffer at the hands of a lack of realism or continuity. If I'm having fun bashing zombie heads, I really don't mind whether it would be a realistic thing to be doing in light of my loved ones running out of food in a bolt hole somewhere. Equally, the absurdidy putting saving the world on hold whilst I climb the political ladder at the local Mercenaries club in Oblivion did of course cross my mind, but it didn't bother me one bit.

    I still question whether changing the timeline behaviour in DR, despite whether is spoiled the narrative, would spoil the EXPERIENCE of many of its fans. Thanks for making the point succintly though. I'm not trying to get up anyone's nose you know, I just get like a dog with a bone when I want someone to make a strong case for something.




    ...... However.... ;)

    "Without failure, success is meaningless. I’ve relearnt that now."

    Oooooh, now THAT is a design discussion all of itself. So long as we are on common ground with the semantics (i.e. defining failure as a penalty, rather than just the absence of success) I might well have to disagree in the strongest of terms. And please don't say it like its a fact that you have re-discovered, 'cos you are far better than that.

    There are plenty of extraordinarily successful and loved games out there don't contain a failure state. They simply set the player goals, and the players works to achieve those goals. There is no failiure, there is no starting again, you just make your journey (which might well be difficult) and every so often you are rewarded.

    Unfortunately, most discussions on this subject get attacked by people who treat failure as some kind of manly challenge, and any suggestion of its removal as a weakness. My opinion of such things is easy to guess I'm sure, and I'm sure that won't happen here this time :)

  • PlugMonkey #127 1 year ago

    @ kanga

    I think the key thing with Dead Rising's structure is that it injects a sense of urgency that is utterly lacking in GTA and Oblivion (even when the narrative is suggesting otherwise), and it does this without completely removing my freedom to do whatever I want.

    Oblivion and GTA you take at your own pace, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're fun. But you don't get the raised pulse you get in Dead Rising, so you can't say that in removing that sense of urgency you don't lose something from the game. And it's not a question of realism. Having to charge pell mell through the mall against the clock was fun, and provided an entertaining contrast to the mooching I did for the rest of the game. I wouldn't want all games to be like Dead Rising, but I also wouldn't want Dead Rising to be like Oblivion.

    As far as Success vs. Failure goes, I think our more important common ground to establish is how we define "success"; and how that differs from "completion". I didn't feel any sense of success on finishing Oblivion, any more than I feel a sense of success from finishing a book or a film or listening to a song or going for a nice walk. I never failed once in the entire game. My "victory" was a given.

    Recently I've started playing a lot more games where my completion isn't a given, and the sensation of success is very rewarding. I'm not some uber hardcore mega-manly game player who plays nothing else, but those sorts of games had disappeared entirely from my gaming rotation, and now they're very much back.

    "And please don't say it like its a fact that you have re-discovered"

    It was something I used to know, that I forgot I had ever known, and have now re-discovered. And that, right there, is a fact. :)

  • Silent-Hal #128 1 year ago

    Having time-constraints may make sense in terms of narrative, but narrative decisions should never, ever, EVER come in the way of the player having fun. And being forced to play the game the way the game wants you to in order to reach the end of the story, even though there's a ton of other fun things for you to do within the game's world, is not my idea of 'fun'. It's, quite frankly, just bad design. There's a reason Dead Rising is one of the only games to ever try this kind of approach. There's just something wrong when a game either gives you a story or a sandbox, but not both, even though it would've been perfectly possible for it to do so.

  • Paulie_P #129 1 year ago

    The way DR was meant to be played was not communicated well. I had the game for a year and a half and I didn't even realise you could skip the story missions, every time i saw the 'Truth was Lost' screen I thought the only option was to start all over again. By the time I realised you could skip the story missions, I had lost interest. Even if you did skip them, you still had the convicts pissing you off.

  • kangarootoo #130 1 year ago

    @PlugMonkey

    "Having to charge pell mell through the mall against the clock was fun"

    Could that have not been achieved with per-mission time limits? Its only the game-wide limit I take exception to.

    And we can't push the Oblivion comparison too much, there is plenty of failure in Ob and GTA (rather too much in GTA in my experience) - I was just using it as a reference for the freedom that a sandbox requires if you are to get the most out of it.

    Ok, lets say that perhaps my issue isn't the game-wide time limit. Rather my issue is that such a limit was placed in a game that was also dangling all sorts of unrelated carrots in front of the player. There was quite simply a lot to do in DR and a lot of fun to be had, and yet the game asked you to choose.


    I'm banging the same drum rather a lot here. I think my point is understood, and others have explained their feelings equally well. It does indeed come down to taste, and I'm not saying the preferences of others are wrong (they cannot be, of course). For me DR got a few bits wrong, and I'm clearly not alone, but neither does everyone feel the same way.


    @beemoh

    I wonder if this is an age thing. I'm sure I used to relish punishment in games far more than I do. I used to play games a lot more than I do now as well, so I demand more value out of my time (demos get deleted very quickly these days if they don't meet the grade pretty soon). I like DR2CO for the record, and I liked DR1 too. They have their flaws (imho, etc) but DR1 was still a great game and DR2 is looking like it has the same potential.


    I've not played Majora's Mask.
    /distant CRASH and "sigh" as butler drops tray and lady faints

  • kangarootoo #131 1 year ago

    On a related note, I felt the same about Fallout 1. A game with a world that was just asking to be explored, and a time limit that meant you couldn't explore the whole world without failing. I loved FO, but that damn time limit made me want to slap a kitten (so maybe its not an age thing).

  • Silent-Hal #132 1 year ago

    Actually, I think the Fallout 1 limit was removed in a patch. Well, the second limit anyway. I'm pretty sure the initial 'find the water chip' one was still there. Personally I wouldn't have minded Dead Rising's time-limit so much if it had been a different kind of game. My problem is that it gave you so much else to do and then immediately flipped the hourglass over.

  • kangarootoo #133 1 year ago

    What was that?!?

    /taps ear trumpet on side of writing desk

  • ziggy_played_guitar #134 1 year ago

    My problem is that it gave you so much else to do and then immediately flipped the hourglass over

    Story of my life.

  • Notallowedhere #135 1 year ago

    @Roo

    That decision and consiquence is to me is the fun. You don't fail anything due to the time limit you just complete the game in a different way. Much less frustrating than not being able to complete a corridor shooter as you can't get past a certain section, i've hurled more controllers when unable to complete a small section of a game and had to replay it over and over again to get past it. At least with DR2 i fail a case, i shrug my shoulders and get on with the rest of the game.

    I totaly agree that the way to play the game was poorly communicated by Capcom

  • PlugMonkey #136 1 year ago

    "Could that have not been achieved with per-mission time limits? Its only the game-wide limit I take exception to."

    In a word, no. There were two moments in DR where the game wide time limit created a unique and thoroughly enjoyable gameplay experience that would have been lost without it. The first was when my initial attempt at finding The Truth got derailed by a mother and child who asked me to rescue them. I couldn't do both. I had to make a decision, with a consequence, and it worked much more nicely than in one of those games where the world keeps stopping to wait for me, but then contrives not to when it doesn't suit the story.

    The second was in the end game of the story mode, where the time limits were getting pretty relentless, and at no point did I have time to go off and fully restock. I started the game improvising with the weapons, then I worked out what the best ones were, and then at the end I had to go back to improvising again. My play style was again entirely being influenced by what area of the mall I was in at the time, and what I could lay my hands on. If I could have mooched off between missions for another triple-booked mini chainsaw then I would have done, but the fact is that it was far more varied and interesting that I couldn't. I don't think the cranking of the tempo would have worked as well if I could have wondered off for a few days either.

    "There was quite simply a lot to do in DR and a lot of fun to be had, and yet the game asked you to choose. "

    And once you had chosen, you were locked into your choice. If you were halfway through your Perfect Playthrough and decided you wanted to nurse your hangover while getting the Zombie Genocider achievement, you couldn't. That really was a failing.

    I think the thing that a lot of people failed to realise was quite how quickly you could get back to where you were. You can positively fly through the game when you know what you're doing.

    One other thing that no-one had mentioned is that I really love the idea of making a game about choices and consequences and then making the damn thing short enough for me to actually explore all the options. I'll never find out what happens if you are evil in Fallout 3, or an Orc in Oblivion because each choice takes 40 hours to play out!

  • kangarootoo #137 1 year ago

    @PlugMonkey

    "And once you had chosen, you were locked into your choice. If you were halfway through your Perfect Playthrough and decided you wanted to nurse your hangover while getting the Zombie Genocider achievement, you couldn't. That really was a failing."

    But that is my core issue. All of a sudden, with no warning, we agree. I'm confused. I thought that choosing a track and having to stick with it was part of the joy for you, decisions and consequence and all that... or was that TerryWogan?...

  • kangarootoo #138 1 year ago

    "One other thing that no-one had mentioned is that I really love the idea of making a game about choices and consequences and then making the damn thing short enough for me to actually explore all the options"

    How short was DR1? I never finished the story mission. The time limit, coupled with the AWFUL boss battles (which are another discussion all of themselves) saw me off. I dipped in from time to time, larked about bopping undead on the nut, then got annoyed that I had to get that damn janitor key AGAIN, and stopped playing. Rinse and repeat.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #139 1 year ago

    "how short is DR1"

    That's an odd question to make when talking about DR. It has its own time-structure. It's interesting how most continue to talk about other games and wishing it to be like.
    Anyways, you have 72 in-game hours to get out of shopping, you do what you please, just be sure to get that chopper or you'll be there forever... which can also be cool. Your choice. You don't need to kill no bosses, no need to save no one, you can sit and drink wine if you please. The story is 72 in-game hours inside an infested with zombies shopping. There are inresting shit going on inside. That's about it.
    24 in-game hours = 2 real time hours
    Edited by 2 at 02/09/10 @ 16:16

  • PlugMonkey #140 1 year ago

    I think we almost agree. I think allowing you to wander off in between the missions of a playthrough for as long as you wanted would have ruined it, but I don't see any reason why you should be forced to only have one playthrough on the go at any given time. Being able to pause one playthrough, start another to dick about for a while, and then go back to the first one again is different from removing the game timer.

    DR1 was probably about five to six hours maybe? The mission timers overlap a lot. Finishing the first mission quickly would get you on to the next mission sooner.

    Edit: Even some sort of Quickplay mode would have been a start. Before I twigged to the MUs, a lot of times friends would come over and want to see DR, but basically couldn't do anything because my save was near the endgame. :(
    Edited by 1 at 02/09/10 @ 16:19

  • kangarootoo #141 1 year ago

    @ziggy_played_guitar

    I meant the story arc specifically. I was thinking that if I had known I could have got through the story arc in a few hours, I might have persisted.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #142 1 year ago

    It's 6 hours. The heli arrives in 6 hours (real time). I'm not sure we can say that's a story arc, there are lots of "stories" going on inside that place. Main point is... get out of there, so we can say it's 6 hours.
    Edited by 1 at 02/09/10 @ 16:23

  • Silent-Hal #143 1 year ago

    A free-play mode sounds like it'd work wonders for a game like Dead Rising, actually. That way, those who just want a zombie sandbox can have it and those who want to play through the story the way it was intended to be played can do that too. It's actually surpising that the developers never had the foresight to include such an option. Oh well, maybe if we're lucky we'll see something like in Dead Rising 3.

  • Notallowedhere #144 1 year ago

    @plugmonkey

    That was an issue with the save system rather than the timer through? With three save slots you can do exactly that. Have a pissing about slot and a story completion slot?

  • Vyggo #145 1 year ago

    Very nice discussion here, I enjoyed reading it. Some well thought out arguments on both sides, and a minimum of mud slinging and abuse. Hats off to those involved.

    I am seriously considering picking up the original DR now, as I am really enjoying Case 0. And apparently it's not a big throwback, if at all. I think I saw it on GoD for $19, which means it's a low risk purchase.

    As for the time limited issue. I really enjoy it, curious if I also like it in a longer game.

  • PlugMonkey #146 1 year ago

    @ notallowedhere

    Yeah, my whole point has been that the issues were with communication and the save system execution rather than the timer.

  • DjWhizzkidd #147 1 year ago

    Dead Rising. Loved yet hated for the same reasons. It's interesting.

    A game comes along and finally does something a bit new, a little bit original, and people get scared off by it.

  • Silent-Hal #148 1 year ago

    @DJWhizzkidd - That just brings up the issue of whether something 'a little bit original' is necessarily a good thing. In this case, a lot of people didn't think it was.

  • PlugMonkey #149 1 year ago

    "In this case, a lot of people didn't think it was. "

    And a lot of people DID think it was. Therefore it was absolutely worthwhile. In a way, the opinions of the people who didn't like it are kind of irrelevant. I know I'll get negged for that, but it's true. Do you think Rob Zombie cares if my mum doesn't like heavy metal? Do you think Michael Buble cares that I don't like lounge music? Should Zombie throw in a quick redition of "Fly Me To The Moon" on his next album? To try and get my mum on board? No. Her opinions of Rob Zombie are irrelevent.

    Ultimately, if you try and break new ground, you are going to polarise opinion. That's the way it is, always has been. It'd be a pretty dismal world if that meant everyone stopped trying to break new ground.

    Some people didn't like it. I'm fine with that. But that doesn't mean it was inherently wrong or that it should be changed to conform with all the games they do like. There are hundreds of games like that already. Go and play one of them.

    There's a weird thing amongst gamers where they always say "but I should be allowed to play how I want to play". No you shouldn't. Not all the time. Someone is trying to give you a specific experience. You can either like it or dislike it, but if you don't let them do it, every game would be the same. Sadface.

  • SAMagic #150 1 year ago

    I downloaded the full Case 0 last night and am really enjoying it - there's a lot more to do than I thought for a 400 MSP game.

    For people who struggled with DR1, I was exactly the same the first several times that I tried it. A harsh initial difficulty, frustrating controls (the gun fight with the first psycho anyone?) and everything else ... but then I got a guide and patiently followed it - kill the clown boss and get his mini chainsaws, get the books to extend their use and go to town. Even if it felt like I was cheesing it, the game was simply a lot more fun.

  • PlugMonkey #151 1 year ago

    Which was the first psycho? The guy with the hunting rifle? Speedy potion and a knife works wonders. Stabby stabby stabby!

  • kangarootoo #152 1 year ago

    So I played through most of Case 0 last night. Failed the first time around (my daughter got pinched by the army).

    Making better progress this time, but only by hoofing it all the time. It is fun, but still bugs me at times. Something else happened that was a bit annoying, but I'll have to break our the spoiler tags to talk about it.

    I am told I need to search the town for bike parts. I do so and find 4/5 of them. I then discover that the 5th part is in the posession of a survivor, a survivor that only appears when I "take a mission" from the guy on the roof. So although the task described to me is "search the town", the actual task is "take missions in order". THIS kind of thing breaks narrative for me, its the adventure equivalent of scripted AI in an FPS. It made a sandbox game even MORE linear than I thought it was. Its starting to dawn on me that DR isn't really a sandbox game at all, despite how much it might appear to be, and despite how much I might want it to be. Still fun though.

  • MisterFalseName #153 1 year ago

    @Kangarootoo

    Are you talking about the gang using the bike handle as a weapon? The first time around I found them without the guy on the roof telling me they were there, so not certain you do have to get the mission from him - I think he just points out if you missed them?

  • rogueJT #154 1 year ago

    I love this!

    I F LOVE IT!

    The original DR remains one of my favourite games this gen and I got the demo(of the demo!) and after 5 mins I purchased the full Case Zero straight away.

    I was afraid the new Dead Rising would lose the "feel" of the original, but it seems to have retained everything, and even improved - the combo weapons and graphics look awesome.

    The original had everything - a tough challenge, intelligent use of saves(F all this checkpoint saves every two mintes these days), great achievements, great humour, great characters.

    It's a shame Frank West and his trusty camera aren't back but hell, I like the new guy even if his daughter looks like a zombie already! Don't think the zombrex is working too good!
    Edited by 1 at 03/09/10 @ 15:55

  • DAN.E.B #155 1 year ago

    hmmm not sure about this it sounds like it has the same problems as the original
    I think if I need to kill some zombies i,ll stick to left 4 dead

    Having now played Case Zero I would say its well 400 pts and is in fact one of the best arcade games around.
    that,ll teach me to voice an opinion on a game I havent played
    Im sure im not the only one and at least I didnt reveiw it!
    Edited by 1 at 07/09/10 @ 08:21