Blue Castle making Dead Rising 2 Comments by Johnny Minkley

PlugMonkey's got it right! It was quite interesting how the game got easier as you played... I agree it was punishingly difficult to try and save all the survivors, but what a superb game!

"Exactly!!! The game would have been awfully short too if it wasnt for this system since (if i remember correctly) it takes 3 hours to reach the end of the story."

We just to be piling one excuse on top of another. What we have here is a meta-game that people describe as broken, but in its defense people say that if it weren't built that way the game would be too short. How is that a defense?

"Well your honour, if I hadn't strangled him he would have called the police and reported me for burglary"

@kangarootoo

Out of interest, how would you have liked the save system to be done to make it a better game? Forced or automated checkpointing?

Here is a thought? If DR had done things in a different way, would it have been less fun? People seem to suggest that it was the buggered save system (I know, I know) that brought the fun.

I say for the defense that it was the awesome zombie bashing mechanics that were actually responsible for the massive amounts of the fun the game was able to provide during its best moments.

What do people think about that? Change the save system, bung something more traditional in there, same zombie whacking joy, would the game be better or worse and why.

The why bit is important. You have to say why or you aren't allowed to play ;)

...but the zombie bashing was secondary to the game. The primary goal is to spend 3 days in a mall with a specific time line of events...

The game is trying to tell a story after all. Amidst all the zombie bashing ;)

@ZuluHero

Off the top of my head I wouldn't like to say. That sort of thing needs proper time spent working out the pros and cons.

But while we are in top of the head mode... what about a mission system such as that used in GTA, SR, et al? Little chunks of action, with all the time limits you want, but each of them independant from the rest. If you bugger something up, try again. If you decide to do something else instead, go right ahead and come back later. Its not original, but it works until you find something better.

Give freedom to the player, so they can play the game ANY way they want and still have fun smacking up zombies. It seemed that the current system allowed players to either go apeshit bonkers in a sandbox and have awesome fun, or focus on the main missions (and perhaps also have awesome fun), but not both at the same time. HOW can that be a good thing? How can it be a good thing that if you want to make proper progress through the story missions of a zombie game, you have to stop just smacking zombies whenever you feel like it in case you run out of time?

@ZuluHero

You seem to have pre-empted my answer to your previous question.

"...but the zombie bashing was secondary to the game"

HOOOOOW can that be good, or even acceptable? Its a zombie game. Its ALL about the zombies. You show me a single zombie film that wasn't all about the zombies.

I suppose that is the root of my big gripe. People talk about playing the game the right way, and I've only just realised why I object to that so much in this case. It would seem that the "right way" to play is to stop focussing on the zombies... IN A ZOMBIE GAME.

Good lord, what has the world come to :)

if we're going to split hairs, i'd argue that, in a zombie movie, survivors go out of their way to avoid the zombies, unless they get in the way of something they are trying to do ;)

My issue is purely with the suggestion that if someone plays a game and finds it not to be fun at times, it is their fault for "not playing it right".

Not every game, this game. And not finding it not fun, finding it not fun because you're trying 100 times to do something your not supposed to be able to do yet, which was the criticism I was countering. If this isn't your personal criticism of the game then fine, but you did join in the argument on the side of people making that criticism using my points to them against me by applying it to a totally different critieria of your own unrelated opinions.

If you're playing DR in a non-linear manner and just don't like it, bully for you. BUT if you are playing it like a linear adventure game where you start at the 'beginning' and play until you reach the 'end' and then stop, and then you are complaining that it doesn't work as the linear adventure game it was never meant to be, then I'm afraid you are playing it wrong. That's what the criticisms were and that's what I was countering. If this doesn't apply to you then don't reply to it.

We just to be piling one excuse on top of another. What we have here is a meta-game that people describe as broken, but in its defense people say that if it weren't built that way the game would be too short. How is that a defense?

Because the game wasn't 'short', it had dozens and dozens of hours of gameplay crammed into it. To reach it all you had to loop through the game three or four times, but doing different things each time. It was basically non-linear. Films are by their very nature linear beasts, as are books, games seem to have inherited this legacy but there's no need for them to be.

DR is basically a non-linear adventure game. If you can imagine the game had a menu at the start where you selected "Zombie Death Game", "Survivor Rescue Game", "Story Mode" and "Perfect Mode" from the start. It does tell you not to try and jump straight into story mode from the get go, but it will let you try if you want. If you then try and play it like a standard linear adventure game, instead of playing it in loops as intended, it's not really the games fault.

If you try and play Mass Effect as a first person shooter, keep dying and get frustrated, that is not because Mass Effect is broken. It's because you're playing it wrong. If you're playing as a half turn-based, half-real time squad based RPG and just don't like it then fair enough. The same applies to Dead Rising.

"Here is a thought? If DR had done things in a different way, would it have been less fun? People seem to suggest that it was the buggered save system (I know, I know) that brought the fun. "

Yes, as I said in an earlier post, I think it would have been less fun. I would have instinctively played it like a generic linear action adventure game and would have discovered only half of the content. Also, playing each loop in isolation liberated them from being bogged down by each other and actually saved me from the frustration of constantly reloading saves and repeating bits to try and get it perfect first time. Instead of one 20 hour game that I was expected to complete perfectly first time through or play for another 20 hours, I got a 5 hour game that I completed a different 30% of on three different run throughs, and then tried to finish 100% in one go. To my mind, a much better structure for a game than turning it into a 20 hour film that I play.

Can't wait for this.

The first one was great and anyone complaining about the save system was just shit at games and far to coddled by the modern 'autosave-every-5-seconds' thing in most games that eliminates the fear of getting killed.

"HOOOOOW can that be good, or even acceptable? Its a zombie game. Its ALL about the zombies. You show me a single zombie film that wasn't all about the zombies. "

How can it be acceptable for a game to differ from your pre-conceptions? Jesus! How DARE it! And I'd point you to the pinnacle of all zombie films, Dawn of the Dead, which you think is all about zombies, but is actually a satire of consumer culture. ;)

Or indeed Day of the Dead, which is about a group of survivors pushed to breaking point and turning on each other. There's hardly even any zombies in it.

If games never differed from your pre-conceptions, how would anything ever develop? And you remember the thing I said about people judging games against what they would have made?

Why can't a zombie game be about uncovering the sinister truth behind the infestation in a breath-taking race against time? Why can't it also just be about hacking zombies to pieces? Or trying to get as many survivors out alive as you can?

Or indeed, all three, both independently and simultaneously, like Dead Rising. Which is actually rather clever, if you'll let it be.

DR would have been amazing if they had made it more realistic and less like and arcade game.

Yay! Dead rising 2....Nay why the frak aren't Capcom doing it?

Yes, but the limitations imposed, are the point of the game, and lots of people enjoyed having those limitations. You are not supposed to be able to play it any way you want. I think the reason lots of people are so annoyed about this game, is that they bought it expecting a GTA-style sandbox game (and the crap demo did nothing to suggest the game was anything but).

However, I don't think the argument that you should be able to play the game however you want, is valid. I don't buy racing games for example, because I don't like racing games. I don't buy racing games and then say, 'Why can't I create spells?'

Also, I had no problems with the save system - even when I was at level one. And if I remember correctly, you didn't HAVE to start again if you died, you were offered the choice of loading the last save.

Having to constantly take phonecalls from Otis was a pain in the arse though, admittedly. Especially since you were completely helpless while doing so. This made no sense.

Ooh, they're just down the street from me...

/prints CV

Wish I'd known there was an EG visit in Vancouver, sounds like a missed beer opportunity.

Unfortunately people are all to quick to assume that the devs are stupid, rather than assuming they actually might know what they're doing

The evidence for the former over the latter is conclusively summed up in one word:

Otis.

Dead Rising without some of the totally braindead fuckups in it (Otis, regenerating jeep twats) could be one of the greatest games of all time.

i really hope they don't time everything this time round...

aaaand let's not forget the unskipable beginning! Whilst I'd never say the game's save system was broken or that it was objectively brilliant (whatever happened to "I liked that" or "I didn't like that"?), annoying Otis, unskipable introduction and some other bits sure were an annoying design decisions, no matter what kind of a gamer you are.

I like to think of Dead Rising, with all its flaws and charms, as a cult classic material. Not for everybody, but still loved to bits by somebody. :)

aaaand let's not forget the unskipable beginning!

Are you talking about the bit in the helicopter? That's skippable. Else, you quickly jaunt through all the opening stuff.

Please do online co-op for Dead Rising!!!!!!!!

one of my fav games. Plugmonkey is right in all he says about it. I really liked this article:

http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/...

The biggest problem imo is the unbalanced mini-chainsaws that (if you find them too early) can stop you from being inventive and seeing the best of the game's fights. will be v interested to see what's done with 2 but not high hopes with this designer.

and the beginning is completely skippable btw (as long as you've done them the courtest of watching it once!)

fingers crossed that its a GTA style open world, with a shopping mall slap bang in the middle of an entire town this time.

I dare say hunting down guns, ammo and survivors, finding a safe place to hole up, in a full on city, trying to find a vehicle that's working, but with a much wider scope of environments would be something pretty special.

this time, the camera should be video as well as artistic, if bloody photos, to upload to the in game youtube or something, instead of just being a still camera shot reporter. again some elements of the internet should make it into the game, ala GTA4.

naturally with left 4 dead occupying the zombie space, you would expect it to be at least 2 player co op if the current trend is anything to go by. 4 player would be nice tho.

keep the WORKING save system, but explain it better to the brainwashed gamers who cant snap out of the traditional save system, as it made you feel a sense of urgency, and made things feel more tense. it also adds re-playability.

You had one life to play with, much like you would have if this zombie apocalypse were real, but please do fix the utterly BROKEN survivor AI, as its no fun trying to herd brainless zombies through a crowd of brain hungry zombies. go figure.

ultra hardcore mode for the zombie fans amongst us. if you get bitten, GAME OVER.