Dead Rising

By Tom Bramwell Published 15 August, 2006

Dawn of the Dead Rising obsession.

The question a lot of boring Internet men will very soon be asking is this: is Dead Rising - Capcom's first Xbox 360 exclusive and the most highly anticipated game due out between now and Gears of War - a system seller?

  • Congratulations, the item is yours. Please pay now
  • Item Name: Xbox 360 *NTSC* US Very Rare!!
  • Quantity: 1
  • Subtotal: £255.24

Yep.

Anyway, the question a lot of brilliant Internet people (that's you) will very much at the moment be asking is, why is Eurogamer wasting time doing first impressions of a game that's already out in the United Americas of Superpower - a process that almost certainly holds up attempts to get a review out of us within the next couple of days?

Well first of all, I must complain about your appalling syntax.

Second, I have a need to discuss it. House-sitting at my Spartan mother's with a 360, an LCD and a borrowed stereo daisy-chained together to form some semblance of lounge, I have a buzz that I've not had about a game in a while and nobody to tell.

I've not been without fun lately, true - The Ship was good, Armadillo Run continues to dominate my lunch-hours, and the OutRun 2006 disc still sits there grinning at me from the top of my old Xbox (although right now it's back home in the dark. I hope it's okay). But the Dead Rising buzz is different. It's a sort of drunkenness; I know that I should hold back, but I can't help myself. I just want to hug Capcom.

'Dead Rising' Screenshot zombs

A lot of zombs have weapons in their hands, which you can dislodge by whacking them. But don't use an uzi - guns really are boring.

You'll know the basics, of course. Frank West, photojournalist, trapped in the Romero-inspired Willamette Mall for three long days while zombies rip the place and its occupants to shreds, tasked with beating his way to the truth in that time period and hopefully saving a few people in the process - ready for the helicopter to lift everyone to safety when the time runs out. But more than that, you'll know that the hook is none of these things; the reason you want in is the 53,594 residents of Willamette, and the brilliantly violent means with which you can shuffle them loose the semi-mortal coil.

Listing some of the implements is a good start. Sickles, sledgehammers, parasols, sticks, lead pipes, guns (boring), steel shelving units, wooden benches, chairs, fruit, boxes of cans, mannequins, pies, glasses, jewels, hockey sticks and golf clubs. I haven't found a kipper yet, but I bet one's in there. You can also bundle people over with a range of special attacks, most of which are unlocked over time. But listing the means to dispatch zombies alone is scarcely sufficient to capture the comedy and intensity of the operation, which sees you wading through literally hundreds of the beasts as they swarm the lobbies and plazas of Willamette, lurching more and more in your direction as their numbers swell and you attempt to break past.

Cleaving limbs from buttery men with knives and chainsaws; mowing down the masses not with a lawnmower (although there is one and it's very messy) but by holding a giant parasol in front of you like a plough and charging headlong into a crowd; climbing onto shoulders and bounding from head to head; smashing a mannequin against a throng of undead, picking up the knee joint and beating the nearest grandmother over the head with it. The sense of the unknown, of experimentation, is the same as once we had dusting the back-alleys of Liberty City in search of skulls-and-crossbones and discarded weaponry.

'Dead Rising' Screenshot boss

Cos you see (to continue the caption-narrative), guns are mainly used in boss fights. And boss fights are a bit like GTA missions: doable, but draining.

Except here the pickings are much richer, the potential much more obvious and elusive at the same time; it was several hours before I found a good sickle, and even longer before my first motorbike. Yet all the time the zombie-counter in the bottom-right racks up kills, and that "Zombie Genocider" achievement lingers in your thoughts. Thoughts that occasionally evaporated completely as I toyed with costumes found in any number of shops dotted around the mall - GTA San Andreas tried to make your appearance important, but Dead Rising recognises that it's far better to simply be ridiculous. Let the player have fun. If the player wants to have a significant conversation at a pivotal point in the game dressed in hotpants and a Freddy Krueger mask, let him.

Dead Rising is no Grand Theft Auto, of course. Capcom's creation is gloriously gory, rag-dolled up to the hollow-point nines and wrapt in missions the way Rockstar's opus is, but its macabre invention is quite different. And so far, that's the key to its success. Dead Rising is flawed in lots of ways. Speaking objectively, it's guilty of a lot of things that I'd usually slate. But there's a magical, explosive freshness to it too - like looking at an old friend through new eyes or looking at a crackwhore through Jeremy Kyle.

Structurally it's bold: a classic "start again from the beginning" set-up brought back from Keith Richards' ledge beyond death and wandering around impossibly. You start the main "72 Hour Mode" with a sweep over the city of Willamette in a chopper; a photojournalist working off a tip, you're given the chance to snap a few shots. Usually you hold the left trigger to bring up the camera but here it's up by default; you use B and A to zoom in and out and X to capture the image. And then the game scores you based on something you'll soon get used to, "Prestige Points". These form the backbone of the levelling structure, which upgrades health stats, attack attributes and so on as you improve. And you get them depending on picture composition. A shot of a zombie is worth a handful, but a shot of zombies ripping a man from the roof of his car, a petrol station exploding or, later, an undead gran with a disembodied forearm jammed in her mouth, nets a few more.

'Dead Rising' Screenshot dismembered

Although still oddly satisfying. More fun, anyway, to simply rack up a mountain of dismembered dead. And then photograph them.

Combat earns you some prestige, depending on what you do, but it's the photos that sweep up the most. When you first unite a man and woman, separated from one another, on the roof above the security-room hub where you save and deposit rescued civilians, and they hug, you have an unheralded split-second to whip up your camera with LT, sweep it round to capture them and shutter the moment for a PP bonus. There are many more examples, and your first reaction to a boss encounter is more often than not to dart around exploring the potential for a good shot; you figure out attack patterns almost as a byproduct of trying to secure a scoop (kind of like writing first impressions as one long train of thought).

But you know, should you die, and you will, you face a quandary. Dead Rising is no quick-saver; it's no passworder or checkpointer. You save at bathrooms and the security room by lying down on a couch, and there is one save slot, quite deliberately. No more. When you die, you can either reload from the save, or save off your current stat-levels (skills, kills and costumes included), and start from the beginning again. It's punishing if you don't figure it out for a while. It's also constantly moving. Otis, an old bloke back at the hub, is constantly feeding you news of survivors he's spotted on the CCTV and their locations by mobile-phone, but there's no way you can get to all of them. Actually getting to them is easy enough; by pressing left on the d-pad you bring up a watch and a list of potential "scoops" (missions), and by selecting one and pressing A you're given a middle-of-the-screen pointer that arrows in on your objective, continually switching direction like a route-finder (it's better than GTA's actually; it tells you which corners to turn). But as you'll know if you check your watch, there's not enough time, and you're constantly distracted. I'd like to save those Japanese tourists, but look at all the zombs lining up for my lawnmower! You've scarcely enough time to reach one or two side-missions of the many available and get back in place for the time-sensitive story missions. The stats page that tracks how many of the survivors live or die will leave you thoroughly indebted.

Especially as you'll need to hit those story-missions, because if you don't, or if critical characters die, it's story-over. It's not game-over, because you can simply continue. But you can't save the day and uncover the mystery, and you can't simply return to a yellow pillar of mission-trigger and kick off again; you have to reload. Dead Rising's about budgeting time and trying to have fun when you're not on the clock. It's a neat thing to bind you to as well, because there's forever more that you want to do than you can complete. It's not just George A. Sandbox Romero; it's George A. Sandbox RoKIDS! PLAY-TIME'S OVER! Curses.

'Dead Rising' Screenshot pp

And yes, you do get PP bonuses for shots like this.

And yes, as I say, it's flawed. There are too many boss-fights, for a start (although the notion of a bunch of people becoming psychopathically nutty as a side-effect of a zombie infestation and running around in clownsuits with chainsaws, or tanking their shopping trolleys up with knives and spatulas and running at customers, is enjoyably consistent with the tone they're gunning for). There's a lot of ground to cover to get anywhere. The save system, though you can see what they wanted to achieve, still precludes you from certain things unfairly. Why not at least let us run several games in parallel? But then I can go over all this and whether it means anything in the review, and anyway, a lot of it's off-set (for example, the frustration you fear at having to support an old man's tottering from one end of the mall to the other on a strict time-limit is then surprisingly usurped by the pleasure of discovering that, jogging together shoulder to shoulder, you can basically clothesline anyone who gets in your way - at speed). Anyway, right now I just want to remark upon the fact that I played Dead Rising for about seven hours straight yesterday, and even the occasional story-mission bottleneck, unfair death or other quirk couldn't dampen my enthusiasm to continue. I mean, look at this paragraph; I started it off with a cautious "beware" sort of angle, and then there was this ridiculous parenthetical hijacking that confused it completely and now it's a mess.

Mind you, that's consistent with the general gameplay. Up to this point, Dead Rising is like wandering through a theme park and not being able to decide what to do first. The agony is having to turn things down, or settle on only one way of doing them. In a misty sort of way, it's a kind of Zombie Deus Ex, except, you know, with playfulness in place of gravitas. And as long as it keeps this up (this pattern of inciting ridiculous comparisons, anyway), and continues to deliver entertaining props at suitable intervals, no amount of minor flaws will really bother the score. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to curtail this rambling nonsense and slip into some hotpants. Mustn't keep the undead waiting.

Dead Rising is due out in Europe on September 8th. Look out for our full review in the next few days. Hopefully he'll bother to plan that one before typing.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (99) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • Sud0g #1 6 years ago

    I Heart Dead Rising!

  • smelly #2 6 years ago

    This DOES look good... More games like this, and i'll be tempted by the 360.

  • TwistidChimp #3 6 years ago

    Yeeeeeesssss

    Dangerously close to a 360 Killer App it would seem. Cant wait

  • jmctavish #4 6 years ago

    Why do the staff on this site need to fill their first 3-4 paragraphs with utter bollocks?

  • urban #5 6 years ago

    :D

  • Carpathian #6 6 years ago

    I've played the demo so many times now - there IS a certain magic at some of the discoveries you make even in just that.

    Suddenly finding a shop you've run past before or choosing another item to swing at them. The urgency will be one thing but it's fun just because it's fun. Burning the face off a zombie with a red-hot frying pan does not get old quickly. Nor swinging a 9iron or a shopping trolley dash.

    Can't. Come. Quick. Enough.

  • special_move #7 6 years ago

    want this badly, roll on September....

  • glaeken #8 6 years ago

    Been looking forward to this but that save system sounds a bit annoying. Still maybe it works Ok in the type of game it is. Have to wait and see I guess.

  • Garibaldi #9 6 years ago

    So EG isn't doing the 'just review the U.S version' thing anymore? A bit confusing, hopefully you've decided to stick to reviewing Euro copies now though.

  • JetSetWilly #10 6 years ago

    EG don't seem to make much of the gimped save system or the fact that if you don't get to certain characters in time you're left with a dead game. The guys on the 1up.com podcast were absolutely apoplectic about these things. It's funny what you can overlook when you desperately want to like something.
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 13:42

  • JetSetWilly #11 6 years ago

    deathgibbon:

    Especially as you'll need to hit those story-missions, because if you don't, or if critical characters die, it's story-over. It's not game-over, because you can simply continue. But you can't save the day and uncover the mystery, and you can't simply return to a yellow pillar of mission-trigger and kick off again; you have to reload.

    So you can run about killing things but the entire point of the game is gone. Yet this is glossed over as if it somehow normal or acceptable.

  • Sud0g #12 6 years ago

    No...only with the main story. For example you can't let Brad die. But the other survivors can go to zombie hell on a one way ticket.

  • Doobie #13 6 years ago

    Can't wait for this game! Oblivion is the only other reason I got a 360 in the first place.

  • El_MUERkO #14 6 years ago

    was looking at football on sky sports hd1 on a KDL 46X2000 on sunday and the thought of dead rising on the same tv got me a littlemoist

  • Feanor #15 6 years ago

    Can you have a second save if you have a 360 memory card? So one on the hard drive and one on the memory card....

  • killyourtv #16 6 years ago

    hate the writing style of eurogamer, too much trying to be funny. need more mature editorial

  • spongebob #17 6 years ago

    This game looks great but why on earth do they have bonuses for cleavage shots? Thank you Capcom for trying your bestest to mature the video games scene. Geezz.

  • Aretak #18 6 years ago

    "hate the writing style of eurogamer, too much trying to be funny. need more mature editorial"

    So leave and find a gaming site that better suits your tastes. Do you really think anyone's going to miss you?

  • JetSetWilly #19 6 years ago

    Feanor:

    The guys on 1up.com explained something along those lines - I don't remember exactly. Listen to the latest 1upyours podcast - it's worth it just to hear them go mental about this.

  • Darkedge #20 6 years ago

    I WANT NOW!!!!
    SOD LOCALISATION> GIMME!
    bloody foriners screwing us getting it the same time as the us :(

  • kangarootoo #21 6 years ago

    @JetSetWilly

    But the article addressed both those specific points!? The writer just wan't as bothered by them as the writers over at 1up were.

    Why take one reviewers opinion as gospel truth and anothers as "wanting to like something"?

    You read two reviews, one is more negative about something, so you assume that one must correct? Thats just cynisism looking for a friend.

  • kangarootoo #22 6 years ago

    @killyourtv

    "hate the writing style of eurogamer, too much trying to be funny. need more mature editorial"

    ZZzzzzzzz

    I'm confused. Do you read newspapers and eat food you don't like as well?

  • Darkedge #23 6 years ago

    Jet Set Willy read the article again.. especially the bits when he talks about the save system:
    "Dead Rising is no quick-saver; it's no passworder or checkpointer. You save at bathrooms and the security room by lying down on a couch, and there is one save slot, quite deliberately. No more. When you die, you can either reload from the save, or save off your current stat-levels (skills, kills and costumes included), and start from the beginning again."
    for example.
    Did you even read it before knee jerk oh 1up is much better bollocks

  • Freek #24 6 years ago

    Yeah, they actaully say in the manual that you can buy a memory card or set up a second live player acount to get another save spot.
    Weird.
    Why implement a system you know is broken? This is 2006, save game mechanics have been done, it's not HDR lighting, this is basic game design 101.

    Any chance they'll fix it for the PAL release?
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 14:03

  • JetSetWilly #25 6 years ago

    You read two reviews, one is more negative about something, so you assume that one must correct? Thats just cynisism looking for a friend.

    Actually, no. What struck me was that 1up went so crazy about how fucked-up it was that for EG to do nothing more than nod to it as it passed it on the street stuck out like a sore thumb.

    Tom says:

    I have a buzz that I've not had about a game in a while and nobody to tell.

    So I thought: maybe he wanted to like it so much he was happy to overlook it. Would it be glossed over so lightly in a game that was gunning for 5/10?



  • JetSetWilly #26 6 years ago

    Darkedge:

    Yes, I did read the whole article.

    I'm not passing judgement on which site is better. Imagine this different secnario, I listen to the 1up.com podcast, they remark that the save system is a tad awkward. I read the EG review and they make no fuss about it. I think no-more of it.

    But as I've said, the two impressions were so far apart I wondered why that should be.
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 14:09

  • gamingdave #27 6 years ago

    Well it sounds as if the save method just meens you have to play it through more than once to see everything. Loved the demo, and got it on preorder. I have a slight worry it will get repetative like State of Emergancy, but ive got my fingers crossed.

  • PlugMonkey #28 6 years ago

    "So you can run about killing things but the entire point of the game is gone."

    So what exactly is the entire point of the game, if not running around killing things? Maybe there's more to life than just 'beating' the game and moving on?

    I'm quite intrigued by these constraints myself. I'm looking forward to playing (and replaying) a game that apparently has a life of its own rather than just revolving around me.

    Take Oblivion, for example. The way that I can say "i'm not quite ready yet" and then leave someone waiting outside a door for me for three weeks while I wander off doing sidequests. It's all very convenient, but it doesn't really help my immersion into the world much. Or make me feel much trepidation at the dark forces set against me, as ultimately they won't lift a finger until I say it's time.

  • JetSetWilly #29 6 years ago

    So what exactly is the entire point of the game, if not running around killing things? Maybe there's more to life than just 'beating' the game and moving on?

    Would it be OK if Metroid did the same? You can't progress the game but you can run about shooting stuff. Or start again.

  • mankell #30 6 years ago

    The demo did nothing for me. If this is a killer app then I've got the wrong system. How depressing :(

  • gamingdave #31 6 years ago

    You CAN progress in the game ...

    "When you die, you can either reload from the save, or save off your current stat-levels (skills, kills and costumes included), and start from the beginning again."

    so you can start again OR go back and continue from the save point.

  • JetSetWilly #32 6 years ago

    gamingdave:

    Does that mean the save points are structured such that I can't save the game at a point from which I could never recover and progress the game? Because if so, that ain't quite so bad. But if not, I'm still left with a dead game.

  • gamingdave #33 6 years ago

    From what I understand, if you go back to the save point its exactly as it was when you saved. Just like a save should work really. Its only if you fail to do any of the compulsory missions that its game over, but you can continue from there if you really wanted.

  • repairmanjack #34 6 years ago

    Over the last couple of weeks I've become really excited about this.

    I predict a 7/10... marked down because of the lack of online play. :) Lots of complaints in US forums about the "unfair" save system though.

  • p_p #35 6 years ago

    It's been interesting following the game's response on Something Awful and Gaming Age. People who initially dismissed the frustrating save system as a minor fault are now gnashing their teeth everytime they save the game with not enough time to reach the next critical checkpoint. Restart the game! The mission are apparently just like those of GTA - there's a couple of good ones every now and then, but you'll want to kill yourself every time the broken AI causes survivors to take on a hundred zombies with their fists. Reload the game!

    The game doesn't feature an untimed skirmish mode, which is extremely odd. You can unlock "Survivor mode", but your health constantly depletes, so you have to base the whole game around finding food, instead of just focusing on killing zombies.

    The game is almost unplayable on SDTVs because the text is impossible to read at lower resolutions.

    You can't create barricades within the mall, because the game doesn't save the status of an area when it hits a load screen.

    There are many other small niggles as well. Now, I haven't played the game, but people who have generally agree that the game isn't quite worthy of a 9/10.

    Still, it's a classic to every 20-40 year old male who grew up watching Dawn Of The Dead.

  • kangarootoo #36 6 years ago

    @JetSetWilly

    Well it could be that 1up or over reacting in the same way you are suggesting that Eg are under reacting. I don't know either way, but with only two reviews to go on and no actual playing of the game ourselves I don't see how we can judge between the two (which was what your original post implied, to my eyes anyway).

    Point taken though.

  • gaijin #37 6 years ago

    gaming dave - so if you cock up and (say) kill a key character you *could* backtrack to one of the fixed locations where you can save, then save, then kick yourself for screwing the narrative up - but actually you'd probably go "oops" and backtrack to the last save where the character is still alive?

    If that's the case, and it doesn't do naughties like autosaving you when you leave a location, I can't see too much of an issue. And it *would* feel better than the Oblivion "Captain Burd has just had nine shades of hell knocked out of him by a dremora but has only fallen unconscious as we need him later in the game, in a moment he'll be on his feet and fighting at full strength again" approach...

  • Stoatboy #38 6 years ago


    My fave review of this so far is this one liner from Something Awful:

    "When there's no room in the save system, the braindead shall flood the internet and complain about a brilliant game. 9/10"

  • kangarootoo #39 6 years ago

    For the record, I think the save system sounds awful and I have a personal bugbear type issue with designers using the save system as a game mechanic (IMO the save system is there so I can piss off and do something else, continuing later from where I last stopped playing), but that is a whole different discussion and I would kill you all with rant-powered lasers if I opened the can.

    That said, its impact on gameplay in this case is for me still an unknown.

  • gaijin #40 6 years ago

    kangarootoo - fair point, but I think it depends on the context of the type of game - I wouldn't expect to be able to save at any point in Geometry Wars (ok silly comparison, but you see my point?). The implementation of the save here sounds like it's trying to push you into playing the game in a particular way - repeated short bursts of trying different things - which maybe brings it more in line with the kind of arcade heritage Capcom are comfortable with than would appear to suit the way that people are likely to approach this sort of game. But yes, we'll just have to wait and see. Personally I think it would be good for me to be forced into confronting game challenges head on rather than sneaking around for months building xp but that's just because I'm an inordinately cowardly gamer...

  • Wobble #41 6 years ago

    "This game looks great but why on earth do they have bonuses for cleavage shots? Thank you Capcom for trying your bestest to mature the video games scene. Geezz. "
    someone called spongebob complaining about (horny) adolescent gameplay features ftw \o/

  • Fatnick #42 6 years ago

    "
    I pay £50 for something, I expect it to be my bitch! I think people are starting to forget that this is supposed to be entertainment, not some ridiculous "proving ground" where we all test our nerdcock measurements against each other!"

    Yes. More games should be like Hitman and have difficulty levels which actually mean something. That way everyone's happy.

  • Cyclone #43 6 years ago

    At least with the 360 it's possible that Capcom might release a patch to correct some of these problems if people complaign long enough and loud enough.

  • groovychainsaw #44 6 years ago

    Sounds like the save system is there to build a genuine pressure to proceed in a game that could otherwise become a bit aimless. That sort of fear of having to start from the beginning (of what i believe isn't a long game, in pure missions) is something we haven't seen for a while, but could be used well. Maybe we've all become too comfortable in the well worn slippers of a nice autosave every 3 minutes?

  • gaijin #45 6 years ago

    indeed - you're right, it's supposed to be a leisure activity and one should enjoy it. But in the same way that sometimes it's nice to challenge yourself with a skydive that scares the shit out of you before hand but you feel great about after, rather than trotting down the high street for your regular Thursday afternoon back rub and pedicure, I think there's room for both. You pays yer money (admittedly) but you takes yer choice...

  • smelly #46 6 years ago

    >Dare i say it, Dead Rising looks like the first good X360 game

    After almost a year.. it's taken bloody long enuf!

    By time there are 5 or 6 more decent exclusives (what i force myself to wait for before buying a console) this'll be bargain basement stuff - great for me, bad for the gamescompany which wont get my money.

    ho hum. I'll trek over to my mates house tonight to have a play to see if the demo really is as good as people (and consolevania in particular) make out.

  • skuzzbag #47 6 years ago

    @ furby

    erm - why not just buy a 360 now?
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 15:07

  • morriss #48 6 years ago

    Sounds like a 10/10 is in the offing.

  • Stickman #49 6 years ago

    Christ! That was one rambling, disjointed article! Still sounds good though, can't wait.

  • ccfb #50 6 years ago

    Couldn't you run a couple of xbox360 profiles with a save each to get around the system?

  • finian #51 6 years ago

    I like the idea of a single save. If you feckup you dont get to wriggle out of it you just gotta do better next time

  • octo #52 6 years ago

    After the demo this went straight on pre-order. It's fun in ways that other games just aren't. And unbelievably, it actually nails that campy dawn of the dead tone right down to the way the zombies are sort of non-threatening. You can run past them without killing any if you want to.

    Of course that's no fun though.

  • Stickman #53 6 years ago

    I don't see why everyone's getting so mardy about the save system. If you fuck it up, start again! You've just paid £40-£50 for the thing, why the mad rush to finish it? I bet you all wolf your Mars bars down too you freaks!

  • Stoatboy #54 6 years ago

    I think one of the main problems with Dead Rising is that people want it to be what they want it to be, not what it actually is.

    I was studiously ignoring this when I first heard about it, assuming it was another in the long line of survival horror slog-fests that I grew bored of that back with Res Evil 2. When I found out about the short game format it piqued my interest though - something kinda new for once. Then I played the demo and it became a must-buy.

    So it sounds like the system ain't perfect - at least it's doing something different and fresh, and I for one can put up with a few problems if it means I get to play something that isn't another 20 odd-hours in a straight line from Act 1 to the credits rolling.

  • towser #55 6 years ago

    "I pay £50 for something, I expect it to be my bitch! I think people are starting to forget that this is supposed to be entertainment, not some ridiculous "proving ground" where we all test our nerdcock measurements against each other!"

    anyone who spends £50 on a 360 game needs a slap. get it from play or amazon and save a tenner!

    Get all mine online. honest.
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 15:28

  • p_p #56 6 years ago

    At least with the 360 it's possible that Capcom might release a patch to correct some of these problems if people complaign long enough and loud enough.:

    Have you heard of Steel Battalion: Line Of Contact? It's a completely broken online mech game. Capcom's official word is (okay, I'm paraphrasing): "THANKS FOR THE MONEY, SUCKERS."

  • gaijin #57 6 years ago

    manic - ideally, in the future when we have flying cars and computer chips in our heads, every game should be an open environment where the user can choose how they want to interact with it and the level of challenge they want to set themselves (to what extent that could actually be called a game is moot?). I take your point about wanting a more relaxing experience sometimes, but surely in this pre-flying-car-age we do that by choosing which game to play, something hard or easy, slow or fast. Should every game offer both? I mean ideally it would be nice if it did, clearly. But you don't choose to play BF2, and then complain that you wanted to negotiate an agreement enforceable through trade sanctions but the game forced you to run around with an AK popping caps in people...you choose to play... well, I can't think of a sanction-negotiating game, but you get my drift?

  • psychokitten #58 6 years ago

    "Still, it's a classic to every 20-40 year old male who grew up watching Dawn Of The Dead."

    Sod that, plenty of us womenfolk grew up with it too. It's in my top 5 favourite movies, one more reason I'm looking forward to this game so much.

    And damn you Eurogamer for making me want it even more. It's not going to be for everyone, but what is, and some people won't be able to get over the whole save-system thing. But personally, I'm giddy in my pants with anticipation for this game.

  • Vex #59 6 years ago

    I have to say I am one hundred percent with ManicMinerUK and the others on this one. The save game system should not be a gameplay mechanic but something to help me play and enjoy the game when I want.

    I don't have that much time to spend on games anymore, I have to take my gaming fix in short rounds where I can it, and suffice to say I don't want to have to repeat myself over and over again for failing. If I want to play the game quick saving every 15 seconds, then surely that is my own decision. An argument to this says I am ruining the game, well if that is so, I am doing it to myself. If I enjoy playing the game that way, surely one of the core purpose of any game (to entertain) has been achieved.

    For me, it can be summarised down to this. Do you punish the gamer for failure or reward for success. If the aim is to enjoy the game, surely the rewarding option is far better. If the gamer does well, they are usually rewarded with new things to do and to mess around with. This is fairly standard. So why do we punish the gamer by making them replay large sections of the game if they do badly? Surely it is fine to say they just don't get the reward? Making challenge by frustration only serves to make me frustrated.

    This might of course be an oversimplistic view, and it is certainly my longest Eurogamer rant, so I'm off to get tea!

  • penhalion #60 6 years ago

    Having played this quite long. I can definitely say that the save feature isn't that bad. You can just ignore it and go Psycho hunting or rescue crazy (suprising how many you can cram into a closet).

    Love the sandbox and there are plenty of hidden secrets to find if you look hard enough.

  • kangarootoo #61 6 years ago

    I'm kind of with manic on this one. But let me expand a little on what I mean.

    First off, the save system (as far as I'm concerned) is there to record progress. Its not there to act as a gameplay mechanic (or "provide tension" as so many seem keen on saying). Take the example of checkpoints. They should be placed to make my life as a gamer easier, i.e. I don't have to remember to save the game myself because the checkpoints are placed in the same spots where I am likely to want to save. Badly placed checkpoints are just that, they don't increase tension or fun because REPETITION IS NOT FUN (I said I would end up ranting).

    Secondly, everything in a agme is about fun. Its at the top of the pyramid (the mad design pyramid that lives in my head). Everything else is below it. If a game gets harder it should be because increased challenge = fun. If increased challenge != fun then something is broken, becauyse without an increase (or at least the maintenance thereof) of fun challenge has no value of its own. The player pays to have fun, they don't pay to be challenged (unless that = fun).


    In this particular case, having not played the game myself (so sort ofguessing a bit), it sounds like the save mechanic MAY have been build the way it has to try and pish the player experience in a certain direction. When it comes to steering players using save mechanics, I can't remember the last time I actually saw this work. I can list many instances where it has totally failed (making me wonder whether any testing was involved). In this instance, damage sounds reasonably minimal (its no Splinter Cell 1 or Hitman 1 by the sounds of it) but that doesn't make it a good idea.

    Blah blah. Ran out of stuff to say, risk of repeating myself (which != fun). So I'll stop.

  • kangarootoo #62 6 years ago

    @Vex

    "For me, it can be summarised down to this. Do you punish the gamer for failure or reward for success. If the aim is to enjoy the game, surely the rewarding option is far better."

    Spot on! I wince everytime I read the words "if X then we should punish the player by Y" in a doc. The player is the customer, they are not the enemy.

    Which brings me neatly to a URL, one that some will have already seen. Its pretty long winded, but maybe someone out there will find it interesting enough to read through.

    [link url=http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-b ook/Coverpage.html
    ]http://ww w.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody...[/link]

  • reality_cheque #63 6 years ago

    This game looks great but why on earth do they have bonuses for cleavage shots? Thank you Capcom for trying your bestest to mature the video games scene. Geezz.
    Or in fact thank you capcom for making the game as realistic in this regard as possible.

    Boobs sell newspapers + being a newpaper photo journalist = photos of boobs

  • jiveguy #64 6 years ago

    Maybe I'm missing something about the way game saves work in dead rising but it all seems perfectly normal to me.

    The way I understand it is that you go to the save spot, save game, continue playing. If you die or fail to complete/miss a vital story mission you go back to reload your savegame or continue playing but with no story. Now, in the past the continue playing option was never really there. If you failed a mission the game FORCED you to restart or reload. The only difference I see here is that the world just keeps going if you fail the vital story mission rather than fading to black or sending you back to your hideout/last save point.

  • JetSetWilly #65 6 years ago

    jiveguy:

    You may have missed in some of the other comments that it is possible to save the game at a point from which you cannot recover and will never be able to reach a critical story element. You are then left with a dead game.

  • Sud0g #66 6 years ago

    You say its a dead game but if you continue for the remaining time you supposedly get a game ending.

  • spongebob #67 6 years ago

    reality_cheque:
    What? Realism? Heh. Surely if something like this would happen (4real) most of the photojournos would NOT be interested in shooting boobs (of corpses), but getting some really good shots you could sell to Reuters (or just Photoshop them).

    I bet in your reality photojournalists shoot boobs in Afghanistan and try score up skirt shots when WTC crumbles down. Cheerio!

    At the very least they should give you points for shooting men's crotches or buttocks. I demand equal rights to men and women! And men who like men.
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 16:27

  • Fatnick #68 6 years ago

    "I bet in your reality photojournalists shoot boobs in Afghanistan and try score up skirt shots when WTC crumbles down. Cheerio! "

    I would :D

  • glaeken #69 6 years ago

    I think we really have to wait and see how bad this save system is. I hear you keep your experiance points on each restart which implies you are meant to restart it but then again if you have to repeat the same story missions you already completed first time through then that is going to get dull.

    Maybe if you keep your experiance pioints and don't have to repeat story missions you have already completed succesfully this will not be that big an issue. Have to wait for the full review to judge I would guess.

  • Stoatboy #70 6 years ago

    Re: "You are then left with a dead game."

    No you're not. You're left with a sandbox world full of zombies, countless ways of killing them, side-quests, opportunities for character development (that carries over into successive games), achievements to unlock, and a silly number of other ways of amusing yourself until the 3 days are up (which is a few hours tops).

    After that you play it again, and try to do it properly this time, or maybe try a different goal, or just put on a clown suit and see how many zombies you can kill with a spade.

  • Polymath #71 6 years ago

    It's been a long time since I've commented on this site, but... I think it's completely legitimate for the designers to implement this kind of save process. Games are designed for fun... but the themes and motifs of game mechanics are hardly something set in stone. Board games vary greatly in how technical they are... and some are downright frustrating. But the design, for better or worse, are created with some intent in mind.

    If one feels that the save system is too frustrating, it's reasonable to avoid the game. To say that it is broken is probably an overstatement. It's an attempt to achieve an effect. You may disagree... and that's your right.

    Personally, I like the fact that Capcom is doing something different, and trying to make the experience more cinematic ... you can't rewind a movie, it flows forward only. Like many of you, the time I get to spend in games is fast approaching zero... nevertheless, it still pleases me to see novel approaches to gameplay experience, even if I never get to plumb its depths.

  • Yossarian #72 6 years ago

    I like hard games, and look forward to wrestling with an unruly save system

  • Micro_Explosion #73 6 years ago

    From the very end of the article "Dead Rising is due out in Europe on September 8th. Look out for our full review in the next few days. Hopefully he'll bother to plan that one before typing."

    LOL
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 19:37

  • JetSetWilly #74 6 years ago

    Owen-B:

    Yeah, I'm sure you're right and that's a fair point to make. As I said, I just thought the disparity between Tom's comments and 1up's was huge. Add to that Tom talking of the "buzz" he felt for the game and wanting to "hug Capcom", I thought maybe he wanted to like this game so much that a save system I would expect him to have panned on a 5/10 game gets an easier ride.

    I look forward to the real review.

  • cardboardMonster #75 6 years ago

    Sounds great. I like that it's trying something different, albeit controversial, with the design - vaguely reminiscent of Hideo Kojima's worrying ramblings about creating a game you could only play once.

    I'm sure this will alienate and frustrate a large portion of gamers hungry for more typical fare, but I think the satisfaction of pwning the game will be all the sweeter within such restricted confines. The demo gameplay mechanics are immensely satisfying and if the mission structure can at least equal them we could have a cult classic on our hands.

    edit: Polymath, I entirely agree.
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 22:11

  • chronom4n #76 6 years ago

    look at the titis on her!!!!

  • skuzzbag #77 6 years ago

    When my non-game playing mates visit and they want to know what is so good about the 360, Dead Rising is what I plan to stick on to show them.

    I'll defy any of them to not enjoy being in a zombie movie :-)
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 22:52

  • alpha-0ne #78 6 years ago

    Everyone on my friends list that has it gets frustrated by the save system but they cant keep away from the game

    Its obviously been design to play through many times as you keep all the kills, level ups you have got

    There are so many hidden features in this game though..

    just take the juicer machine add some orange juice and pie and get an invincibility drink..there are many many combinations

    pick up a book from the book store on DIY and any tools now last three times longer before they break etc etc theres a load of books that boost your ability in various areas..

    after seeing some of the first 10 minutes videos on xboxyde.com the real time cut scenes look great aswell
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 23:00

  • Bezzy #79 6 years ago

    Hey Kanga! You might like this:

    Before I go on, I should say that I've not played this game, but I'm picking up the vibe from this thread.

    As an experiment, I once played through Deus Ex without saving, and without loading - that is, I'd only save when i finished my session. Every choice I made was permanent. There was no chance to "experiment". If I died, that was it. Game Over - forever. I'd leave the game and never come back to it.

    Deus Ex famously has 3 endings (4 if you count the Crazy Disco one). This was a 4th/5th ending: JC dies. Bob Hope goes on to rule the universe.

    Now, this definately impacted how I played the game. I played it incredibly safe. I didn't tempt fate with any little crazy tactics. I treated JC's mortality with as much respect as my own. I ran from fights. I always tried to find the peaceful way around conflict. I actually played pretty boring in a lot of cases. However, the feelings I had for the game, and my own choices were much stronger than they would be if I just blew up a room full of people, turned around, and said "nah, I can do that much more efficiently" and re-loaded, packing heat only available from hindsight.

    I see that Dead Rising (if I'm understanding it right... no quick saves? No going back on choices?) is trying to do that, too (although not having any contingency for mission critical people dying is fucking retarded). Unfortunately, they're missing a big point.

    I CHOSE to role-play through Deus Ex as a non saver. I was not forced to. And I only chose to do it after having played through the game a few times - after being familiar with its mechanics. To a certain degree, that's made possible in DR by having a limited environment to explore, and a pretty limited play time - it's designed to be played over and over, sandbox style, where each 72 hour play through is a new, personalized story. They probably don't WANT you to feel like you have to play through once, and play through perfectly, but that seems to be how so many games have taught players to play in the past that that's the assumption most players work with.

    I think the big problem is that it's NOT a choice (and that's the problem with any fucked save system). If I WANTED to never save, I would CHOOSE to. If I want to challenge myself to do a huge section in one go, then I'd CHOOSE to. I'm the player. Let me build my own experience. Don't force one on me.

    Now I realize that I'm repeating ManiacMinerUK. But that's alright. He's cool.

  • Bezzy #80 6 years ago

    But Kanga, as far as "fun" being the top of the pyramid... ehn. I think that games can have a wider range than "fun" (and also, the whole "fun is a pretty subjective thing" arguement that you've probably heard before). (I actually suspect you're simplifying your arguement, cos I've seen you around. You're a smart cat.)

    As Ernest Adams (who I don't normally agree with) said recently:

    "And before yet another idiot pipes up with Standard Asinine Comment #1 (“but FUN is the only thing that matters!”), let me just say: No, it's not. Shut up and grow up. Our overemphasis on fun—kiddie-style, wheeee-type fun—is part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place. To merely be fun is to be unimportant, irrelevant, and therefore vulnerable."

    But yeah, I think that's more of an attack on a particular kind of "lollercoaster fun". As well as that, we should also be aiming in other directions. We already do a bunch of creepy horror style "fun", but not much in the way of Schindler's List style "fun", if you'll pardon my phrasing - just the idea that there is more to life and art than hedonism and fear.

    Essentially, if every game has its own kind of fun, then it ought to be an artistic mandate to explore the entire spectrum of fun.
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/06 @ 23:28

  • Krun #81 6 years ago

    The game demo is pure bubble wrap. POP zombie dead. Pop pop pop.....

    Just like bubble wrap you think why do I like this, POP hey I just burst another zombie hahahaha.

  • Eighthours #82 6 years ago

    Hey, Tom - great preview. Really enjoyed reading it, which is more than I can say for 99% of other videogames writing. Kudos.

  • Official Capcom Guy #83 6 years ago

    It's supposed to be difficult to save. if you could quicksave before any boss battle or before trying to cross any zombie-infested area, the game would lose a lot of its tension. This way, you are forced to make a choice - will I try to go through this crowd of zombies with limited health and possibly die, or will I play it safe, go back to the security room, and save?
    Can I make it to the nearest save point after completing this boss fight, with hardly any health left? Should I try for some health items first even though it's a longer journey?

    The save system adds a great deal to the game in my opinion.

    Those of you who think they can end up with a dead game, there are several points to bear in mind. Firstly, the game is designed for multiple playthroughs. If you cannot complete the main plot, you can either keep going and try to rescue as many people as you can or just mess around and explore the mall, or you can restart the game, keeping your current level, stats and skills.

  • kangarootoo #84 6 years ago

    @Bezzy

    "a smart cat"? Hehe, not sure about that, maybe I disguise myself well.

    You are quite right about me simplifying things, hence my reference to "the mad pyramid in my head". I simplify to help me make a point (which is a bit shifty I guess, guilty as chatged, same as most on here), especially when it comes to certain game aspects such as save systems.

    I suppose my definition of "fun" changes from game to game, maybe a better way of describing it would be to remember that the game is there to serve the player. Be that as some light hearted kiddy fun, or be it to take their thought path in a direction they've not been before, or even just to impress them with some really well written cutscenes, who knows.

    Using the exmaple of challenge again, I think it is a mistake to challenge the player on the basis of some kind of principal (as MMUK put it, "a proving ground";). Challenge is there purely to keep the player engaged when they start to get ebtter at the game. If challenged wasn't increased (in most cases, there are exceptions) the player would perhaps get bored as their skill increased.

    In that context, the challenge is there to serve "fun" (as definied unspecifically by me at my disgression ;) ). In other words, if the game gets less fun when it starts to get harder, something is broken.

    Anyway, I shall try not to post on here anymore, purely because I am soapboxing and going on a bit, and probably getting on people's tits by now :)

  • Skooch #85 6 years ago

    Thanks the lord for Official Capcom Guy before I was about to start ranting!!! :)

    The WHOLE point of this game is multiple playthroughs where you level up each time you learn something new which in turn makes it more likely you will get a good ending.

    Geez louise people, you are not meant to be able to do it all on your first attempt.

  • riz23 #86 6 years ago

    Are none of you interested in the fact that Tom's Mum is a Spartan? Frankly I find this fascinating..

  • kangarootoo #87 6 years ago

    @Official Capcom Guy

    I hope you aren't actually an official CapCom person, 'cos I've got issues with some of the basic principles you have raised in your post (and after I said I would shut my trap too).

    "if you could quicksave before any boss battle or before trying to cross any zombie-infested area, the game would lose a lot of its tension"

    Gaaahhh!! If that is true, the tension of your game needs fixing. Let me wheel out a staple example. The first AvP game. Save where you want (after the patch), still terrifying when playing as a marine against Aliens. Repetition is not the same thing as tension!

    "This way, you are forced to make a choice - will I try to go through this crowd of zombies with limited health and possibly die, or will I play it safe, go back to the security room, and save"

    That sounds like a poor choice to me. Most players will choose to save first, because repetition is not fun. If they don't choose to save, its likely to be because they can't be arsed to walk to the security room and back, rather than some conscious effort to heighten their own fear. Having to walk a long way in order to save isn't fun, its just mileage.


    For context, I love the demo to bits and will almost certainly buy the game. But lets see issues for what they are, admit if there are problems (and if people don't like what has been designed, thats a problem regardless of the designer's motives, end of story) and then examine their impact. Thats the way to improve ideas and make the sequels even more awesome.

  • Sud0g #88 6 years ago

    God I’m bored of this argument already.
    How about everyone waits until they have played the full version for themselves?

    Except OCG who obviously has been playing it for a while.

  • Riggers #89 6 years ago

    "This game looks great but why on earth do they have bonuses for cleavage shots?"

    Does kind of take the shine off the game a bit. :(

    But...zombies! Carnage! Lawnmowers! It might be worth buying a 360 for!

    On the saving issue...the 'Official Capcom Guy' says that the saving system is deliberate, because being able to save frequently would wreck the tension. I say that's BS. If a player *wants* to save every five minutes...why not let them? Instead of punishing players that don't enjoy repetition, long stretches without saving ("Sorry little Timmy, you'll get your dinner when I find the next save point...it might be a while";), how about instead rewarding those that save as little as possible, rewarding them with extra weapons/bonuses that you wouldn't get otherwise? Let them brag how they finished the game but only saved twice, so they got the Handwhisk of Death. That way you give the player the incentive to limit the number of saves they make, but without rendering the game utter toss if they want to save frequently for whatever reason.

  • Bezzy #90 6 years ago

    - "Mission critical" people getting whacked and the game going on is acceptable in a sandbox game that lasts a couple of hours tops (given that you can still progress your character in other ways). It wouldn't be OK in Deux Ex, of course, but this seems to be different.

    Sure. I'll go with that. I was under the impression that the game sorta "fades to black", or you can't "finish" properly (via the helicopter?). But since, if I'm hearing you right, the game goes on regardless, then I totally take back the "fucking retarded" remark :D

    So, am I getting this right: certain story arcs just don't continue when certain characters die?

    I think that if you go-along with the save-approach (i.e. do what I did with Deus Ex, and CHOOSE to act like there's no fall back) then you'll probably get more out of the experience. However, I still believe that the choice to save anywhere ought to be up to the player (and I've nothing against adding auto saves to that).

    Also, let's not kid ourselves, "choice" is not always a good thing for us puny, weak humans.

    True. Too much choice all at once can be intimidating.

    That's why few games have a big red "GOD MODE" or "IWIN" button onscreen at all times. (That would be choice alright - but it would be bad choice...)

    Well, that's kinda hyperbole, but I'll give it to you anyhow. See, I don't even feel like things like "God Mode" or "I win" SHOULDN'T be a choice. I mean , fair enough, don't build them into the core game, and make each conflict or puzzle side-steppable, or create one degenerate strategy. But in terms of catering to a vast range of player ability, you OWE it to the player to give them ways to both make their game easier AND harder.

    I mean, that's the thing. If people want the tension created by only having a save point 5 miles away from the next boss, THEN THEY'LL DO THAT BY THEMSELVES. A lot of other people will just get pissed off! In using a cheat to "beat" some difficulty spike", you're not saying "Har har, I AM TEH WIN!". You're saying "look, I accept that I can't get past this bit with my skill alone, but I would like to actually PROGRESS in this game that I paid money form. So sue me, I suck, but I want to see the rest of the game/story". I mean, really. There's not just one kind of player out there.

    SeriousSam had "Tourist" modes. And when iddqd becomes ubiquitous in the minds of players, what's the difference between a cheat code and a menu option? It's a basic requirement of useability, more than anything.

    Historically, there have also been really silly, unintentional reasons for crazy saving: it used to be memory restrictions. Then it was (in the case of FarCry) an attempt to increase the play-through time to meet a contractual requirement. That's why there was only auto saving, even though save-anywhere functionality was in place. They didn't choose limited saves to increase tension. It was there to ELONGATE YOUR PLAYING TIME. Ever wonder why that last level of FarCry looks like Doom2 on Nightmare, what with the cyberdemons running riot around some giant arena? Same reason. They pumped up the mobs to make sure that the game wasn't forgiving, just to meet their quota.

    As kangarootoo says, if your only way of creating tension is via the frustration of repetition, then something is horribly wrong. I'll take his AvP example and raise him a System Shock 2. I only played that thing in co-op, where you'd re-spawn from the closest gene-tube if you died. Still shat meself, even though I was effectively immortal.

  • coojam #91 6 years ago

    "If a player *wants* to save every five minutes...why not let them? Instead of punishing players that don't enjoy repetition, long stretches without saving ("Sorry little Timmy, you'll get your dinner when I find the next save point...it might be a while";), how about instead rewarding those that save as little as possible, rewarding them with extra weapons/bonuses that you wouldn't get otherwise? Let them brag how they finished the game but only saved twice, so they got the Handwhisk of Death. That way you give the player the incentive to limit the number of saves they make, but without rendering the game utter toss if they want to save frequently for whatever reason."

    Dude, you know there's a pause button, right?

  • Riggers #92 6 years ago

    "Dude, you know there's a pause button, right?"

    Yes - but who wants to leave their console on all night? Particularly given the alleged noise/overheating problems of the 360 - my original Xbox sounds pretty asthmatic, and would drive me nuts if I left it on at night. Plus pause still doesn't solve the problem of the gamer who beats little Timmy into a bloody pulp when they have to back track a couple of hours because of an unfortunate death combined with a lack of save points.

    Poor little Timmy. :(

  • Skooch #93 6 years ago

    Ok, this is how I see it.

    Firstly, as my previous post stated, this game is designed for multiple playthroughs, you are not meant to be able to unlock everything at once and get the "best" ending first time. Each time you play through you level up, learn new moves, learn your way around the mall etc. This development allows you to do missions quicker, faster and more efficiently. I don't see a big difference between this and many other games eg. Prey - you can only complete Cherokee difficulty setting after completing it on Normal first. i.e. a replay is required to get the most from the game.

    The save game mechanic means that if you fail a critical path mission then you either reload your one and only save and try again OR you carry on and maybe get a different ending. IF your last save doesn't allow you to complete the critical path mission then two choices: 1) restart game at beginning (you get to keep your stats) or 2) carry on regardless and likely encounter a different ending.

    I expect Capcom have designed the game this way to force players into choices - do I save him or her? Shall I do this mission or just I just mow down Zombies with a lawn mower? By not being able to complete it all first time you can make different choices on your next playthrough and enjoy a different game with different missions. Why is this all so bad? I think it's a little bit different and quite exciting.

  • Polymath #94 6 years ago

    "For context, I love the demo to bits and will almost certainly buy the game. But lets see issues for what they are, admit if there are problems (and if people don't like what has been designed, thats a problem regardless of the designer's motives, end of story) and then examine their impact. Thats the way to improve ideas and make the sequels even more awesome. "

    It's a choice in how the designers want you to experience a game... They are not beholden to you in that aesthetic choice. The consumer gets to rate that choice with whether or not you purchase the game. I personally like the mechanic. The game isn't long, and, as one gets better, a well played game looks quite slick. There are many classic games that have limited saves. You can't instant save in Chess against a human, for instance.

    But in fairness, giving a God mode where you got no achievements for... it's not an unreasonable request. Not one that I think needs to be included in every game... however, but not a crazy thought by any means...

  • kangarootoo #95 6 years ago

    @Skooch

    Yes, I'm back again, just can't keep my gob shut.

    "I expect Capcom have designed the game this way to force players into choices - do I save him or her? Shall I do this mission or just I just mow down Zombies with a lawn mower? By not being able to complete it all first time you can make different choices on your next playthrough and enjoy a different game with different missions. Why is this all so bad? I think it's a little bit different and quite exciting."

    But I'm not sure how all this is connected with the save system. Seems to me that all of the above could be accomplished with a more open system. In fact, finding yourself in a position where your current save will not allow you to complete the main quest is surely reducing the choices that the player has each time they play through (which we both agree are a valuable thing)?

    @Polymath

    "It's a choice in how the designers want you to experience a game... They are not beholden to you in that aesthetic choice"

    Its not a black and white situation. Its veering slightly toward being a semantic discussion, but in some ways the designer IS beholden to the player. The player doesn't design the game, but their opinion of it is crucial. The player is the customer and any designer that disregards their opinion is being unprofessional (I'm not saying that happened here at all, before things get blown out of all proportion).

    I've got all tetchy in the past on this site in response to devs saying "I just made the game I wanted to make, I don't care if anyone else likes it". If I had to respond to accusations that my work was poor and I gave a line like that in response I would expect to be on the path toward being fired.

    As I said, I think this is a great title. We hyper analyse one aspect of it and the end result seems absurdly negative.

    The principle of simply being concerned any time a player says "I don't like this", and importantly not responding with "you are wrong to think that" is a sound one I think.

    That principle is really what I was referring to. And I'm wary of discussing it in the context of this specific title as I feel pretty confident it has been adhered to in this case. I enjoy discussions about all this sort of thing, but they are attached to a thread about one specific game things can very much out of joint.

    Apologies to anyone who worked on this who thinks I am bagging on their work. It just happened that it triggered a wider discussion. I shall yet again try to shut my gob on the subject :)
    Edited by 1 at 16/08/06 @ 14:37

  • President_Weasel #96 6 years ago

    I cannot emphasise enough how strongly I think you should play the game before you comment on the save system.

  • tincanrocket #97 6 years ago

    I was initially concerned about the save system, but knowing that it only really effects the main storyline am actually very supportive of this approach. It makes sense to me, and means that the game can and will be played in a variety of different ways. The movie analogy and additional tension seem like good arguments for this.

    Likewise, I was also a little concerned about the sandbox mode and the fact that your health is constantly draining, but again this means it is more about survival, increased tension, and a race against time.

    Obviously, I have only played the demo thus far, so my opinion may change with the release of the full version, but at the moment I personally applaud Capcom for trying something new and different, for using the save system to add to the game as a whole, and for not following the cookie cutter game design that has become so prevalent in recent years. Naturally, this won't appeal to everyone, but, for me at least, the concept fits perfectly.

  • Bezzy #98 6 years ago

    - Yea, I used hyperbole to illustrate my point :p (obviously I'm not completely against choice either). My experience with unlimited saves in FPS, however, is that it leads to overly rationed ammo supply (they expect everyone to min-max encounters in a dull way), as well as a non-immersive experience with constant reloads.

    I know what you're saying, BUT, isn't that a bit like a self fulfilling prophecy? If you assume that players are going to fall back on quick saves, then you'll make ammo and health less copious, which ends up forcing people to save-crawl?

    I find that if a game's world is forgiving enough, I might breeze through long sections never feeling any need to save, which is a delight, because it means I can engage with the game qua game, rather than the meta-game of quick loading.

    But stuff like max payne and F.E.A.R. really forced save crawling upon me because they weren't up front about game world, and death came too suddenly to be able to run away.

    I mean, I think we've veered away from the issue of "should gamers be allowed to save anywhere", and moved into the realms of "games should not use quick saves as a crutch for poor/unforgiving gameplay".

  • skuzzbag #99 6 years ago

    Why does everyone have to post massive amounts of text? Some of us only have a short attention span you know.