Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tellemurius]

i didn't say i was into the action crap, i hide more often than battle. im saying you cannot base a zombie game using a turn based system relying on time units. survival games are usually real time to simulate senses without some stupid message popping or waiting to correct the error, Thief anyone?.

Looks like they just did, and honestly I think it's going to work out. Fallout is a clear inspiration for this and it's easily one of if not the greatest RPGs of all time. Fully turnbased in combat. X-com is another great example for terror and stealth working wonders in turn-based. I have no idea how you say they 'cannot' make this work.

Also the main enemies of the game it sounds like are not the zombies, but the other human survivors - the zombies are an ever present hungry threat but a human who wants your supplies is going to be far, far more dangerous.

so its a anarchic state not zombies. x-com had a idiotic ai system for stealth, basically the alien popped out of a place to snipe your agent down and will use reactive shot to nail your other agent responding to the sighting. ironically you pointed out the two games that were remade into fps. no i don't support what happened to them but companies these days are trying to appeal the new gen of players. they cannot appeal the old crowd because there is so few of us compared to all of the 10-13 year olds playing halo or MW. turn base is usually set for games in a grand scale with little action which those little monsters don't have the attention span for. ok throwing everything out i said, what survival game in a turn-based system reached out to many fans?

[Tilla]

i didn't say i was into the action crap, i hide more often than battle. im saying you cannot base a zombie game using a turn based system relying on time units. survival games are usually real time to simulate senses without some stupid message popping or waiting to correct the error, Thief anyone?.

Looks like they just did, and honestly I think it's going to work out. Fallout is a clear inspiration for this and it's easily one of if not the greatest RPGs of all time. Fully turnbased in combat. X-com is another great example for terror and stealth working wonders in turn-based. I have no idea how you say they 'cannot' make this work.

Also the main enemies of the game it sounds like are not the zombies, but the other human survivors - the zombies are an ever present hungry threat but a human who wants your supplies is going to be far, far more dangerous.

so its a anarchic state not zombies. x-com had a idiotic ai system for stealth, basically the alien popped out of a place to snipe your agent down and will use reactive shot to nail your other agent responding to the sighting. ironically you pointed out the two games that were remade into fps. no i don't support what happen to them but companies these days are trying to appeal the new gen of players.

And I am supporting the companies that appeal to me, IE Iron Tower and DoubleBear, who are still trying to make traditional turn-based RPGs.

[Azurestrike]

I'm curious as to why the troll was being fed and potentially will be consistently be fed in the near future.

On another note, I'm hoping a lot of things from the zombie survival guide can be applied to the game it'd be a nice touch if it could.

[Josephus]

I honestly cannot see what point you're trying to make, no offence. Also a shotgun is going to be a really bad idea since the zombie AI is based primarily on hunting by Sound and finding the first thing it sees. The chainsaw/shotgun fantasies will get you killed in a game like this. Go play Left 4 Dead if that's your style, this is planned as a survival game, not an action shoot-em-up

Actually, depending on the type of zombieverse, a shotgun would be a good weapon (also depending on whether or not shotguns are portrayed realistically, rather than as uberpowerful close range weapons with a wide cone of fire and tiny range, which is stupid).

But of course, since stopping power is key, shotgun = bad.

[cowofdoom78963]

Sounds interesting, but I dont like the idea of being attached to a "shelter"

[Tilla]

I honestly cannot see what point you're trying to make, no offence. Also a shotgun is going to be a really bad idea since the zombie AI is based primarily on hunting by Sound and finding the first thing it sees. The chainsaw/shotgun fantasies will get you killed in a game like this. Go play Left 4 Dead if that's your style, this is planned as a survival game, not an action shoot-em-up

Actually, depending on the type of zombieverse, a shotgun would be a good weapon (also depending on whether or not shotguns are portrayed realistically, rather than as uberpowerful close range weapons with a wide cone of fire and tiny range, which is stupid).

But of course, since stopping power is key, shotgun = bad.

It's mainly just the noise I'm thinking of. And this is why, on something based on a more serious zombieverse akin to WWZ/Survival Guide, melee should be very well planned out. Guns should be primarily for fixed defensive situations and as sidearms for when the shit hits the fan

[Josephus]

Yeah, the idea is not to kill Zombies, but to survive, hence why shooting at them is a bad idea considering how far the sound of a gunshot can carry.

[Tilla]

The interview actually goes into the sound elements quite a bit. Basically zombies will swarm to wherever sound is coming from the most, and there will be a sound meter on screen even for you. If you get into a gunfight with some drifters across the street and they're using something louder, it's more likely they'll get swarmed than you.

Of course that is if you're not directly in their path first Zombies will attack the nearest target at pretty much all times, and they will also start to moan louder to notify others of prey, bringing in even more from further off the map..

[C4lv1n]

It's too bad it's turn-based (At least for me), for horror and survival games I much prefer first person, just because it's more immersive and first person games are also what I'm best at.

But I still think that this will be good, I rpgs are my second favorite genre, and this is made by some of my favorite developers of rpgs.

[Hugna]

If someone had a way to completely modify the game to be real-time based.. it probably won't get me going much. I have bad experiences with turn-based games. If you don't have time to plan correctly, it ends in chaos. For example, how i keep restarting in that one turn-based game because of not only the near-realistic damage, but because it's turned based, it's tough as hell to prevent everyone from dying, but sometimes, i get lucky.

Hunger... infection... gyah, thats gonna ramp up the difficulty if i get random survivors coming to attack me. Now zombies being slow is what i like.

If this was like Fallout 3, or sort of like it, i'd have a much happier time with it. In fact, i wish you could setup a base of operations anywhere, than having to start in the same spot over and over.

And even i question the replayability aswell. I'm just hoping it's worth the money it'd be paid for. Look at Kane and Lynch 2, it was a very short game single-player-wise, and i never got to see Arcade yet... so i can't give my personal opinion on it fully, but this is single-player thats on topic, so yeah...

Edit: Arcade mode doesn't look very good. Just random money grabbing...

[Tilla]

I think a big part of the game as designed is that you can't keep everyone alive and happy, at least not easily. You cannot save everyone.

Also the planning of battles doesn't seem to be an enormous thing: you only directly control your PC, you can shout orders to the party members but based on their own AI traits they may give you the finger or fuck it up grandly Just like real life, really.

[kulik]

I honestly cannot see what point you're trying to make, no offence. Also a shotgun is going to be a really bad idea since the zombie AI is based primarily on hunting by Sound and finding the first thing it sees. The chainsaw/shotgun fantasies will get you killed in a game like this. Go play Left 4 Dead if that's your style, this is planned as a survival game, not an action shoot-em-up

Actually, depending on the type of zombieverse, a shotgun would be a good weapon (also depending on whether or not shotguns are portrayed realistically, rather than as uberpowerful close range weapons with a wide cone of fire and tiny range, which is stupid).

But of course, since stopping power is key, shotgun = bad.

As i know shotguns in zombie apocalypse are bad cause theirs big shells. The best combo is an assault rifle (preferably AK) against hostile survivors and silenced semiautomatic .22 rimfire rifle for disposing of the undead.

[HonkyPunch]

Personally I fail to see the issue with turn based tactical gameplay as long as it's well done. Silent Storm was pushing it with the ridiculously long turns but luckily there were cheats/mods to fix that, thereby making the game playable (Aside from the other issues). THOUGH I MAY BE BIASED from my childhood spent playing JRPGS and other such games. While I love a good shooter game, we have far too many saturating the market, and therefore I'm all for a more tactical game. Though that isn't to say that shooter games can't be tactical, it's just that very few of them really are.

[Lap]

Wow, this is pretty much the same idea with the same focuses as I suggested to whoever was asking what their next coding project should be (except he wanted killer robots instead of zombies). Looks like my dream game.

If someone had a way to completely modify the game to be real-time based.. it probably won't get me going much. I have bad experiences with turn-based games. If you don't have time to plan correctly, it ends in chaos. For example, how i keep restarting in that one turn-based game because of not only the near-realistic damage, but because it's turned based, it's tough as hell to prevent everyone from dying, but sometimes, i get lucky.

As seen in games like Fallout-Tactics, turning on realtime mode results in quite a boring game. You'd be better off going over the shoulder third person or FPS. However, having this game be a 3rd person turn based means it is far easier to have a huge setting and random locations. There's no way to get the level of detail you need for an FPS setting and have it look good and believable.

I know it's hard, but in games like X-Com, they are a lot more fun if you play missions expecting to lose a guy or two. A good game will be difficult enough that sooner or later you're going to have to. I think I might try to play this on 'hardcore mode' where I only save on quitting. That should add some replayability.

It should be a lot easier that you can't directly control your whole party. You won't need forever to plan and micro everything. Giving up control is a welcome change.

[HonkyPunch]

Wow, this is pretty much the same idea with the same focuses as I suggested to whoever was asking what their next coding project should be (except he wanted killer robots instead of zombies). Looks like my dream game.

If someone had a way to completely modify the game to be real-time based.. it probably won't get me going much. I have bad experiences with turn-based games. If you don't have time to plan correctly, it ends in chaos. For example, how i keep restarting in that one turn-based game because of not only the near-realistic damage, but because it's turned based, it's tough as hell to prevent everyone from dying, but sometimes, i get lucky.

As seen in games like Fallout-Tactics, turning on realtime mode results in quite a boring game. You'd be better off going over the shoulder third person or FPS. However, having this game be a 3rd person turn based means it is far easier to have a huge setting and random locations. There's no way to get the level of detail you need for an FPS setting and have it look good and believable.

I know it's hard, but in games like X-Com, they are a lot more fun if you play missions expecting to lose a guy or two. A good game will be difficult enough that sooner or later you're going to have to. I think I might try to play this on 'hardcore mode' where I only save on quitting. That should add some replayability.

It should be a lot easier that you can't directly control your whole party. You won't need forever to plan and micro everything. Giving up control is a welcome change.

I agree with you on the aspect of giving up some of the control as being a welcome change (for this game, at least) but there are times that I do prefer to have direct control of my characters. In this game, they justify it well enough for me to accept not having direct control. Other games that have taken control away from me have only served to irritate me. (FF13.. D:)