Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
mindless zombie action games
really ruined survival zombie genre
use stealth,
use hiding spots,
utilize stealth kills,
use bottles to make noise,
only use loud weapon when no other zombies are around
(to stealth kill of course)
ignoring all those mechanics, it'd be hard for sure
why would devs make all that and balance around like it's an action game?
the game is so easy for me, i don't even bother picking up any meds
cuz i never had to alert/fight zombies
(if i had to, kill one and dip out, come back later)
The game is balanced around weak weapons, you change it and the game play would be poor and uninteresting.
In gaming game play is everything.
I think this game will benefit a lot with a hardcore mode for people who are okay with not being superman and a casual mode for people who doesn't.
"Mindless zombie action games" (or everybody else generally following lowest common denominator trends) lead to opportunity. See the rise of From Soft: "Sorry, but some frustration, some effort and a feeling of reward is part of our game experience." Warhorse: "Sorry, but our game isn't chock full of dungeons&dragons." Or Larian: "Sorry, but turn-based is turn-based. If you want to press a button and then something awesome happens, play the thousands of our competitors. They're already there and may be increasingly battling over the same audiences."
It took a risk for each of those to oppose both market trends as well as feedback though. They all still believed that there was a big market for their type of games respectively. And they were eventually being rewarded for it. Kind of like the experience that Into The Dead: Our Darkest Days is aiming for, no? Risk... reward. To clarify: Tuning the game more towards a "mindless action zombie game" would miss out on that opportunity. And breaking weapons / genuine ressource management seems an integral part in avoiding such. Even when you're going out of your shelter, you don't visit like a huge open world you're gonna spend hours in. But oft smaller, self-contained locations, after all.
Unless I misunderstood your point, this game has nothing to do with a "market trend": it's a "free electron". At least that's the impression it gives me. Made for those who like zombie games, turn-based games, survival games, platform games, and all these things that it offers like its aesthetic and atmosphere. Therefore bringing fresh air to the genre and style.
We have broken gun parts, could do the same for melee. Maybe even keep the weapon if it breaks with the ability to repair from totally broke. Add a system to improve repairs and maybe strengthen weapons.
Everyone at "braindead tryhard's" who talks about "zombie survival" would like to remind you that PZ (which, even at the start, was much closer to zombie survival than this game could ever be) somehow managed without making all weapons "glass". And even without, Oh, such a "survival" cheat stealth with oneshot attacks and zombies that can't see you at a distance of 7 meters.
But for some reason, almost every "Mindless zombie action games" (like SoD 1\2) has a "so needed here" cheat stealth with oneshot attacks and zombies that can't see you at a distance of 7 meters.
I wonder why?
I can only wish the developers to listen to braindead tryhard's as much as possible.
This will have an incredibly positive effect on the quality of the game and will bring you a well-deserved "commercial success".