SoD2 is like an Ubisoft game with mostly all gameplay loop weaker, and still...

[Letterit]

SoD2 is like an Ubisoft game with mostly all gameplay loop weaker, and still it has various aspect working better.

Firstly I'll justify weaker gameplay loop when compared to games as Far Cry 3, Assassin Creed Odyssey, but more too:
- Stealth gameplay, Ubisoft does it better, deeper, more diversified.
- Shooting gameplay, Ubisoft does it better, deeper, more diversified.
- Close range combat gameplay, Ubisoft does it better, deeper, more diversified.
- Merge of Stealth and combats, Ubisoft does it better.
- Character building, Ubisoft did better mostly always.
- Wait x seconds to loot something despite it never has consequences but make lost RL time, Ubisoft never used such crap gameplay loop, or not in games I played.
- Parkour gameplay, Ubisoft does it better.
- Writing, Ubisoft did it often better.
- Followers, Ubisoft did it better.
- Crafting, Ubisoft did it sometimes smarter leading to deeper.
- Scouting mechanics, Ubisoft did it sometimes better, but you probably need care disable some hand holding options.
- There's more.

The only gameplay loop I see no Ubisoft game I played doing better are more related to the lite survival aspect of SoD2:
- Resources, collecting, producing, exchanges.
- Base building and management.
- Roster management.

And still, SoD2 is successful in being more convincing overall, at least if you close eyes on lack of polishing, considering it's no true AAA just AA.

In my opinion the reasons:
1. Better enemy world filling. You can argue the zombies thematic helps but the result is here. And it's a difficult aspect, only open game I remind to have done this better was ELEX 1, and not far was Far Cry 3.

2. Activities feel more normal and integrated to the global gameplay. That's a typical Ubisoft weakness with their open world, they can design rather good side activities, but they are often added very artificially in the global gameplay.

[The Elder Glock]

I don't see any reason to compare those two different games because developers had different ideas in mind. If you really want to compare indie zombie survival to action shooter made by triple A company try dying light vs far cry 3.

[Keeshi]

if I wanted to read a review, I would have looked for them.


thanks for nothin.

[Protectron]

SoD2's strengths are the simple systems, combat and gameplay that are easy to get into.

Its weaknesses are the lack of depth brought about by that very same accessibility. Everything is just simulation and stand-in for more real/realistic systems.

While I think that SoD3 should have less simulation, such as being able to set up your base wherever you want (at the cost of base building being more complicated and micromanagement than just a click of a button like it is now), it is important that they keep their identity of being simple and accessible as well. The option to build a home site from scratch should be an endgame one for experienced players, and there should still be key-ready home sites to choose from around the map.

[CrappyBark]

clown farm, give em to me instead

[Letterit]

Originally posted by The Elder Glock:

I don't see any reason to compare those two different games because developers had different ideas in mind. If you really want to compare indie zombie survival to action shooter made by triple A company try dying light vs far cry 3.

Dying Light is Multiplayer coop junk, bad single player, no interest to compare with single player games.

SoD2 is AA, when for sure Ubisoft series are more AAA, still there's many parallel there isn't with games as Dying Light.

Originally posted by Keeshi:

if I wanted to read a review, I would have looked for them.

That's not a review, just arguing on gameplay aspects.

Originally posted by Protectron:

SoD2's strengths are the simple systems, combat and gameplay that are easy to get into.

Its weaknesses are the lack of depth brought about by that very same accessibility. Everything is just simulation and stand-in for more real/realistic systems.

While I think that SoD3 should have less simulation, such as being able to set up your base wherever you want (at the cost of base building being more complicated and micromanagement than just a click of a button like it is now), it is important that they keep their identity of being simple and accessible as well. The option to build a home site from scratch should be an endgame one for experienced players, and there should still be key-ready home sites to choose from around the map.

A free home is deeply different, it would be very different and would end in one base, more or less always the same min maxed. I don't see game current approach weak at all, it's not a builder game. I suppose a side series could focus more on building, I'll skip, building games make me sleep.

I don't see either why gameplay loop need stick be simple as character building, which cant be RPG like because that would be too heavy for a roster and loosing some survivors along a play, but it could have some more depth.

Even combats and stealth could have more depth too.

Where it's probably hard to make much different without breaking the global gameplay, it's mini quests steps to keep some flexibility, even if how they are saved or not can certainly be changed.

Ok you have a very different point of view, for me parallel with some Ubisoft games was big, and Ubisoft should acknowledge importance to mix better activities to global gameplay, and to fill better the world at least with enemies, for NPC it's more complicate.

I would say that overall Hearltland shows a quite improved gameplay comapre to SoD2, but it cheats with shorter campaign, and by skipping start phases. It still achieves make a game not becoming easier as you progress in the play and more the reverse, unlike SoD2, at least for Normal difficulty.

[Protectron]

Originally posted by Letterit:

A free home is deeply different, it would be very different and would end in one base, more or less always the same min maxed. I don't see game current approach weak at all, it's not a builder game. I suppose a side series could focus more on building, I'll skip, building games make me sleep.

I don't see either why gameplay loop need stick be simple as character building, which cant be RPG like because that would be too heavy for a roster and loosing some survivors along a play, but it could have some more depth.

Even combats and stealth could have more depth too.

Yes, deeper gameplay systems are definitely needed, I agree with that one. My point, however, is that Undead Labs don't make such deep and complex systems in SoD3 that they end up being something like "Project Zomboid 3D".

I think the solution is to have more options. One feature that I strongly desire in SoD3 is that the bases have perimeters around them being patrolled by survivor NPCs. So you can either just let the game deal with those patrols automatically, or you can take control of it yourself and set the size, the patrol's aggression and the number of survivors on it (for instance). The point of those patrols is to replace the silly holes in the walls of the base that we have now in SoD2, with a more intuitive base defense.

Another feature that I and I guess many others would like for SoD3, is that the Enclaves actually do something with their base. So if you sell them Materials, they might build a fence or set up a garden to grow food. And if you sell them a gun, they might equip it. So you could then either just leave it up to them, or you may involve yourself actively and help them by getting stuff they need. This would then replace the "hey, have you forgotten what you promised to do for us?"-nagging when you ignore their randomly generated missions. (I never promised anything, chump).

[Letterit]

I agree that some systems too deep could break the global gameplay, typical is character building and attachment level, they can't be too deep/high/long and risk make lost a survivor too harsh.

Without becoming a building game, for sure more management options seems an interesting option.

For enclaves, they don't have bases yet, only a home. They could not have all a base, or the game would need more than car to manage quite wider areas. But perhaps allows some home defenses options.