Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
But seeing now all the gameplay footage.....i'm happy that i kept myself to my principes. Somehow the game looks so.,...boring. Visually it looks nice. On the first glimpse. But that's it.
But the same goes for DL2 too. Visually on the 1st look it looks better than DL1. But actually way less effort has been put into it. Much more copy + paste buildings and only a brighter color pattern has been used.
It has a lot of loadscreens and content technically doesn't have much to offer if xp didn't have to grind you would play through mainstory in less than 10 hours.
Wow, must be very fun to play a game that way.
What is that "REVOLUTIONARY" in that gore system? What's in it you haven't seen already?
Serious question.
I'm gamer since the time humanity still used kasettes to store games on. And no offense but......nothing i haven't seen already.
Edit: And no i'm not a Dying Light fanboy. I think DL2 is a pretty crap game compared to it's AAA background. And especially compared to DL1. But calling Dead Island 2 gore system "revolutionary" feels like a very heavy dramatical overreaction and would love to hear an objective explanation to what the "revolutionary" stands for.