-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Sony Bend: Story Is a Huge Part of Days Gone; Having Infected Instead of Zombies Is a Huge Differenc
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
A "Huge" difference hunh? Sure John........ Sure:
Still gonna play the fuck out of it though
My takeaway is that they have created a whole ecosystem and that's explained with them being living, infected beings rather than just the usual zombies.
In that way it reminds me of I Am Legend.
You don't think there's a huge difference between Walking Dead zombies and 28 Days infected? You realize that just because they both aggressively attack humans, that doesn't make them the sameA "Huge" difference hunh? Sure John........ Sure:
Still gonna play the fuck out of it though
Well now that's really interesting. Because i was not expecting Bend to put so much detail in to the world. ( since this is their first big game in a long while )
They're still zombies though, even if they changed their behavior a bit.
I dunno... the fact that's their thought process, and judging by what I've seen of the gameplay loop thus far, game is probably going to get too boring past the first hour or two.
I dunno... the fact that's their thought process, and judging by what I've seen of the gameplay loop thus far, game is probably going to get too boring past the first hour or two.
Am I stupid because from what I understand they are saying zombies and just explaining what kind of.
Why are people claiming that bend is denying them being zombies? Does it even matter tbh. They look unique, and interact with the world like we haven't seen before.
Why are people claiming that bend is denying them being zombies? Does it even matter tbh. They look unique, and interact with the world like we haven't seen before.
That's what he says is the huge difference: speed
No he doesn't. They state it's not just speed but goes into the fact they aren't just shambling around mindlessly like most zombies are depicted as doing but are more like animals that need to rest, find shelter and hunt. This is pretty straight to the point.
In that 28 Days Later were living infected that could starve to death, and Walking Dead are decaying undead husks. Like that entire quote explains the context.
Did you somehow miss this?
For all intents and purposes, they are "zombies", but there are key differences between standard zombies (the living dead, need to destroy the brain, etc) and what is presented here (living infected humans, can die like normal humans, need to feed & sleep to survive).
I personally don't see a "Huge" difference between running agile zombies and slower shambling zombies other than just that. Especially in terms of how he implied it. He made it seem like 28 days infected has never been done before, but it has....in 28 days, left 4 dead, world war z etc. Also both types of zombies have been already well established in many forms of media. So it's hard for me to believe that he's going to be able to do something different than that. Now I'd love to be proved wrong but I really don't see that happening.
Man, my thirst will be through the roof when TLOU2 comes out. Believe it or not, I enjoy the hell out of zombie games if done right. It's the low quality cashgrabs that have caused the fatigue.
Between this, RE2, and TLOU2, my fatigue is long gone.
It's literally been repeated like a dozen times already that speed - fast or slow zombies - wasn't the point of the comparison.
And they made a clear point about how it's not just about how fast they are. Why are people being so damn obtuse about this? It's not even a long or confusing OP.
I mean regardless of how they are presented it's only going to matter so much in gameplay. It's okay, you can like the zombies people. No skin off my back.
Considering it's an open world sandbox fairly hardcore survival game then it's going to tie directly into the gameplay quite a bit and should have a sizable impact.
So what if you follow them around and find out their daily routine?
They're still zombies and you will kill a mindless horde after mindless horde of them.
I've read the previews and watched all the gameplay demos out there. I understand what they're saying, but when I sit for a moment and think of how it would actually feel to play the game and engage with these things they described... still a variation of an open world zombie game and I doubt it'd entertain for long.
They're still zombies and you will kill a mindless horde after mindless horde of them.
I've read the previews and watched all the gameplay demos out there. I understand what they're saying, but when I sit for a moment and think of how it would actually feel to play the game and engage with these things they described... still a variation of an open world zombie game and I doubt it'd entertain for long.
Compared to other "zombies" probably not but it's okay if I don't believe the differentiation will matter much.
They aren't saying they're not zombies in that sense. It's a sandbox open world survival game. Making the freakers this dynamic and fleshed out translates to a deeper more nuanced gameplay experience as the enemies exist in the world and create all kinds of unexpected and interesting situations.
Did you actually have anything of note to discuss or just wanted to sounded cool?
What other open world zombie game exist besides Dead Rising and Dying Light? Where the zombies are an actual threat and not just fodder than you can easily wipe out with wacky weapons?
As for the infected, you're going to die if you try to take them on directly without proper weapon or gear, so avoiding them or distracting them will be your main tactics rather than combat. Also the horde is just one type of infected, there are other versions that act differently and have their own ecosystem relationships with other types that you can use to your advantage
It's okay but I'm pointing out that creating enemies with this kind of nuance in such an open game will greatly help to flesh out the experience. It's not just some arbitrary aspect.
I will never understand the zombie genre insecurity. Nobody is going to think lesser
if you just do zombies. If anything, the "they're not zombies, they're "infected"" thing is way more played out then just straight up zombies now a days.
What even is the typical zombie anymore? Even the classic Romero zombies started developing more intelligance in the later films.
if you just do zombies. If anything, the "they're not zombies, they're "infected"" thing is way more played out then just straight up zombies now a days.
What even is the typical zombie anymore? Even the classic Romero zombies started developing more intelligance in the later films.
Provided of course that these nuanced enemies actually have an impact on the gameplay. It's very easy to talk about how the cycles and needs of your enemies are going to be a big factor, but it's another to see that play out in meaningful ways in the game world.
I really hope this game is good, and I expect that it will be, but I do see where the negativity comes from. Nothing they show or say about the game has that pop that really gets me excited. Saying you game is going to have a large story focus? Well, ok, a lot of people say that about their games and it often doesn't amount to much.
So not zombies but actually zombies because of how zombie fatigue has been a thing for a few years now.
Difference is that Day's Gone can walk out during the day
They're vampires.
Difference is that Day's Gone can walk out during the day
We have a translator working on the game on this very forum who has basically confirmed this aspect.
It's the same reason why basically all Westerns that release today are revisionist takes or twists on the genre.
And having infected instead of traditional zombies isn't "insecurity" anymore than a revenge thriller not just being a exploitation genre flick is "insecurity" about that genre
This game can take it's time. I'm glad the story isn't being overlooked, but Spider-Man is showing me just how exhausted of open world checklisting I am, regardless of how good the overall gameplay is.
I'm not sure I understand your point about the western film aspect. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do anything beyond the norm of zombies, but you also don't see said western directors going "no no no, thats not a cowboy or this isn't a western film".
If they feel compelled to specifiy that they're not zombies, now multiple times, its because they take issue with them being refered to zombies. There's no objective definition of what a zombie or infected are. So, to me, it comes off as them simply not wanting to have the freakers/infected be labeled as zombies.
I'm just saying I dont why Bend cares if people call them zombies. Its so vague as to what a zombie actually is now a days. I mean they even refered the infected from 28 days later as zombies because its largely interchangeable.
You dared to actually read more than just half of the OP? You don't seem like you're a good fit for this place. We're gonna have to let you go. You'll receive your severance package in the mail in approximately 5 business days.
The point of note that everything about Days Gone looks similar to other zombie games, the character/story bits that were shown look bland and the game doesn't really hype or excite unlike the other two zombie games I mentioned.
How in the world you got "sounded cool" out of it k have no idea.
We have had people talk how cool ME Andromeda story was going to be. What sounds exciting to one person may not be so exciting to others.
I'm not sure why you are being so obtuse. Saying "infected" instead of "zombies" immediately is saying they are more like rabid dogs than mindless wandering drones. It's a well known archetype within the zombie genre.
You might think that until you actually read what they're saying and realize it's not because they don't want to use "zombie". Or you could ignore the context and just assume it's because they have issue with the term.
"Infected" and the names of the different types here have context within the work and the behaviors of the enemies. Hence the usage. Same as "clickers", same as "Strigoi", same as "reapers", and so on. Narrative context matters if it actually informs the name
Again, I don't have a problem with the infected and zombie difference. Its just weird to see them bring this up multiple times now. Like you don't see people from Valve going on about how the infected from Left 4 Dead aren't zombies.
Because the "infected" in L4D is just a mindless horde that charges you. It doesn't matter what they are. It's a prime example of just using a different name for the sake of a different name
Them being infected rather than mindless undead here actually matters to the gameplay and ideally the narrative.