What games specifically? You keep mentioning other games so I'm curious
-
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.
State Of Decay 2 Still Feels Rough, Despite Some Promising Ideas
- Thread starter Deleted member 300
- Start date
Yeah, I've played it recently and I thought it was a bit aimless. But I actually liked it that way. I'm not even sure if there's proper progression. I've played it in spurts, going around and gathering resources, killing zombies, recruiting ppl. And that's all fun to me.
On the first game I've been with 3 more survivors and I've never needed 2 cars. I really think that is a limitation that "fits" the kind of game SoD is. The quest are really hard and risky, and your characters can permadie, you want have all your friends as near as posible.
I think people simply expected the coop being way different, like 2 or 3 people managing the same base and so, more like a semi MMO, that would need a lot of thinking and would have inherent problems of course. thay kind of multi was never the intention of the developers. I think they must consider adding that kind of multiplayer via DLC at some point.
Dying Light comes to mind as a large map zombie game with co-op.
Not sure why that's so important to you, but there it is. When I hear open world (or large world, whatever) plus co-op, I don't immediately think oh fuck yeah tethers.
Okay one game. That's all you got? Sounded like you had countless examples. Nope. One game.
This isn't dying light. It's a sequel to state of decay, which was a single player game. This is a single player game first. I'm sorry you don't like the tethering. Maybe play dying light instead?
I was fully expecting it to be as janky as the first game but that co-op sounds really shitty to boot alright :/
2 Dead Island games and at least 2 Dead Rising games also.
2 Dead Island games and at least 2 Dead Rising games also.
The co-op limitations could be due to host-client setup (vs dedicated servers). If resources for AI etc are only processed on the host, having other groups of zombies to keep track of might not work so well.
User Warned: Off-Site Sleuthing
Last edited by a moderator:
This is probably it. I know Ark uses tethers for that reason.
Other co-op games without a tether? Let's just name some co-op open world games without a tether:
Saint's Row 2+, GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, GTA V, 7 days to die, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Monster Hunter World, The Division, Destiny, Destiny 2, Dying Light. EDIT: Borderlands, Borderlands 2.
I think it might be harder to name games with a tether mechanic. Most open world co-op games don't have it.
Last edited:
Ok, I'll add Borderlands as one without such a tiny tether. Or Dead Rising, or Dead Island.
You're being ridiculous. I pulled the example off the top of my head, I didn't think you wanted me to list every co-op game with a large map that I've ever played.
I'm sorry you are so defensive about reasonable criticism of a game in the open world co-op genre. Maybe join another forum instead?
Being tethered to the host is just shit and i would not call it a feature. What if our car broke down and 2 of us are sent as scouts to find repairs?
Why can't we hit different ojectives at the same time?
Do you know for sure that Dying Light has as many systems running as State of Decay 2?
I can think of reasons for all of those th be different.
Saints Row 2 (and the rest of the games like it - gta and RDR) - Static spawns, limited spawns, potentially client trust, static game world
Havent played 7 days or ghost recon
MHW - Static spawns, limited spawns, and whole game world loaded into memory
The Division - dynamic events that have set spawns, static game world, maybe client trust?
Destiny 2 is client server, so no need to go into that
And so on.
Not making excuses for SoD2, but if there are dynamic spawns (which it looks like there are), the game world streams and is not static (meaning, things outside of the host could have changed but the host cant load whats out of already being loaded), I dunno, a ton of other things.
If it was MP from the get go I think they could have engineer it differently, but there you go
EDIT:
There ya go - looks like there is no "host" in gta, they probably all share data about whats going on with each other. Why cant this happen in SoT2? My guess is because changes to the world are permanent or that more data is needed when spawning and coordinating zombies that have to appear "intelligent"
Last edited:
User Warned: Console Wars
Satonya Nutella being stingy with his Azure servers. Mark Whitten and Albert Panello told me each Xbox One would have access to the power of 6 Xbox One CPUs in the cloud for free. What is going on here?
Trying to get my friends to play this game with me but they are already getting turned off by the negative previews. Same thing happened with Sea of Thieves. Pulling teeth to get them to even try it. This bad press DOES effect things.
I'm personally concerned about Crackdown 3 and it's server-side destruction. It was conceived when "Cloud Powered" was one of the foundations for Xbox One and they really seem to have got away from that. If I can't wreck a whole city with my friends, I'm going to be so frikin mad I may finallly buy a PS4. The horror.
And why not going all for the repairs, do you fear that a zombie steal your car? Jokes aside, I think yall are thinking about situations that won't be happening much in the real game. You want as many friends as you can near you on state of decay.
I can see that other kind of multiplayer, with a persistent world, where more than one player manages the base and pick quests and so, the thetering would be unthinkable. But in the coop that SoD2 is gonna have, for what it is, is the thetering is not gonna be a major issue.
we were expecting a good new co op experience.
Sea of thieves wasn't it, this doesn't look like it's gonna be it either. FarCry was a huge waste of time as well
There are good co op games that cost less
Didnt see the dev's post.
But, this game runs on UE4, why the hell would they be limited in such a way?
No it's not and I don't understand the relevance.
Last edited by a moderator:
The cloud destruction in CD3 is a separate PVP mode with it's own map. If you're expecting to destroy the city in campaign co-op, well I'd start shopping for that PS4 right now.
Sea of Thieves apparently uses the cloud to calculate the waves and keep all client waves in "sync". EDIT: if this is the case, I wonder if a lot of the multiplayer tests revolved around this and moving boats in between instances
People fundamentally don't understand the "cloud" in respect to gaming, I made a post that could potentially be illuminating: https://www.resetera.com/threads/clouds-–-do-enough-people-on-era-understand-them.39122/
All things considered, if this was an online only game I suspect it would be engineered considerably differently. EDIT: because you are spawning in to a game world with quests and objectives and shit that empart permenance, not just an MP only affair.
The the thethering is disapointing. Its annoying in Conan Exiles too. I think that's something they could definatly fix. Ghost Recon Wildlands has a huge world and doesn't seem to have the issue.
If they are doing to keep the group together to keep random from wondering off or griefing it should be a toggle in the menus then. I'll just be playing with family so I don't have to worry about a random not contributing.
The other complaint about not being directed what to do at all times isn't a issue for me. I enjoyed the exploration and risks from the first game. I think it would take away from the game if they told where to go for important items and progression.
As far a the Cloud discussion goes. I would prefer games not rely on it for core game features cause when they shut them down the game becomes usuless for future use. I'm not a bug fan of online requirement for games though. I think you should always have the option to play offline if you want.
I'm still looking forward to playing the game and I'm sure I'll have fun. That doesnt make thethering a invalid complaint.
If they are doing to keep the group together to keep random from wondering off or griefing it should be a toggle in the menus then. I'll just be playing with family so I don't have to worry about a random not contributing.
The other complaint about not being directed what to do at all times isn't a issue for me. I enjoyed the exploration and risks from the first game. I think it would take away from the game if they told where to go for important items and progression.
As far a the Cloud discussion goes. I would prefer games not rely on it for core game features cause when they shut them down the game becomes usuless for future use. I'm not a bug fan of online requirement for games though. I think you should always have the option to play offline if you want.
I'm still looking forward to playing the game and I'm sure I'll have fun. That doesnt make thethering a invalid complaint.
Last edited:
Show your friends the positive ones, for now there are more than negatives! Run before Forbes publish theirs!
Gameplay, unique experience, on the fly strategies and management aside; tethering makes it a no good?
What if the game is good regardless? I imagine if you were interested in the first game and liked it, tethering wouldn't be the straw to break the camels back.
I think people either don't understand how the co-op works, are trolls, or were wishing for something and are buthurt they didnt get it.
Or maybe we just thought we'd get the standard for co-op in an open world game.
Butthurt indeed
We should be allowed to do it however we want. You may want to stay within 450m of the host. Some others may not. It's really as simple as that. You want all players to be close to the host I want 2 teams hitting different points if we want. Both play styles should be accommodated.
I wouldn't normally post in these threads and just let things take their regular course.. But, it seems that the co-op is primarily just about being together and doing things together with the host in their game. Just that you can boost yourself and your resources for YOUR game. If that is how it is designed to be played, then why should it be given, that you can just say "fuck-you" to the host, and go it alone boosting yourself and resources without contributing to the hosts game? It could easily be possible to play a few days on other peoples games, then go back to yours massively stocked, without doing what you should have been doing.... Co-oping and helping the others in the co-op games that you joined.
Looking at it this way, I don't see a problem unless the tether is incredibly short.
Looking at it this way, I don't see a problem unless the tether is incredibly short.
I guess I'm lucky that I kept my expectations low with regards to how janky this game would be. Loved the first game, would've been nice if this was more polished, but eh, it'll probably still be great.
From all signs the game is virtually identical to the first one outside of co-op so you can go find out right now how it'll be if you haven't played 1 yet.
A lot of yelling about the co op when I'm sitting here like "5 years and a cleaner looking/better running 1st game is all you could do?" Between that and SoT launching with almost nothing in it after 4+ years I have to wonder what in the hell is going on over there at MS because it's certainly not a lack of time issue.
Those complaining want a fully open, unthethered group based, zombie survival game where we are in it together not just joining someone's game to lend a hand.
I can think of reasons for all of those th be different.
Saints Row 2 (and the rest of the games like it - gta and RDR) - Static spawns, limited spawns, potentially client trust, static game world
Havent played 7 days or ghost recon
MHW - Static spawns, limited spawns, and whole game world loaded into memory
The Division - dynamic events that have set spawns, static game world, maybe client trust?
Destiny 2 is client server, so no need to go into that
And so on.
Not making excuses for SoD2, but if there are dynamic spawns (which it looks like there are), the game world streams and is not static (meaning, things outside of the host could have changed but the host cant load whats out of already being loaded), I dunno, a ton of other things.
If it was MP from the get go I think they could have engineer it differently, but there you go
EDIT:
There ya go - looks like there is no "host" in gta, they probably all share data about whats going on with each other. Why cant this happen in SoT2? My guess is because changes to the world are permanent or that more data is needed when spawning and coordinating zombies that have to appear "intelligent"
None of those large map co-op games that I listed have a tethering mechanic, and I'm sure there are more examples, those are just the first games that I thought of.
The "reasons" you've listed why none of those games have a tethering mechanic are uneducated guesses at best. In any case, those guesses are not relevant to this discussion. Someone in this thread asked for examples of games that don't feature tethering, and I provided them.
For some reason, SoD 2 the developers went with a tethering mechanic. I'm not going to invent a reason why.
I thought we were actually having a discussion, but it appears I was mistaken.
Based on this obviously sound logic, can you imagine how bleak things must be for Monster Hunter World by now?
I didn't like the first game, but I like co op more than I disliked it (if that makes sense)
I didn't care about this one at all until like a month ago when I found out it had co op. Didn't really dig into it too much, just thought it would be a good co op thing.
Ghost Recon, to keep with my previous example, is a shitty single player game that I would never want to engage with, but co op makes up for it
I'm not writing this off entirely but I think the tethering is a big enough deal to at least pause. I dont like farcry 5 as a single player or as a co op game,, and the tethering kinda ruined the co op experience for us.
This, basically. I thought it would be the first game but with some shit fixed and a full co op system. Instead it's more like the far cry 5 "player 1 is the hero guy and you're here to be his friend" and that's not the experience I want from it.
It happens, not a big deal.
Maybe if it was 2 player coop, one could be hesitant on how the coop system would have functioned, but with 4 player coop, one would expect a fully fleshed out coop system.
As it was never promised to be like that, I don't see the need to keep going on about it.
Pretty much the whole eurogamer preview is about how similar it is to the first game. It matched all of my impressions when the IGN coverage started on this game. I remarked about how it reused a lot of animations both on humans and zombies, zombie types and even the area they were in looked so familiar I actually thought it was the area around the warehouse base in the 1st game at first. I think it's pretty clear by now that's how this game is going to be and there's not many surprises in store for us. So I want to know how did it supposedly take 5 years to do that?
like another user said, the coop in SoD2 is a way that you can have help from your friends on your game, and your friends can progress their characters and gain supplies for their base as a reward. In that context tethering is not a big problem. I think you simply expected other kind of coop multiplayer.
Tethering is not your main issue, the concept of the SoD's itself is what you don't like.
Much larger map, improved gameplay, expanded base building. The game is not virtually identical to the first one. This game being more of the first one, just better, is exactly what this game needed to be and what it was always going to be.
This distinction is so pedantic that it might as well not be brought up. An issue with their implementation of co-op is an issue with their implementation of co-op. Whether or not I'm mad about the mechanic itself or the philosophy that led to the implementation of the mechanic is not worth quibbling over because the end result is the same.
I think the complaints in this case are valid.
Microsoft as a platform with their services and hardware? Right now they're executing at an extremely high level and deserve praise for setting the bar. I give them an A.
Microsoft as a publisher? In other threads I've excused the delay on spending because I understand their strategy. Their execution with what tools they have has been woeful however. Going back through gaming history, you'll be hard pressed to find many slumps matching this. I'm hoping Booty and Gallagher are the answers. Most things under Loftis lately has been bad. These are the inches that determine success or failure.
Loftis and co need the Any Given Sunday speech.
State of Decay 2 has been in development exclusively for Xbox for 5 years. It's one of Microsoft's few published games in 2 years. The biggest evolution of the series to justify 5 years in development was co-op. Co-op currently works the way it would in a linear corridor shooter.
If this wasn't on the heels of the Crackdown unveil last year and recently disappointing Sea of Thieves release, I wouldn't make a big deal about this. The developers reduced the scope of what this game could be due to online technical limitations. This is Microsoft's wheelhouse. This isn't asking Microsoft to support a developer so that SOD2 has a good story and cinematics. This is online functionality. Under the same corporation that innovated matchmaking. We have another Indie that figured out how to allow 100 players to spread out along a huge map.
This is such a missed opportunity because I could imagine the types of Mixer feeds and ongoing streams you'd get with 4 players splitting up and doing creative things within the sandbox.
Hopefully Microsoft fixes this. There should be shit given until they step up and start meeting moderate expectations with their 1st party stuff.
Microsoft as a platform with their services and hardware? Right now they're executing at an extremely high level and deserve praise for setting the bar. I give them an A.
Microsoft as a publisher? In other threads I've excused the delay on spending because I understand their strategy. Their execution with what tools they have has been woeful however. Going back through gaming history, you'll be hard pressed to find many slumps matching this. I'm hoping Booty and Gallagher are the answers. Most things under Loftis lately has been bad. These are the inches that determine success or failure.
Loftis and co need the Any Given Sunday speech.
State of Decay 2 has been in development exclusively for Xbox for 5 years. It's one of Microsoft's few published games in 2 years. The biggest evolution of the series to justify 5 years in development was co-op. Co-op currently works the way it would in a linear corridor shooter.
If this wasn't on the heels of the Crackdown unveil last year and recently disappointing Sea of Thieves release, I wouldn't make a big deal about this. The developers reduced the scope of what this game could be due to online technical limitations. This is Microsoft's wheelhouse. This isn't asking Microsoft to support a developer so that SOD2 has a good story and cinematics. This is online functionality. Under the same corporation that innovated matchmaking. We have another Indie that figured out how to allow 100 players to spread out along a huge map.
This is such a missed opportunity because I could imagine the types of Mixer feeds and ongoing streams you'd get with 4 players splitting up and doing creative things within the sandbox.
Hopefully Microsoft fixes this. There should be shit given until they step up and start meeting moderate expectations with their 1st party stuff.
The worst thing about that attempt, was that the game was released on Steam too.