Not sure what did you mean "also fails" since SoT didn't fail?
-
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.
State Of Decay 2 Still Feels Rough, Despite Some Promising Ideas
- Thread starter Deleted member 300
- Start date
I'm a little sad that Microsoft will give up on making AA games. Almost all the games I'm anticipating this year are in that range (Vampyr, Biomutant), but people expect only big budgets AAA from Sony and Microsoft, or games that are clearly indie like Cuphead. I like AAA but if you have 100 millions and can make 3 AA or 1 AAA with that money, I prefer AA any time.
More of the same is absolutely fine for me with this game, that's all I ever wanted.
Shame that the co-op doesn't sound too good for those that really wanted it.
Shame that the co-op doesn't sound too good for those that really wanted it.
User banned (1 day): Console wars derailing
State of Decay 2 looks like an actual game, instead of a movie with interspersed QTE sections.
That could be the reason.
What? i did not see many Xbox fans hyping up this like crazy.
It's more like some people never played the first game, but suddenly show up this thread, act like they hyped this game for a long time, then reply something like "oh i'm not buy SOD2 anymore, MS messed up again" which is pretty funny for me.
I mean, there's new reply label it as "poor release" now lol.
Not today, tomorrow maybe.
LUCKILY!
When haven't been Xbox One games shitty?
People saying "it was never an AAA" etc...
http://prankster101.com/articles/in...-undead-labs-were-all-about-state-of-decay-2/
http://prankster101.com/articles/in...-undead-labs-were-all-about-state-of-decay-2/
So basically it's already dead? Since forums tell me everything MS puts out is bad.
These posts are getting a bit out of hand. They aren't disappointing for anyone who has followed these games. SoT has established a large audience and inspite of gamepass has shocked people with sales. Its a fun game that will grow and expand and has a clear roadmap.
SoD2 is a game by a small developer that was always intended to build upon and smarten up the first game, which was a very fun game, but a technical mess. The sequel was never going to be flawless or different in direction.
Some people on here and a few people in the media are trying to discuss these games against an entirely unfair backdrop, and are deliberately doing so. Neither SoT or SoD2 was ever pitched or leveraged as an answer to massive AAA productions like GoW. Anyone who claims they were is being highly disingenuous. The fact that both games are coming at a time when MS 1P has some definite holes is not the games nor the dev teams fault. Its fine to be critical of games, but to try and rewrite the context those games are delivered in to suit the current narrative is not ok and massively disrespectful to the teams involved.
The initial SoD found a large but niche audience on an Xbox platform that was healthier than the current one is. In the same way as some very ropey exclusive games on the PS4 have done ok that side too, because they have the numbers to achieve that. Expecting the sequel (which has massively increased in scope but not necessarily production) to be the answer to huge studios is really unfair and not in my view a healthy way to appraise the industry.
Lol. You know he was taking shots at another game. You know, the one that's exclusive to that other console.
I wonder why can't more games do it like Dying Light did years ago. Dying Light is almost perfect compared to other co-op games of this nature. In that game you just rushed one mission in the beginning in like 15-30 minutes and after that, bueno. All players get quest progression etc.
It is an AAA, and there's a lot of AAA with higher budgets than SoD2 that are great games, and still are super rough, for example almost any modern fallout. On AAA like on games of any size, gameplay and fun is what is more important. Anyway SoD2 fits on the mid budget AAA range, absolutely not an indie.
The game director has said specifically that his team prefer using their time and budget con add things and complexity to the gameplay, than making the game bugs free.
SoD was never meant to be a coop first experience.
People demanded coop for years. Now we got the most sensible approach possible with all the simulation going on in the world.
So, the trio of Super Lucky's Tale, ReCore and... I don't know, Rare Replay for example, are preferable to something like Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War?
Surely you'd prefer to play a game that you will likely remember fondly in ten years time than three games that you may forget about ten months down the line?
I also like to compare thing that are totally not comparable!
Also my opinion is always right so everyone thinks the same as me!
Yay high-five myself!
Yep, I would prefer the trio of Cuphead, Ori and a game as good as the first State of Decay better than The Order. A small game, or a medium size game can be as unforgetable as an AAA. You are cherry picking so hard that are trying to pass a remasters compilation for an AA game.
Yeah its full crossplay. There is no PVP so its a no brainer. :)
I should be good then.....I love crossplay co-op games.
Also if I cared about jank , I never would have bought elex. People know nothing about jank until they play Elex or a gothic game. I can guarantee this won't even be close to as bad
Elex is the best euro jank game I have ever played too lol
Of course State of Decay 2 is an AAA title. Just because there are graphical glitches in the preview version equals it with not being an AAA title? What strange kind of conclusion is that?
AAA doesn't mean that your game is a narrative story-driven singleplayer-only third-person action game with great graphics. That's what the majority here think it is. And there is zero relevance for that in regards to the definition of an AAA title.
In fact, AAA is only categorizing a project based on its budget. That's it. It means nothing more than the money spend on that whole thing. State of Decay 2 is a big project with a team of a little less than 100 full-time employees working on it for over 3 years. That's a shit ton of money you spend on your project especially compared to its low-budget predecessor.
Different publisher have a different definition of an AAA title. Ubisoft thinks they are pretty much the only ones doing regular AAA titles, Microsoft, Sumo Digital and more set that mark at a budget starting at $10 Mio. And no one is wrong.
I was going to add State of Decay 2 instead of Rare Replay, but it's apparently a triple AAA game according to the developer. I was using the handful of AA games on the Xbox One, so it's hardly cherry picking... unless you wish to help me out?
It was merely an observation/question, and you answered it. That's all I hoped for.
Gosh, I thought I was on a message board where we discuss opinions for a minute there!
In fact, for what I've seen in the gameplay videos, since the game is buggy, is nowhere near the first.
People have been hyping it up. With so few releases this generation people were expecting a lot from this game since it was supposed to be backed by MS. The same thing is true of Crackdown 3. People are expecting HUGE things from that game.
Then again, I would prefer Ori, Cuphead and Rare replay way better than The Order, Wouldn't you?
I think I prefer Recore alone better than the order too.
Quite frankly, I don't think the game being "co-op first" or not is much of a justification. They showed it being co-op prominently in its first E3 reveal, and a limitation like being tethered to your host isn't something many people are going to assume (I sure as hell didn't). Perhaps if they weren't so quiet about the specifics of the gameplay systems up until literally weeks away form released, there wouldn't have been so much misunderstanding and inaccurate expectations.
And the most sensible approach isn't to tether everyone to the host. The most sensible approach would be to spin up an Azure instance for your party in that way games like Forza Horizon do to avoid limiting the players to a small segment of a vast open world.
The examples being used in this argument are loaded in both directions... both of you are comparing games that are considered to be great against games that are considered mediocre regardless of their development budget.
Games aren't inherently better by being AAA, and neither are they inherently better by being AA. It's understandable to have a general preference for one or the other due to other factors (AA likely having more scope for experimentation, AAA being more of a spectacle), but if you're both just going to portray the other with the worst examples you can think of, then you're both wasting your time.
Last edited:
And I did it on purpose. I think it was obvious. My preference on AA is a personal preference. AA are not better per se than AAA obviously, but can be as good and I usually like it more.
SoT definitely disappointed a lot people even those who enjoyed the beta (I'm one of them). ItsI straight up robbery to charge $60 for that game. They should have put on game preview until it had enough content.
SoD was a big success and a lot of people expected to improve a lot in the sequle. Theres no excuse for poor animations and coop implementation when the publisher is fucking MS.
Golly, it's almost as if you weren't though with how you approached them with "Surely you'd rather play these critically acclaimed games that anyone with taste can remember 10 years down the line, and not some average little game?"
And who's to say I wasn't genuinely asking either, huh?? Huhhh?? Thought this was a message board where we ask each other things.
Great preview from someone who clearly played the first game and spent a lot of time with State of Decay 2:
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/s...-full-day-in-state-of-decay-2-apocalypse.aspx
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/s...-full-day-in-state-of-decay-2-apocalypse.aspx
Fair enough. It wasn't really obvious because in this context your stated fear of AA disappearing was attached to a game being criticized for perceived shortcomings, which would better be attributed to games like ReCore and Super Lucky's Tale as opposed to the near-universally acclaimed Ori and Cuphead. Games such as those aren't likely to be negatively impacted, much like The Order bombing is unlikely to affect Uncharted.
If I were to be honest, in the case of something like ReCore, I'd argue that was a AA game that would have benefit massively from a AAA budget. Mechanically I thought the game was great... but it's "jank", seemingly rushed development and general lack of polish is honestly what separates it from something like Horizon: Zero Dawn, which I consider to have a lot of similarities otherwise.
I said that because even when an small/mid budget game of Microsoft succeed there are people asking "yeah, but where are the AAA?". I don't want Microsoft give up on making AA because everybody is asking them for blockbusters, I want microsoft to improve their AA production, and give us more even more AA. I even think that they are better on AA than Sony historically, even with the wrong choices that they have made this gen.
To clarify I want Microsoft to give us good games, i couldn't care less what is the budget of those games. If they can give me 3 AA with their budget or one single AAA I still prefer the 3 AA.
You've chosen a couple of forgettable and poorly reviewed AA games there and you're comparing them to a couple of critically acclaimed titles.
I think I can chime in and say that I'm still playing Super Meat Boy and Geometry Wars but haven't touched Uncharted DF or Resistance FOM since they launched and have no intention of playing either again. The budget of a game doesn't make it any more or less forgettable or better or worse. I'll probably still dip in to games like Velocity 2X and Cuphead in 10 years but I doubt I'll still be dipping in to HZD or GoW. Some games are timeless but their budget is not the reason.
Also, I don't think Nier Automata would ever have been greenlit with a AAA budget. That's why it's nice to have A/AA options available. It gets tiring when it's AAA or indie with nothing in between - we saw the detrimental effect that had in the movie industry.
So was Sex and the City, but we still got Sex and the City 2 (and $700m of box office takings between them).
:)
You just need to ignore people in bubbles like this forum then, MS surely will be. There's a reason an Ori sequel is on the way, and not a sequel to The Order.
In regards to funding though, it wouldn't really be as simple as the games being cheaper to produce. That would work if we were to assume each game sells 0 copies (so throwing away $99m would be equivalent to throwing away 3 sets of $33m), but unless each of those AA game can return a third of what the AAA game can, then they won't necessarily justify even a third of the budget that the single AAA would.
Yep, AAA usually have more return that mid sized games, but I speak as a player. And I'm not very AAA sucker, since I still love many of them. Hoping MS don't listen, and focus on improving their output for every kind of game. My ideal year would be one with 3-4 small exclusives and 1-2 AAA. Since I like SoT and I'm still playing. If SoD2 and Crackdown succeed on being fun games, and MS give us a big AAA (besides of forza, I don't like driving games) I would consider this year very good.
In the eyes of critics so were Blade Runner and The Thing (which, coincidentally, released at the same time). You got me with Era, though, so it must be true.
Should we make a thread for this preview with the title "State of Decay 2 keeps the great concept of the first game while improving nearly every aspect"?
OP
OP
just saying
https://www.polygon.com/2014/4/20/5628554/state-of-decay-lifeline-preview-undead-labs-interview
and thats from 2014,
co op was always intended in future titles that much has been stated since basically inception of the studio
everyone basically wanted a more polished state of decay 1 with co op, even jeff admitted than in an interview too
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/state-of-decay-2-dev-talks-larger-world-co-op-grie/1100-6448632/
i loved state of decay and i love everything jeff strain did prior he over saw guild wars 1 which is a game i loved and played for thousands of hours ^(literally)
i can look past the bugs and that but i dont want the co op experience to be hindered and ruin enjoyment of fun,