Katana67

He's surprised that a journalist misrepresented the state of the game he's making. Regardless of what was "interpreted" from rocket's wording, he's certainly within his rights to be upset. Yes, I don't blame him. Said journalist, as per some sort of discernible standard (not even journalistic, just courteous) should've confirmed with Rocket in order to produce a proper report. So it's Rocket's fault, even after having clarified in his Reddit conversations (which are in the same feed as his original post) the difference between server/client FPS, that a journalist made a gross simplification based upon incomplete treatment of the information?

If they aren't journalists then why are they producing journalism? They're journalists alright, just poorly trained and unaware of their professional obligation. He recommends using SSD's, because they're faster than HDDs. I mean, it's not rocket science. This applies to every application running on a PC which requires information from the hard drive. Likewise, he didn't say the game would function poorly without a SSD. Second, very few games are optimized for more than two cores. These are not performance issues, they're facts of making video games in the current paradigm.

Neither does selective reading of a person's Reddit history (which, if you're going to use it as a source for your "journalism", you have to read more than one post), where he explains the difference between the server FPS and client FPS. That and the FPS is only one issue in the grand scheme of the report. They allege that it's been delayed, they incriminate Rocket for not giving a release date, and they make vast assumptions about the severity of the bugs cited in Rocket's original post. They also misrepresent what is and what isn't keeping them from releasing the standalone. Likewise, these are journalists. Supposedly held to a higher standard of sourcing than the average person, whereby you actually have to confirm things rather than merely transmit them.

The Reddit thread titled, "I don't think PC Gamer really understood what Rocket said...", should be indicative of whose fault it is...

Sort of underscores several things... - Rocket's silence is always met with dismay, and his information is always misinterpreted. - Journalism is dead. - People who don't follow the intimacies of DayZ's development have literally zero idea of what they're talking about.

Damn him and his adjusting for new circumstances when they arise! It's also worth mentioning that he put that Reddit comment out after he had his little update posted, and was just expanding on his reasoning.

Yes, I have. And people go bonkers. Rocket shouldn't be held accountable for the silliness of the fanbase. Especially when he said, and I paraphrase "Take what I say literally, when we post a picture of three bullets, that is a picture of three bullets.That's all. We don't do hints".

I think expecting his fanbase to be rational and not make mountains (ERMERGERD STERNDELERN) out of molehills (a silly hype-train video) was the real bonehead move on his part.

Ivan certainly should be taking notes from The Forest.

Let's just be real and admit we have no idea as to the type of undertaking this problem requires. It could require some easy navmesh-esque type stuff, or it could be systemic. We have no idea. But from what it sounds like, I wouldn't worry all that much.

I love how the "hype derailment" really points out the fair-weather forum denizens.

DayZ SA Alpha =/= DayZ SA 1.0 Stop equating what has always been intended to be an alpha release to games which were predicated on being released as "complete".

Would be great if they would get it out next week, got an insane amount of papers due on Monday and need some time to un-plug.

Simply because it's a "franchise" doesn't mean it'll automatically get ruined.

Yeah, they could call it whatever. I was just thinking that, eventually, they're going to have to start over from scratch once the RV engine has been fully exhausted. Sooner rather than later I hope.

Ideally, I'd like to see DayZ grow into an established franchise. Not necessarily for the "Wow" factor, to see Dean get rich, or anything like that. But if it becomes a fixture, then perhaps they'll look to expanding the auspices of a hypothetical DayZ 2 way down the road.

To me, the allure to DayZ is in how it's depicted. Yeah, you've got WarZ, Seven Days to Die, Zomboid. But they all look like shit in my opinion. They may play decently (as it looks like Project Zomboid does), but they aren't believable. It's this whole new trend of graphics as meaningless and as a muzzle to successful indie titles that excuses what are otherwise poor graphics as "artistic license". The idea of graphics trumping decent gameplay in terms of desirability is just as ludicrous as the premise of poor graphics being indicative of decent gameplay. That and there is an inordinate amount of forgiveness of indie developers with regard to graphics, when creating a believable experience (is to me) central to the function of a game like DayZ. I'm not only talking about graphical bells and whistles (i.e. AA, AF, Bloom, all that bullshit) but I'm talking about just having believable looking environments. Graphics is a fairly vague term, so bear with me and attempt to see that I'm more interested in having realistically depicted environments rather than having pretty stuff to look at. Being original has taken precedence over being a wholesome experience, and I hate that. People don't, or shouldn't, hate WarZ because it copied DayZ... they should hate it because it's a poor experience. Likewise, the idea of a "zombie survival" game is conflated with games that merely involve zombies. In my mind, Dead Island is profoundly not a "zombie survival" game. It's a game with zombies in it and you can die. That is where the similarities to the term "zombie survival" end, there is no management of that survival outside of killing zombies before they kill you. The same applies to Dead Rising, these are zombie games... the idea of survival is the same as any other game (i.e. die at the hands of zombies or don't die at the hands of zombies). It is that two-dimensional. There's nothing wrong with these games, they're just distinct from the typology of "zombie survival" in my opinion. DayZ, and the idea of "zombie survival" as you say, are deeply rooted in both the idea of operating in a zombie apocalypse and surviving in said landscape. That landscape, as you articulate, includes other people and factors which the individual player must negotiate.

Hopefully they'll retain the controller functionality from ARMA 2. Wasn't the best, but it works okay for me. I hope it's not such a drastic change in control schemes as to marginalize the use of controllers entirely.

That and we can outrun them indefinitely, this is a hindrance to their "threat level" when one can just outrun them. You're not encouraged to turn and fight, ever. I value stealthily getting out of sticky situations just as much as I value shooting your way out of them. Even when you do turn and fight (as per the mod) you're likely to miss 50% of your shots and take hits no matter what you do (due to zombie zig-zagging and the intangible nature of how zombies inflict damage). I'd agree that the overall number of zombies is significant, but there's more to it than that. Honestly, all this talk about "firing your weapon in a city should be suicide" is a bit off-putting to me. It shouldn't be consequence-less, but it shouldn't be insurmountable if you know what you're doing. Just like zombie "senses", they should be counterable through careful gameplay which leaves one vulnerable (i.e. sneaking around). That and they need to do more damage and less "knockdown". I liked it in DayZ+ where the zombies did tons of damage, you actually had to engage them or work around them. Whereas in the vanilla mod, they're just kind of annoying growling things that trail behind you whenever you're killing bambis.

Meh, zombies never really scared me in the first place (both as a concept and in DayZ, I would credit the saturation of the genre to that more than anything). But, part of it was always that zombies are pretty much a non-threat. They're scary to me, insofar as a nuisance is concerned in revealing my position to other players. Unto themselves, they aren't really all that frightening. This is not to say that they couldn't or shouldn't be, they should. But part of that has to do with making the interaction with zombies a bit more regular (in terms of frequency) and making them a threat. No, we've not seen a map of Chernarus Plus. However, we've seen snippets from some of their convention videos of the map. Specifically, the north looks much more built up. Which is a bummer, as I really want to see some solid wilderness in Standalone. Likewise, there appear to be more towns/cities along the western edge of the map.

Personally, I don't really have much praise to give the engines used by BI. That being said, I certainly don't fault Rocket and the DayZ team for using what they're familiar with. I appreciate that they've taken some time to streamline the engine for Standalone. I get that they (and we) want Standalone to have a relatively quick Alpha release. With all of that in mind, I feel that it really limits DayZ though, specifically with regard to the map. DayZ, as it grows and evolves, is a game that will require either a map exponentially larger than Chernarus or a map with some level of procedural generation. It doesn't sound like the engine will allow for this to any degree. Likewise, the current reliance on the ARMA server model (i.e. divided instances) is an obstacle that will have to be addressed sometime in the life-cycle of DayZ.

Doesn't ARMA III have some sort of inherent graphical quality which marginalizes the gamma tweaking? I recall seeing some demo screens of how it worked. I think a better solution is to just make nights look more varied so that people don't have to resort to using the gamma slider. Nights aren't brightly lit scenes nor are they black holes. Most nights, even in areas sans electricity, are somewhere in the middle.

Hahahaha

That doesn't make it better :D

I also love how more information leads to less conversation on the forum...