Tusk (DayZ)

I hate that people reason with pc gamers pirate games. Wii is absolutely hackable you don't even have to do anything just run a save game and bam you're console can run all kinds of games. Same for xbox you just have to chip it and you can play pirated games again, PS3 has it's jailbreak too. The only thing different is the user base, and to be honest most of the console owners are "simple-minded" to say the least. So next time you're defending consoles by saying PC users pirate games think of it as saying "Yay I'm a dumb mofo, but i'm cool with that!".

The assets is what everyone talking about (models, map, audio) Rocket made no assets yet or not much at least. But making CE/UE realistic as it is RV now, is not as easy. But at least 10 people said it can be done easily --> go ahead, really ten of you could make the game in a month as it is now. And still RV4 will be great, and much better for this game than CE3/UE3.

With limited ammunition and increased numbers it'd not be boring and easy. Also would be interesting if one hit would infect you, and within one hour it'd turn you/you'd die if you can't find something antidote, or simply one hit would kill you, not by touching them, but if they can bite you. Also there could be a struggle option fighting against the bite.

Read exactly 2 comments above what you wrote. But since you must be lazy as hell, the important part is this: "All in all you could make a cheap copy of DayZ prototype it reasonably fast in CE3 but you'd have nothing that makes it DayZ, no real-time lip sync, no changing 1st/3rd person camera, no persistent character. You'd have a map, zombies and Deathmatch, you could not interact with the world like now. And also, you would not have any realism, you'd have to program all these in the game and convert/recode the current code into CE3 acceptable and that simply would take years for Rocket to make. And in the end you would have an even buggier game in say 2 years from now then it is now. Does it worth it? no."

Rocket is an employer of BI, he made enough money for Bohemia, now that ArmA 2 is a best seller on steam and in other places cause of his mod. Hulahuga: Game engines tend to use specific programming language, scriping language and even modelling/animation rendering, you can't just go around changing engines in the middle of development. Even in web development you're first thing before doing anything is to choose a CMS or Framework before starting the coding process, and you simply can't just go around jumping from WordPress to Joomla even when both uses PHP language. Also what Timmooboy said CE3 could be good for block size loading, but there's so much "realistic" feature that the RV engine has, that it easily owns CE3. Yeah it's old and CPU heavy, but check out the RV4 engine demos (where the mod has already been ported successfully, so it is going to be using that possibly after an ArmA3 release), and you'll see that it is owning CE3 engine big time. All in all you could make a cheap copy of DayZ prototype it reasonably fast in CE3 but you'd have nothing that makes it DayZ, no real-time lip sync, no changing 1st/3rd person camera, no persistent character. You'd have a map, zombies and Deathmatch, you could not interact with the world like now. And also, you would not have any realism, you'd have to program all these in the game and convert/recode the current code into CE3 acceptable and that simply would take years for Rocket to make. And in the end you would have an even buggier game in say 2 years from now then it is now. Does it worth it? no.

Going stand alone does not mean you ditch the engine which is the soul of the game, it'll always use the RV engine, it would be stupid to rewrite the whole game for another engine, introducing new bugs in the process.

You sir are the most idiotic of all. There won't be any engine change (only to RV4 from RV3), and RV won't be for consoles, going standalone does not mean, fuck the game I'll just rewrite the whole thing from the beginning for cryengine 3 until then I just waste my time with RV3. Also CryEngine looks better RV3 but not better then RV4. So nope, everything you said is a bs.

The standalone will still use the arma engine. And when it's developed on pc for pc ytf are you trying to port it to pc when it's already there? And no console version will be ever made of this game.

Then it would mean that you have to write the whole ArmA engine again for Xbox, then you'd have to rewrite most of the mod code. It's silly. Also I love how people say change the engine to cryengine 3, like you can change an engine like your clothes, more like trying to put an airplane engine into a Lamborghini, good luck solving that. For the really really dumb, changing game engine means total rewrite, starting from scratch. Minecraft was possibly for Xbox because Java(minecraft original language) and C#.net(xbox language) are mostly similar and the game has the engine itself. Overall, this DayZ at it's current state will not move to console, only if it would be totally rewritten from scratch either with own engine or using UE, CE or similar. Controlling is not a real issue there are a lot's of creative ways to make it work right, not great, but it is definitely manageable. And saying that Xbox can't run PC games cause of the hardware is stupid, Try emulate Xbox360 on PC... then suddenly your PC can't run xbox games. The main difference is that when you program for PC you have to program for x thousand GPUs, CPUs, memory. In case of console you have a fix infrastructure, optimizing for one fixed hardware isn't that hard, and that's why console is still capable of surviving now, yes it can't have huge textures, that many object in one screen as PC does now, but that does not mean it's weak and could not run ArmA, in fact if BIs would write the engine for consoles, it would run smother (if done right of course) than it runs on PC. Good example would be Minecraft by changing language and optimizing for one fixed infrastructure it runs smoother on xbox then it does on PC. I'm not saying that it runs better than on a 64 core server machine, but I hope even trolls get the point. PC is superior to consoles, but because of consoles we are not going forward, because we are still waiting on them, and the sad part is that the new generation won't be much stronger either then the current one.

These are NOT zombies, these are infected peoples. There is a frickin' huge difference there. And yes real Zombies are the Romero ones, everything that can run/sprint/jog/think(other than hunger for flesh) is not a zombie, but someone infected. It's not against the movie, i'm not trying to be offensive about this, but the game is called DayZ, not DayI (iDay if it'd be an Apple product), also the homepage has a nice zombie counter. And that's as far it goes, zombie walks, infected runs. But I expressed my opinion about this way better here. And for me a horde of zombies on you (100 for example) with one magazine of Desert Eagle sounds way scarier than 10 hyper-fast-bugged-to-the-bones-zig-zagging zombies.

Since the zombie culture's evolving all the time, it should be implemented with both-sides wishes (slow - fast zombies). Simply by making use of the regular-veteran difficulty levels, renaming them Romero and 28 days later would satisfy most of the fans, and this could be done easily. Now to keep the difficulty intact it could be Regular Romero, Veteran Romero, Regular 28 days, Veteran 28 days. Or name it Zombies and Infecteds. The difficulty you set should remain for your character's life-time of course. For a more advanced and long term solution it should be a separate server-side option leaving the difficulty alone. I mean this way people would not flame against the zombies nor infecteds and both side could play the same game on different difficulty, depending which one they like. Of course there could be a slider around the numbers, so fast zombies equals low spawn numbers with zero teamwork (when pathing is finally reasonable), and slow zombies are higher spawn (much-much higher talking about 500-1000 zombies for a player) with teamwork of getting to you in a group and as said trying to get you down. In both cases there should be a stamina bar, limiting the movement, but when you're "panicking" cause you're running away you could run for a longer time, losing a lot hydration in the process and getting hungrier by every second you run for. Maybe even get a little gameplay mechanics that when you stop, you can't start running again instantly, even when panicked cause you're body needs some rest, which causes the stamina bar to refill from a negative value. This sounds pretty realistic to me game-wise, probably even making both sides happy. I'm on the side of slow zombies so those should be implemented as a default since the game calls them zombies, they should not run, maybe jog with a chance of falling down on their asses. Also by making them slow, does not mean you can outrun them for a long time, even by running away you can be cornered by running into another horde. And about shooting them, there's not much ammo, but like real life, if you have an armory you can play cat and mouse for a bit of course, but since you're shooting you're attracting more zombies from a radius, that's a circle, are you sure you're going to love to shoot them when they are coming for you from every part of the town? Grabbing you and making you unable to move (grabbing by chance like 25% of success you're grabbed) which stalls you but not them, and they are coming... for you.