September Round-up: DevBlog, #DayZDaily, PAX, GDC China

[Wayze 549]

But it's undeniable that it would promote deathmatching, which the devs clearly do not agree with and are making efforts to minimise...

Sure it is deniable. Actually there is no way for you to prove it. It could even encourage team play, who knows?

 

Anyways, I don't think that zombies will change deathmatching at all. The most important part is the probablity to find good stuff like weapons or ammo. Besides that, people will kill each other regardless if zombies are running around or not.

That's my theory though, I cannot prove it the same as you are not able to. But that is exactly what an alpha is for, these situations can be tested very easily within a short time period.

Like I said the results are very valuable for future development.

[Mos1ey 6301]

Sure it is deniable. Actually there is no way for you to prove it. It could even encourage team play, who knows?

 

Anyways, I don't think that zombies will change deathmatching at all. The most important part is the probablity to find good stuff like weapons or ammo. Besides that, people will kill each other regardless if zombies are running around or not.

That's my theory though, I cannot prove it the same as you are not able to. But that is exactly what an alpha is for, these situations can be tested very easily within a short time period.

Like I said the results are very valuable for future development.

 

Do you get a kick out of disagreeing with people regardless of what they're saying or something? I swear, it doesn't matter how ridiculous what you're saying is, you will argue your point to the bitter end...

 

No, an alpha is not for testing how a game will play it without integral features in place. I don't think you know very much about game development...

[BongomanConk 38]

Is this a new "argument" saying "you know nothing about gamedevelopement" came in a few posts here.

i think everyone can compare other games and their path of developement to DayZ-developement.

 

not very effective to denounce someone with that empty phrase.

[Wayze 549]

Do you get a kick out of disagreeing with people regardless of what they're saying or something? I swear, it doesn't matter how ridiculous what you're saying is, you will argue your point to the bitter end...

 

No, an alpha is not for testing how a game will play it without integral features in place. I don't think you know very much about game development...

Some aggressions.

 

Well, an alpha is for testing and I had many projects myself with demos not including core features, however the feedback and the results of these demos have greatly increased my knowledge about how important that feature is, how I could implement it and if I should implement it like I originally intended to.

As a matter of fact, even if you don't have a core feature implemented, especially for an online game like DayZ, the player behaviour and the resulting facts can be used to improve the game in many ways. It is not easy to say how important a feature is for a game and an alpha has the great oppurtunity to actually play with these features. What I mean by that, you can turn off a core feature and compare the results of that with the planned way. You know what effect this feature has to the game and this is a huge advantage for future development (like I said).

 

Development is not as simple as you think, especially with games. Don't try to be smarter than others by calling them incompetent.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Wayze

[Mos1ey 6301]

Some aggressions.

 

Well, an alpha is for testing and I had many projects myself with demos not including core features, however the feedback and the results of these demos have greatly increased my knowledge about how important that feature is, how I could implement it and if I should implement it like I originally intended to.

As a matter of fact, even if you don't have a core feature implemented, especially for an online game like DayZ, the player behaviour and the resulting facts can be used to improve the game in many ways. It is not easy to say how important a feature is for a game and an alpha has the great oppurtunity to actually play with these features. What I mean by that, you can turn off a core feature and compare the results of that with the planned way. You know what effect this feature has to the game and this is a huge advantage for future development (like I said).

 

Development is not as simple as you think, especially with games. Don't try to be smarter than others by calling them incompetent.

 

I'm not being aggressive at all, meerely making an observation that after seeing you around the forums for a while now appears to be wholely accurate.

 

In the case of DayZ, where a large part of the community plan on buying the game in its alpha state, it's fairly obvious that launching without zombies would get the game off to a bad start by leaving players with nothing to do other than deathmatch, which is something that the devs are clearly working on ways to reduce.

 

The DayZ alpha is more of a feature incomplete build than a genuine test. We've all been playing the mod for 18 months, IMO we've learned about as much about player mentality and how the different features affect this as there is to know.

[Zero3ffect 60]

yap...making a complete new game of this seize and quality from the scratch, with such a small team in ONLY two years seems like a good output to me  :)

 

Edit:  I personally will not play the game before Chernarus + is completely implemented anyway...but that's just me

 

cheers

 

I'm not sure why people continually say that SA was made from scratch.  Does that mean with every new Call of Duty game was made from scratch too?

[Wayze 549]

I'm not being aggressive at all, meerely making an observation that after seeing you around the forums for a while now appears to be wholely accurate.

 

In the case of DayZ, where a large part of the community plan on buying the game in its alpha state, it's fairly obvious that launching without zombies would get the game off to a bad start by leaving players with nothing to do other than deathmatch, which is something that the devs are clearly working on ways to reduce.

 

The DayZ alpha is more of a feature incomplete build than a genuine test. We've all been playing the mod for 18 months, IMO we've learned about as much about player mentality and how the different features affect this as there is to know.

You abandon your previous arguments and always try to find new one. Before you stated "No, an alpha is not for testing how a game will play it without integral features in place". Probably you realised that this was kind of incorrect. Now you trying to tell me that it would scare off people. In the beginning you called my argument ridicilous and I don't want to insult you, but for me it looks like you just want to be right, no matter what I say. Maybe it's not true but that's my view.

 

I got three problems with your new assumption:

1. You don't know if people will like zombies or not, maybe they even enjoy more without them

2. The game will be very instable anyways, so no matter if it includes zombies or not it will scare of many people (or maybe not)

3. If there are no zombies included, the players, even the casual ones, will notice that it is clearly an alpha state. If zombies are included, and I think they will be bad anyway, players could think that this is the final state, which would result in probably even more "casualties"

 

And IMO we've learned nearly nothing about player mentality in a survival scenario, because the DayZ Mod IMO was never a real survival scenario. In the beginning it was, kind of, but even then it was not like weapons or ammo were rare. Plus there was not much to do, surviving was really easy, even without any weapons.

 

Also I don't understand why you think no zombies would result in absolute deathmatch? In my opinion dayz would work perfectly, maybe even better, without the zombies. For me they are kind of "decoration" and a cool feature for beginners.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Wayze

[Mos1ey 6301]

You abandon your previous arguments and always try to find new one. Before you stated "No, an alpha is not for testing how a game will play it without integral features in place". Probably you realised that this was kind of incorrect. Now you trying to tell me that it would scare off people. In the beginning you called my argument ridicilous and I don't want to insult you, but for me it looks like you just want to be right, no matter what I say. Maybe it's not true but that's my view.

 

I got three problems with your new assumption:

1. You don't know if people will like zombies or not, maybe they even enjoy more without them

2. The game will be very instable anyways, so no matter if it includes zombies or not it will scare of many people (or maybe not)

3. If there are no zombies included, the players, even the casual ones, will notice that it is clearly an alpha state. If zombies are included, and I think they will be bad anyway, players could think that this is the final state, which would result in probably even more "casualties"

 

And IMO we've learned nearly nothing about player mentality in a survival scenario, because the DayZ Mod IMO was never a real survival scenario. In the beginning it was, kind of, but even then it was not like weapons or ammo were rare. Plus there was not much to do, surviving was really easy, even without any weapons.

 

Also I don't understand why you think no zombies would result in absolute deathmatch? In my opinion dayz would work perfectly, maybe even better, without the zombies. For me they are kind of "decoration" and a cool feature for beginners.

 

Hardly. Game development tends to follow the dev build > alpha > beta > release pattern. Generally what would be considered the main game mechanic is in place by alpha... That remains true.

 

1. At this point I don't think it matters if people would enjoy the game without zombies. That

2. I don't think 'it's already going to be instable so it doesn't matter' is a very strong argument...

3. It will be made very clear that the game is in an alpha state. If you remember the WarZ release fiasco you will understand why this is very important.

 

I'm not sure if you played back iin the very early days but before everyone learned the nuances of the mod it was actually pretty difficult to survive.

 

I think it would result in an absolute deathmatch because there would literally be nothing else to do. But there we go... The reason that you're trying so desperately to prove this bizarre point is that you would actually prefer DeathmatchZ for some strange reason.

[Wayze 549]

Hardly. Game development tends to follow the dev build > alpha > beta > release pattern. Generally what would be considered the main game mechanic is in place by alpha... That remains true.

 

1. At this point I don't think it matters if people would enjoy the game without zombies. That

2. I don't think 'it's already going to be instable so it doesn't matter' is a very strong argument...

3. It will be made very clear that the game is in an alpha state. If you remember the WarZ release fiasco you will understand why this is very important.

 

I'm not sure if you played back iin the very early days but before everyone learned the nuances of the mod it was actually pretty difficult to survive.

 

I think it would result in an absolute deathmatch because there would literally be nothing else to do. But there we go... The reason that you're trying so desperately to prove this bizarre point is that you would actually prefer DeathmatchZ for some strange reason.

So I was right, everything just assumption and theories. And actually I was never trying to prove my point, I just wanted to show you that there are also other possibilities than just yours. You think it would result in a deathmatch. That's ok, but before you cleary state it would result in a deathmatch as kind of fact. But I don't think so and it is very arrogant, sorry for that strong word, to call other theories bizarre, desperate and ridicilous just to point out that your argument is "better".

I don't like DeathmatchZ, and again a very childish, sorry again for the strong word, way to actually debate in a discussion. You throw with accusations that are clearly no true at all. The same as "I have no idea how game development works", well actually I was part of more than one project (nothing commercial but still) and I think I have enough expirience to alteast state my opinion without having it to be called ridicilous.

Yes I played DayZ pretty much from the beginning and I know it was always easy to survive. Get some beans and water and that's it. You are good for hours if you just go and hide.

 

But let's get into it. Why do you think there would literally be nothing to do? What do zombies change in that? In the mod I always ignored the zombies. And in the SA I don't think that zombies would change much. I won't use my valuable, rare ammo to just kill a zombie. Especially now, I can kill them all with my bare hands. So, what exactly do you think do zombies change in "having something to do". I never go out there to hunt zombies, would be kind of pointless.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Wayze

[triggy89 171]

You abandon your previous arguments and always try to find new one. Before you stated "No, an alpha is not for testing how a game will play it without integral features in place". Probably you realised that this was kind of incorrect. Now you trying to tell me that it would scare off people. In the beginning you called my argument ridicilous and I don't want to insult you, but for me it looks like you just want to be right, no matter what I say. Maybe it's not true but that's my view.

 

I got three problems with your new assumption:

1. You don't know if people will like zombies or not, maybe they even enjoy more without them

2. The game will be very instable anyways, so no matter if it includes zombies or not it will scare of many people (or maybe not)

3. If there are no zombies included, the players, even the casual ones, will notice that it is clearly an alpha state. If zombies are included, and I think they will be bad anyway, players could think that this is the final state, which would result in probably even more "casualties"

 

And IMO we've learned nearly nothing about player mentality in a survival scenario, because the DayZ Mod IMO was never a real survival scenario. In the beginning it was, kind of, but even then it was not like weapons or ammo were rare. Plus there was not much to do, surviving was really easy, even without any weapons.

 

Also I don't understand why you think no zombies would result in absolute deathmatch? In my opinion dayz would work perfectly, maybe even better, without the zombies. For me they are kind of "decoration" and a cool feature for beginners.

 

 

Ok you must be trolling, and with every post it just sounds more and more like you are playing devil's advocate just to get a reaction. I don't know what games you have tested but the general consensus in alpha testing on games is that after the alpha has been approved devs should not be adding features ( core ones at least).

 

Game development tends to be more blurry than traditional software, but i have never known a game to come out lacking such a core feature. Alpha's are for testing, hence why all features should be implemented so they can be TESTED. Generally if anything is missing from an alpha build is its sheen/artwork/stability,not core features. You want to know why? Its pretty simple actually, you ad a core feature like z's halfway through an alpha after optimizing various things along the way, there is a very good change implementing a core feature like that would break a multitude of other things, including the fixes you have implemented on other parts of a game. The alpha has to be a bare bones complete version without the cherry on top otherwise it just simply isnt an alpha.

 

Whether or not people will enjoy the game without zombies or not is irrelevant, but lacking a features such as the zombies in a zombie game means very few people would class it as an alpha. You are approaching this from a gameplay perspective, which is entirely wrong, you need to see the detrimental effect this will have on the game in the long run. It will ultimately lengthen the dev time till its a full retail release.

Edited October 2, 2013 by triggy89

[Wayze 549]

Ok you must be trolling, and with every post it just sounds more and more like you are playing devil's advocate just to get a reaction. I don't know what games you have tested but the general consensus in alpha testing on games is that after the alpha has been approved devs should not be adding features ( core ones at least).

 

Game development tends to be more blurry than traditional software, but i have never known a game to come out lacking such a core feature. Alpha is for testing, hence why all features should be implemented so they can be TESTED. Generally if anything is missing from the game its sheen/artwork/stability,not core features.

Nope I am not trolling (again, kind of childish to say that just because I have another opinion). And I explained to you, as an indie developer with the power to just not implement a core feature it is a valuabe oppurtunity to actually see how this feature does effect the game. And no I was not talking about testing a game, but about developing a game. I tested some MMOs, but just to play them not the help the developers.

 

As you see DayZ is no ordinary game, the planning and the development and even the alpha are kind of at the same time. Normally you first plan out everything, then you start to develope, then get the alpha out to see if it works and then you get a beta out get the last glitches and buggs. In DayZ it is more like they are planing it, but also trying to get the alpha out as soon as possible. This has advantages but also disadvantages. For example you are able to change a core element because it is not an essential part of the game. You know what I mean...

Edited October 2, 2013 by Wayze

[Mos1ey 6301]

So I was right, everything just assumption and theories. And actually I was never trying to prove my point, I just wanted to show you that there are also other possibilities than just yours. You think it would result in a deathmatch. That's ok, but before you cleary state it would result in a deathmatch as kind of fact. But I don't think so and it is very arrogant, sorry for that strong word, to call other theories bizarre, desperate and ridicilous just to point out that your argument is "better".

I don't like DeathmatchZ, and again a very childish, sorry again for the strong word, way to actually debate in a discussion. You throw with accusations that are clearly no true at all. The same as "I have no idea how game development works", well actually I was part of more than one project (nothing commercial but still) and I think I have enough expirience to alteast state my opinion without having it to be called ridicilous.

Yes I played DayZ pretty much from the beginning and I know it was always easy to survive. Get some beans and water and that's it. You are good for hours if you just go and hide.

 

But let's get into it. Why do you think there would literally be nothing to do? What do zombies change in that? In the mod I always ignored the zombies. And in the SA I don't think that zombies would change much. I won't use my valuable, rare ammo to just kill a zombie. Especially now, I can kill them all with my bare hands. So, what exactly do you think do zombies change in "having something to do". I never go out there to hunt zombies, would be kind of pointless.

 

Zombies present an obstacle that you have to overcome in order to get the supplies that you need to survive. Once they're working properly i.e. running indoors and using better pathfinding I think they'll present a threat to all of us again. If you remove that obstacle then you're left with two things to do - 1) run around collecting food and water as without zombies these are the only items that would be needed to survive or 2) deathmatch.

 

How can you possibly claim that you don't like deathmatching when you said in your last post that... 'In my opinion dayz would work perfectly, maybe even better, without the zombies.'?

 

If you have a valid insight as to other activities that players could partake in in the abscence of zombies or you actually have any evidence to back up some of your zany theories e.g. 'It could even encourage team play, who knows?' then go for it.

 

Otherwise I'm done, you're not getting a rise out of me, lol.

Edited October 2, 2013 by mZLY

[Glebov 36]

Hey folks i'm not really sure if it's the right theard but i have a question about the standalone.  

Do someone know if pooping still in? Im not really sure about this 

[Hosty 647]

Hey folks i'm not really sure if it's the right theard but i have a question about the standalone.  

Do someone know if pooping still in? Im not really sure about this 

No, at least not the shit-meter.

They said maybe sometime in the future, but imo they won't do it.

[Wayze 549]

Zombies present an obstacle that you have to overcome in order to get the supplies that you need to survive. Once they're working properly i.e. running indoors and using better pathfinding I think they'll present a threat to all of us again. If you remove that obstacle then you're left with two things to do - 1) run around collecting food and water as without zombies these are the only items that would be needed to survive or 2) deathmatch.

 

How can you possibly claim that you don't like deathmatching when you said in your last post that... 'In my opinion dayz would work perfectly, maybe even better, without the zombies.'?

 

If you have a valid insight as to other activities that players could partake in in the abscence of zombies or you actually have any evidence to back up some of your zany theories e.g. 'It could even encourage team play, who knows?' then go for it.

 

Otherwise I'm done, you're not getting a rise out of me, lol.

Zombies are a kind of obstacle sure, but it doesn't prevent us from running around collection food and water and then go and do deathmatching and I don't think they ever will.

 

How can I possibly claim that? Well, because I don't think that no zombies will result in absolute deathmatch. Wow, have you ever even concidered that I have another thought-process than you?

 

I don't have a valid insight, but you don't have one either. That was the point I was trying to make the whole time. In my opinion the "no zombies = deathmatch" is just nonsense. But maybe you are right, we both do not know. And exactly that is why it would be such a great oppurtunity to just test it out. Like I said, this is the advantage of an alpha. You just can take out the zombies from the game and see if they really prevent deathmatch. If they do you know that this is a very important element. If they don't you just have to think of another core element which could cause this player behaviour.

[triggy89 171]

Nope I am not trolling (again, kind of childish to say that just because I have another opinion). And I explained to you, as an indie developer with the power to just not implement a core feature it is a valuabe oppurtunity to actually see how this feature does effect the game. And no I was not talking about testing a game, but about developing a game. I tested some MMOs, but just to play them not the help the developers.

 

As you see DayZ is no ordinary game, the planning and the development and even the alpha are kind of at the same time. Normally you first plan out everything, then you start to develope, then get the alpha out to see if it works and then you get a beta out get the last glitches and buggs. In DayZ it is more like they are planing it, but also trying to get the alpha out as soon as possible. This has advantages but also disadvantages. For example you are able to change a core element because it is not an essential part of the game. You know what I mean...

 

This just goes to show how little you actually know about game dev, I aint exactly the most learned but jesus you make forest gump look like a genius. An open alpha is NOT that flexible, you seem to think that a game can just be chopped and changed and features added and removed without having any cause and affect during an active open alpha test. Adding in a core feature can cause all sorts of issues.

 

Also calling you a troll is not childish, it's just an observation considering the bile you have spewed all over this thread from the get go. Either that or your are just simply clueless. 

 

I have known numerous people who have worked in game dev, and releasing an alpha which such an integral, and also complicated, feature is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot and eventually sunset the entire project.

 

Lastly, testing the game without Zed's is just pointless, it wouldn't be a ZOMBIE survival game then, it isn't that hard to wrap your head around. 

Edited October 2, 2013 by triggy89

[Wayze 549]

This just goes to show how little you actually know about game dev, an open alpha is NOT that flexible, you seem to think that a game can just be chopped and changed and features added and removed without having any cause and affect during an active open alpha test. Adding in a core feature can cause all sorts of issues. Also it is not childish, just an observation considering the bile you have spewed all over this thread from the get go.

 

I have known numerous people who have worked in game dev, and release and alpha which such an integral and also complicated feature is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot and eventually sunset the entire project.

Well, if it "sunsets" the entire project the developers did something wrong. An alpha is an alpha. No matter if it is open or not it still exists to test the game. In my opinion developers who do not use that alpha time just miss an oppurtunity to get the best out of the concept.

An open alpha is very flexible. Mostly the developers do not have to change much because they have planned it out. In that case the flexibility of the game is kind of handicapped (my bad english sry). But like I said DayZ is unique.

But this is something many people argue about, we could talk days and it still would result in two different opinions.

 

Anyway, my point regarding to the zombies is that I don't think that they are a core feature and even if they are it could be very accomplishing to actually see how they effect the game/player behaviour. Like Dean said himself, he is willing to release the game without zombies, for him the zombie feature is surely important but as far as I can tell he doesn't see them as an ultimatly necessary core feature. Or do you all think Dean is stupid and willing to destroy all his plans just to release the alpha?

Edited October 2, 2013 by Wayze

[Dr. Goner 661]

So I was right, everything just assumption and theories. And actually I was never trying to prove my point, I just wanted to show you that there are also other possibilities than just yours. You think it would result in a deathmatch. That's ok, but before you cleary state it would result in a deathmatch as kind of fact. But I don't think so and it is very arrogant, sorry for that strong word, to call other theories bizarre, desperate and ridicilous just to point out that your argument is "better".

I don't like DeathmatchZ, and again a very childish, sorry again for the strong word, way to actually debate in a discussion. You throw with accusations that are clearly no true at all. The same as "I have no idea how game development works", well actually I was part of more than one project (nothing commercial but still) and I think I have enough expirience to alteast state my opinion without having it to be called ridicilous.

Yes I played DayZ pretty much from the beginning and I know it was always easy to survive. Get some beans and water and that's it. You are good for hours if you just go and hide.

 

But let's get into it. Why do you think there would literally be nothing to do? What do zombies change in that? In the mod I always ignored the zombies. And in the SA I don't think that zombies would change much. I won't use my valuable, rare ammo to just kill a zombie. Especially now, I can kill them all with my bare hands. So, what exactly do you think do zombies change in "having something to do". I never go out there to hunt zombies, would be kind of pointless.

 

Quit trolling people. I've asked you before. You continue to argue for the sake of argument until your circular logic has muddied the original debate completely incomprehensible. It seems in your case that you know everything. The only problem with people who know everything is that they can no longer LEARN anything. 

[triggy89 171]

 as far as I can tell he doesn't see them as an ultimatly necessary core feature.

 

zombies not being a core feature in a zombie game.....errrrrr

 

Edited October 2, 2013 by triggy89

[Private Evans 1303]

I'm not sure why people continually say that SA was made from scratch.  Does that mean with every new Call of Duty game was made from scratch too?

 

DayZ SA was not planned to be completely made from the scratch but at the end only the heightmap and parts of  the core engine remained ( more or less...not talking about a handfull of game assets here)

[Private Evans 1303]

DayZ would work with any scenario taking place after a complete collapse of human society....

 

just sayin

[Katana67 2907]

DayZ would work with any scenario taking place after a complete collapse of human society....

 

just sayin

 

Would have to probably change the name though... Not too many -other- fictional apocalyptic scenarios which can riff off of the letter "Z".

 

I think the issue here is that we've -never- really, had threatening zombies. Just by virtue of the way they were implemented in the mod, they aren't truly a threat. Sure, it's been worked on in later mods of the mod (DayZ+, BP, etc.) but that pretty much just centers on upping the damage of zombies. While I think the damage of the zombies needs to be vastly increased, there are other aspects which have been mentioned previously that just haven't been a factor in the mod due to the rudimentary state of zombies. Along with making zombies a threat comes making them behave in ways which aren't so glitchy.

 

- Movement. Big one, and is being improved. Not just the animations, but the tracking as well. Likewise, with zombies running inside buildings. This will increase the threat of zombies exponentially, as running inside of buildings is now a "get away free of consequences" action.

- Numbers. More zombies in more places, pretty self-explanatory. Woods, fields, inside buildings, etc. Hoards.

- Damage and hit-detection. Part of improving zombies is just making their interactions more predictable. I mean that hitting through walls and the way zombies do damage now is just too inconsistent.

- Awareness. Personally, I think that zombies should be rushing general areas and should never (excluding immediate LOS) have access to the player's exact location through noise. But on the flip side, zombies should be migrating toward you if you discharge a loud weapon from a ways off. Otherwise, when coupled with all the other improvements, they become too much of a threat.

- Player stealth. This is a big one, and it needs to be streamlined so that I can reliably enter a town the way I did before I realized zombies walked inside buildings (i.e. slowly, and in the prone position).

 

In short, making zombies more of a threat involves a few approaches. The first being the obvious, making them do more damage, be more pervasive throughout the world, and having them be more intelligent in terms of negotiation. The second is making them behave in ways which are less reliant on the system itself and more reliant on how the developers want zombies to be. The third is making some of the interactions with zombies more consistent and managable, so that the player has to expend a lot (but a consistent amount) of effort to avoid zombies whilst allowing for dire consequences if he/she fucks up. It's just as much about the ways in which the player has to counter the increased threat of zombies as it is about increasing the threat in the first place.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Katana67

[sabre05 351]

I'm not sure why people continually say that SA was made from scratch.  Does that mean with every new Call of Duty game was made from scratch too?

 

It essentially is from scratch. Apart from two things: they've had to heavily modify an existing engine to fit their needs and wants and they have a map layout that is pretty much copied from the mod. However, they've done textures anew, sounds anew, animations anew, items anew, server side to client side conversing anew, character skeletons anew, models anew. They WILL do zombies AI anew too. 

 

COD generally does all of this too with two/three teams working on each aspect of the game. (ie Singleplayer, Multiplayer and zombies/spec ops) Now, where the differences lie are here. COD has a 6-8 hour campaign per year and the multiplayer launches with something like 8 maps, 30 weapons, 30 perks, 30 kill streaks. It's not as complicated as making a functioning 255 Squared KM map, literally thousands of items be it clothes, food, junk, weapons, ammo, medical, armour (and cars/car related items down the road(pun not intended)). COD in comparison to what we've been promised from DayZ is just nothing. It's like the difference between a megabyte and a gigabyte. 

 

Sure they make their COD instalments quite quickly, but that's because they're whipped by Activision to release their biggest cash cow anally, and incomplete, what with every COD since MW2 charging £15 for 4 multiplayer maps throughout the year. (For PC anyway.) 

[killerc22@gmail.com 11]

The fact that you guys spend so much time to argue about this trivial subject makes me a happy man(:

[sabre05 351]

The fact that you guys spend so much time to argue about this trivial subject makes me a happy man(:

 

Triviality is in the eye of the beholder. (To twist an old saying) I find Football (soccer) to be trivial, but millions of people are fanatic about it.