Ok i get it.. its alpha.. but this is worse than the mod.

[jamieledgeway@hotmail.co.uk 216]

When anyone says 'I get it it's an Alpha, but...' the point they are about to make is already void. 

[DannyDog 532]

Still worked out better than Battlefield 4 release.

[victusmortuus 1074]

....but....but I think the game is amazing. :( 

[gibonez 3633]

It is better than the base game the only thing that is missing is content but that will be fixed with time.

 

My only complaints revolve around problems with the new engine downgrades I should say.

 

Things that are downgraded such as player render distance that is several times better in the mod.

[green_machine 179]

I noticed this. I thought to myself> "After all this time, the "Early Release" is actually less than what I expected."

I expected a bug filled cluster-fuck. But not a wake up call. 
Dean Hall, has had a good amount of time, based on his pre-cached resources, he should have had a flying start.

Then, he says it's going to take more than a YEAR to reach BETA. 

THAT is saying something. That is a wake up call. 

[green_machine 179]

What we're seeing now, is an Arma 3, modded with zombies. We have Arma 3 dayz, don't we? 

No doubt, ~Dayz SA~ it will progress, but wouldn't an ~arma 3 dayz mod~progress just the same?

Edited December 19, 2013 by DaveZ

[Spikér 136]

sorry, but im loving this game already, bugs and all. People complaining about lack of content... finding bugs and testing IS THE CONTENT that you paid for at the moment!

[jmvars 9]

I enjoy it. Obviously it will have bugs, the game even mentions it upon launch. So far I have not experienced any gamebreaking issues and it is playable, despite being in Alpha. I trust the dev team to work on the game, as they should, and so should you.

 

The mod seems better because it has been out for about a year and a half now. That's a year and a half longer than DayZ SA.

[Gator Biggs 22]

What the developers say:

“DayZ Early Access is your chance to experience DayZ as it evolves throughout its development process. Be aware that our Early Access offer is a representation of our core pillars, and the framework we have created around them. It is a work in progress and therefore contains a variety of bugs. We strongly advise you not to buy and play the game at this stage unless you clearly understand what Early Access means and are interested in participating in the ongoing development cycle.”

 

 

No one is questioning the amount of bugs as much as they are questioning the complete lack of progress in 18 months over the last build of the DayZ mod. Same map, same mechanics, except now with a shiny £20 price tag. Quote the dev's all you want, if they gave us so many warnings about how incomplete the game is, it seems a little farcical to then go ahead and charge us so much for something so incomplete.

[ninjacalypse 551]

Did you play the mod 1.5 years ago when it was "released"? I highly doubt so, because it was way less playable than what the SA is now and yet a lot of people spend more money on ARMA 2 OA in order to be able to play it than they now spend on SA.

 

ARMA 2 Combined Operations was 25€ at the time and SA now is 23€ - and many bought ARMA for the sole purpose to be able to play the DayZMod. Whether you like it or not - it's playable and well worth the money.

 

Uh...yeah, this is literally in my experience the best alpha version of a game I've ever played.  I've played Open Betas and even some Release titles that were worse than DayZ SA.

[Gator Biggs 22]

When anyone says 'I get it it's an Alpha, but...' the point they are about to make is already void. 

 

"I get that it's alpha, but.."

 

Why, in 18 months of development is it no better, in some ways worse than a mod we have have all already been playing for 1.5 years?

Why are we still playing on a map that first saw light in ARMA2 back in summer 2009..?

Why, if "we were warned" so much in advance by the developers that is it incomplete etc, did said dev's feel fit to charge us £20 for something clearly not even say, 40% complete?

 

They clearly saw dollar-signs and tried to capitalise on the popularity of their own mod, in the same way the WarZ did. In the time it's taken them there's been a flood of post apoc / survival / zombie / sandbox titles, the genre is stale and I think their window of opportunity has passed. There's a lot of work to be done to prevent this suffering the same fate as the aforementioned abomination.. With the current rate of progress I just don't see that happening.

[algorim 0]

Shut up, already.

Bugs: Of course there are bugs.

Amount of Weapons: This is no fuckin big deal. There will come a lot of them. There is no point in implementing them, since the engine is/was the focus for the last year.

Vehicles: They are coming. And I believe they will be much better than in the mod. Look at the attachment system in comparison. If they keep this level of detail up, it will be great.

Map: The map has been improved by exactly the way people were asking for. I don't like chernarus either, but there is no barrier to implement another map. ITS ALPHA. 

 

If the devs fix these issues, the 25€ are well spend. I'm feeling pretty comfortable about what I expect to come. Apart from the unresponsive UI and animation, there is no point worth of complaining right now, since all the things you mentioned are CLEARLY alpha related.

 

As for the cashing in on an unfinished game. Did you read the conversation the last year? Rocket mentioned an alpha too early and since then EVERYBODY has gone insane about being able to play the alpha. And this is what you get. Be happy to have a little taste about the SA. 

 

Just to give you a little hint, what is going to happen the next 2-3 months: There will be no big new features in the game. Guns will get implemented and bugs are getting fixed. And MAYBE some litte feature improvement, like using that item for that. This is what development is like. It is SLOW. So lower your expectations accordingly and stop wasting everybodys time with your uninformed bullshit. (uninformed bullshit is even worse than bullshit, because its sad, instead of annoying)

Be happy about supporting a companies great afford to put a first fully functional zombie survival horror mmo out there.

[kiwi12 36]

... so hatz off to the kiwi.

 

i didnt do anything. lolz

[ninjacalypse 551]

Why, if "we were warned" so much in advance by the developers that is it incomplete etc, did said dev's feel fit to charge us £20 for something clearly not even say, 40% complete?

 

They clearly saw dollar-signs and tried to capitalise on the popularity of their own mod, in the same way the WarZ did. In the time it's taken them there's been a flood of post apoc / survival / zombie / sandbox titles, the genre is stale and I think their window of opportunity has passed. There's a lot of work to be done to prevent this suffering the same fate as the aforementioned abomination.. With the current rate of progress I just don't see that happening.

 

Why are we paying 30 bucks/£20 for an Alpha?  Because you're not paying for early access, you're literally buying the game.  Early access just happens to be a perk that comes with that.

 

And WarZ?  WarZ was just trying to cash in on the coattails of DayZ and that game launched already and it was so crappy Valve pulled it off of Steam.  I've heard people ranting about games in open beta and saying stuff like, "You guys can't keep saying, it's a beta forever..." but this isn't even an open beta/beta.  This is alpha.

 

Most games I've played/tested in alpha phase were barely playable.

 

I was seriously not expecting much more than a constant crash-fest when I bought this and it was advertised as Alpha but I gotta say, so far this is best Alpha of a game I've played to date.

[algorim 0]

For your information. The last great alpha I played, was minecraft. And you could place and destroy blocks there. Without any inventory. Without any mobs. Without any needs. It was a basic engine test.

[Gator Biggs 22]

Shut up, already.

Bugs: Of course there are bugs.

Amount of Weapons: This is no fuckin big deal. There will come a lot of them. There is no point in implementing them, since the engine is/was the focus for the last year.

Vehicles: They are coming. And I believe they will be much better than in the mod. Look at the attachment system in comparison. If they keep this level of detail up, it will be great.

Map: The map has been improved by exactly the way people were asking for. I don't like chernarus either, but there is no barrier to implement another map. ITS ALPHA. 

 

If the devs fix these issues, the 25€ are well spend. I'm feeling pretty comfortable about what I expect to come. Apart from the unresponsive UI and animation, there is no point worth of complaining right now, since all the things you mentioned are CLEARLY alpha related.

 

As for the cashing in on an unfinished game. Did you read the conversation the last year? Rocket mentioned an alpha too early and since then EVERYBODY has gone insane about being able to play the alpha. And this is what you get. Be happy to have a little taste about the SA. 

 

Just to give you a little hint, what is going to happen the next 2-3 months: There will be no big new features in the game. Guns will get implemented and bugs are getting fixed. And MAYBE some litte feature improvement, like using that item for that. This is what development is like. It is SLOW. So lower your expectations accordingly and stop wasting everybodys time with your uninformed bullshit. (uninformed bullshit is even worse than bullshit, because its sad, instead of annoying)

Be happy about supporting a companies great afford to put a first fully functional zombie survival horror mmo out there.

 

Missed every single one of my points there.

 

I wasn't questioning the logic behind buying into an early build.. I'm all for paid alpha's etc. I was questioning the ridiculous price for such an early build, and the time it's taken for what is essentially still a mod, somewhere between ARMA2 & 3. It's not even a standalone title.

I never mentioned bugs or weapons.

 

Before you begin a post with "shut up already" you ought to quote whom you're referring to. These are public forums and people will voice their opinions if you like it or not.

[IIvIIozzie 31]

I do not understand why some people fanboy out and shield the game behind the Alpha warning text, to deflect all criticism of the game. There is no question that the Stand Alone is in many respects inferior to the mod in it's current state. I have yet to read an excuse that justifies this fact. Claiming they started from the ground up is a bogus cop out, they clearly did not. My biggest issues with the alpha are:

 

- Nearly no zombies on the map. It's a zombie game; without zombies. The zombies that do spawn: walk through walls, walk through floors, nearly no variety and poor animations

- Logging on and your character being wiped. I'm not against intentional wipes (as long as it doesn't become more than a weekly basis), I'm referring to the buggy wipes that are happening to myself and others on server swaps.

- The greatly reduced functionality over the mod

- The greatly reduced itemization over the mod

- The desire the development team has with designing over-complicated functions instead of focusing on more important issues.

- The functionality of opening/closing doors and selecting intractable options is still as poor as it was in the mod.

 

Ultimately, my biggest concern though is over the past year and a half they've come up with a worse game then the mod was. To be fair; there have been some improvements such as item degradation and new assets on the map, but these do not make up for the game being inferior. I am disappointed in what I paid for, I expected a buggy alpha, but not a game that was a step backwards. At the rate they're going they won't be able to "officially" release this game within the next four years. Truth be told, I've been playing this game and War Z since they both started out on the market. As much as it pains me to say it currently: War Z/Infestation> Day Z mod/SA. I wish it wasn't the case but it is.

Edited December 20, 2013 by IIvIIozzie

[Chopzzay 4]

way off topic but my avatar said this

 

I have a funny taste in your mouth... hahah thats $5 worth of my 30

Hahahah i laughed my ass off when i saw that sentence for the first time

[ClinClin 1]

I am happy the developers chose to charge money for early alpha. Having done that, they committed themselves to perfect the game, so there is no turning back for them. Only thing is whether they will stand up to the commitment. But I'm fairly optimistic on that and so I paid my bit.

 

People who complain that alpha does not meet their expectations (however 'justified' they think those expectations are) do not realize that their money goes not in exchange for a product, but in exchange for a promise. Which is just as advertised.

[Lordsarito 42]

How can you just state the fact that it's an alpha then immediately complain?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Lordsarito

[IIvIIozzie 31]

 

People who complain that alpha does not meet their expectations (however 'justified' they think those expectations are) do not realize that their money goes not in exchange for a product, but in exchange for a promise. Which is just as advertised.

 

 

 

What you wrote doesn't really make sense. If the promise is a completed game then the purchase goes towards the product. If they had made apparent, solid progress towards beta I wouldn't have minded tossing my $30 their way. I do, however, mind that most of the time they've taken has apparently been spent wastefully, and as i've previously mentioned... is inferior to the mod; which is free (with purchase of Arma). Even if they are really only a six man team (as some claim them to be) I expected more progress, less regression. I feel that it's completely reasonable that people like myself expected a better game than the mod, even in alpha state.

Edited December 20, 2013 by IIvIIozzie

[Gator Biggs 22]

How can you just state the fact that it's an alpha then immediately complain?

 

How can the dev's state thats its an alpha and immediately charge £20 / $30?

[Keskin (DayZ) 1]

So I´ve been waiting for the Standalone for over a year now and this is my honest opinion.

 

This does not look like 12 month of professional development because:

- They already had a game engine

- They already had a map

- They already had experience with the mod

- They must have earned good money from the mod induced Arma sales so that can`t be an excuse

 

All of those 4 points should have made it easier for them to build a better product.

 

My criticism:

- Rocket said that they would charge 13 bucks or so for the game, yet they`re charging 24 Euro for an alpha

- At this stage the game isn`t really that much better than the mod

- The controls, OMG the controls. Precision is non existent and it feels like there is a permanent 2 sec lag.

- Negative mouse acceleration, seriousely Rocket? 3 days ago you wrote that you would look into this issue. Didn`t you notice this the first time you played Arma? Why wasn`t this first on your "to fix list"?

- I can`t see any explicit mechanic, that would prevent this from becoming a deathmatch

- There are tons of issues that don`t need a public alpha to be noticed by the devs

- Fixing this game will take at least another year and I´m not even talking about implementing some awesome features, only fixing it as it is now.

- Fixing + implementing the promised features will take 2 years

 

People need to stop bringing the alpha excuse to EVERYTHING. The alpha excuse works with a small dev team with limited funding building a totally new engine, maps and game mechanics.

Notice that I didn`t even mention the typical alpha issues in my criticism.

All those alpha excuse people were the reason why Warz devs earned millions with the worst game in recorded history.

 

So Rocket, I´m guessing that the mod already brought millions and now the alpha alone already made 4-6 million bucks.

Are you going use that money to fix this game like yesterday?

Because if development continues at the same pace, this whole thing will either flop or only be just another average game.

[ClinClin 1]

What you wrote doesn't really make sense. If the promise is a completed game then the purchase goes towards the product. If they had made apparent, solid progress towards beta I wouldn't have minded tossing my $30 their way. I do, however, mind that most of the time they've taken has apparently been spent wastefully, and as i've previously mentioned... is inferior to the mod; which is free (with purchase of Arma). Even if they are really only a six man team (as some claim them to be) I expected more progress, less regression. I feel that it's completely reasonable that people like myself expected a better game than the mod, even in alpha state.

There is no point in expecting any progress compared to the mod at this time, playability-wise. It's like this: 'there's going to be a game one day (not today), wanna pay now, y/n?' Whether what's already there is better or worse than the mod -- has nothing to do with... anything, really.

Edited December 20, 2013 by ClinClin

[algorim 0]

 

Missed every single one of my points there.

 

I wasn't questioning the logic behind buying into an early build.. I'm all for paid alpha's etc. I was questioning the ridiculous price for such an early build, and the time it's taken for what is essentially still a mod, somewhere between ARMA2 & 3. It's not even a standalone title.

I never mentioned bugs or weapons.

 

Before you begin a post with "shut up already" you ought to quote whom you're referring to. These are public forums and people will voice their opinions if you like it or not.

 

First things first. Im just deadly annoyed by people complaining in a way they should get banned for. Crying everywhere. They have so little knowledge about how you develop a game in any way. They expected sth. out of nowhere and now they are COMPLAINING about an alpha. They don't say. Well this should be improved they are bashing the devs.

 

So... addressed at your "still a mod theme". This game is BASED on a mod. And it is BASED on the existing engine. You can't expect that it is any different. You shouldn't have bought it. This information was out there. And if you want to take place in the early access, you should have known that. Otherwise its your own damn fault, you dont inform yourself about an EARLY ACCESS game. 

Btw. The definition of a "Standalone Title" is: "You can play it without any other game bought."

 

 

I do not understand why some people fanboy out and shield the game behind the Alpha warning text, to deflect all criticism of the game. There is no question that the Stand Alone is in many respects inferior to the mod in it's current state. I have yet to read an excuse that justifies this fact. Claiming they started from the ground up is a bogus cop out, they clearly did not. My biggest issues with the alpha are:

 

- Nearly no zombies on the map. It's a zombie game; without zombies. The zombies that do spawn: walk through walls, walk through floors, nearly no variety and poor animations

- Logging on and your character being wiped. I'm not against intentional wipes (as long as it doesn't become more than a weekly basis), I'm referring to the buggy wipes that are happening to myself and others on server swaps.

- The greatly reduced functionality over the mod

- The greatly reduced itemization over the mod

- The desire the development team has with designing over-complicated functions instead of focusing on more important issues.

- The functionality of opening/closing doors and selecting intractable options is still as poor as it was in the mod.

 

Ultimately, my biggest concern though is over the past year and a half they've come up with a worse game then the mod was. To be fair; there have been some improvements such as item degradation and new assets on the map, but these do not make up for the game being inferior. I am disappointed in what I paid for, I expected a buggy alpha, but not a game that was a step backwards. At the rate they're going they won't be able to "officially" release this game within the next four years. Truth be told, I've been playing this game and War Z since they both started out on the market. As much as it pains me to say it currently: War Z/Infestation> Day Z mod/SA. I wish it wasn't the case but it is.

 

Have you ever developed any game for a year and a half? Obviously not.

I'll explain to you, what happened there: They took the engine and the mod code. And improved/altered the engine so that it fits their needs. And they kicked out every single piece of mod code and redeveloped and improved it. That is why there are less features in this game. Because they are redeveloping it. The redevelopment is just BASED on the IDEA of the mod. 

I also tell you what the fucked up alternative is: They threw in the additional modcode. And spend time adjusting this not fully functional code, which they won't use in the end anyways. Devtime wasted. Also there would be incompatibilities, which would insert bugs or consume even more time, if you fix them.

And if you say WarZ is greater than DayZ Mod/SA you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about ( there are many basic principles in DayZ, that makes WarZ unacceptable. for instance bullet drop. Have you played origins?. Housing. Vehicles. I waste my time. -.-)

 

 

 

Now Im going to tell you, what I think about this game: Short and simple. It is exactly what I expected. And it is totally enough for me. The problem is, they are using an unsuited engine for this game. The zombie problems, the UI issues, and the unresponsible actions and stuff are engine related. This won't get much better. Trust me Im an Engineer. 

 

But: TOTALLY WHAT I PAID FOR! Anything else is just unrealistic.  :)))