Dayz Reviews on Steam

[q.S Sachiel 470]

Just by the by, to quote and review your previous post, Synstr, giving negative feedback is also quite fashionable :P  Also, it's showing 'Mostly Positive' 73% positive reviews, with the first page being almost entirely negative reviews... Not too fashionable it would seem.

 

Come back in a year and keep your shoe handy.  I'll have the ketchup.  If i'm wrong i'll eat it too.

Not saying it will be done, just that I expect some serious advancement this year.  Beta be damned, I'm really hoping that renderer comes through shortly.

Edited January 7, 2016 by q.S Sachiel

[OrLoK 16182]

This whole "buying a game on the pre-tense that it will be finished eventually" thing and being accused that my criticisms of the progress of said game are non-factual by a member of the forum team JUST BECAUSE its not blind optimistic, positive reinforcement is hilarious. Here's the deal, ok? Kerbal Space Program took 14 people 4 years to make, start to 1.0 release. It was released under the "early access" model. DayZ according to http://dayzdev.tumblr.com/page/7has been a thing for at least 3 with a team has to be upwards of 50 people. If this time next year comes, and we have a 1.0 release of DayZ, I will quote myself in a forum post titled "This is me, eating my words." If not, you bet your rear end I'm gonna be on here saying I told you so.

Hello there

When you *do* post assertions which are untrue you will be challenged on them. if not by me then by someone else.

 

This is not some personal attack on you rather on your "facts".

You can be critical if you wish but you must expect some debate about your stance, again nothing wrong with that. Healthy debate is great.

My issue is you steer off from facts and go into insults and slurs as well as asserting things that simply are not correct and could be confirmed with a modicum of Googling.

 

Now, if you had an opinion on a game mechanic and why you liked/disliked it then thats fine and you could try to convince me otherwise and I you, or we could both agree to disagree.

It's nothing to do with me being a staff member its about facts.

 

Again terms like "This whole "buying a game on the pre-tense that it will be finished eventually" thing" and "JUST BECAUSE its not blind optimistic, positive reinforcement is hilarious" just dont help your case as  a)Early Access is clearly marked and disclaimers tell one not to purchase unless one is sure about supporting development etc and b. who wants blind fanboi ism, we certainly dont. Its unhealthy.

 

Disagreeing with you is not being blind or positive reinforcement its simply disagreeing with you. And where is see a factual error espoused as truth by anyone I will correct that.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by orlok

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

Bookmarking so I can hold Synystr to his "eating my words" post next year.

Edited January 7, 2016 by ColdAtrophy

[stonecutter357 17]

BI should do the right thing and offer full refund  on the day of release just like Arkham Knight.

[OrLoK 16182]

BI should do the right thing and offer full refund  on the day of release just like Arkham Knight.

Why would they do that? Why is it "the right thing"?

 

L

[Espa 711]

BI should do the right thing and offer full refund  on the day of release just like Arkham Knight.

 

I do not even understand this logic. . There isn't any explanation. And seriously, this game was cheap. . If you're worried about 30$, you might need a job, sir.

[sneakydudes 278]

Na i dont want any money back, i just want to see the finished game go forward. I can understand what some people feel is a slow progress because its slow.

 

BI also made decisions on the matter, it wasn't just dayz guys. The refashioned game is a stamp for the future. Hold in, it will come to us soon enough. Give the devs the best credit you can and offer suggestions, solutions to bugs etc..

 

I agree it also is not very quickly done. There is a reason its taking time, i fully understand that.

[pilgrim* 3513]

Steam reviews are mostly memes and uninformed nonsense from kids that thought they were buying a finished game or the Overpoch Standalone.

 

I hear that.

For starters, the Steam 2h money back offer kind of illustrates what some clients are about

 

Can anyone decide if DayZ is a good game in 2 hours, total 2h from buy-to-refund? seriously?

Did you even check it out before you bought it, or just random click on a couple of games? (ya can always get a refund, right?)

 

I'm not knocking STEAM but there ARE (younger?) players who are "6 or 8 games per session"  people:

This is from experience - I have SEEN this.

(hey, disclaimer - this is not a relative of mine, ok?).

 

Dude spends 15 mins on GTA or similar. Then plays some freebees, then 10 on a CoD lookalike, then old Crysis and Tomb Raider until he's bored after 5, or maybe to get a star. Skypes with mates on other games at the same time, Also TS in-game and crosstalk with the Skype dudes on the other game about what they did at the party on Saturday. Say how dumb their other friends are. Play youtube music vids on the other screen, because one guy online told them to watch that now. He writes comments there, while they play the game here, Meantime he trolls around STEAM (still playing), throws in a couple of sick insults he made up for fun, or repeats stuff he's seeing on youtube or heard over the phones, about games he never played. Dude likes using plenty of F-words because he get whacked in the head if he uses those at home. Does this while he is doing his homework. Starts bored ends bored.

 

It is a lifestyle.

 

That ain't everyone. Plenty of YOUNG players have good opinions and play well, and can tell you the real lowdown on a game and if it is worth playing. But plenty talk total bull-manure, and it is 100% easier to diss everything than try to explain even one good point. Also plenty of old players talk rubbish too (some are maybe worse, takes a while for life-frustration to really dig in deep).

 

But SKYPE reviews and comment = take a pinch of salt with those, or maybe just don't ever read them.

 

xx

 

[if the dude wants to play like that, buy and live and comment like that, it's his right: but mass popular "who cares" easy click "like or don't like" instant-2-way-comms, world-access, today's-trending-news, short-term-gratification, low-attention-span, ... his opinions aren't going to be "original"  - ya cater for the average - screw rational choice, screw minorities, deliberately avoid original or complicated (ya loose clients) - then ask people if they can still think?  - (hah) - So you turn on and what do you get  - hey, it's just the standard CRAP?

I guess that's what folk want.]

Edited January 7, 2016 by pilgrim

[Xbow 362]

Shouldn't be allowed to sell a game that hasn't released yet.

Offering a game that is in Alpha with the full disclosure that it is a work in progress and will have problems is a perfectly acceptable way to finance further development of said game and to get the help of the gamer community in testing and evaluating. I have about 1480 hours of game play hence it has cost me about two cents an hour to play the game ergo I am not complaining one little bit. And it has been fun watching the game evolve from in the inside. 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Xbow

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

I remember when Rocket took a ♥♥♥♥ing vacation to climb Mt. Everest even though they were selling this early access game and I got bashed for calling him out on it. Then he quits the entire project months later. Now we're approaching 2016 and it's still early access. What a joke. They should refund. Scumbag devs.

7 of 9 people (78%) found this review helpful

 

Quality review full of factual information, 10/10  :rolleyes:

Edited January 7, 2016 by SausageKingofChicago

[synystr 118]

On 06/01/2016 at 8:20 AM, ColdAtrophy said:

Bookmarking so I can hold Synystr to his "eating my words" post next year.

Just checking in at the halfway mark. How are we looking? 

Edited July 17, 2016 by synystr

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

1 hour ago, synystr said:

Just checking in at the halfway mark. How are we looking? 

Yeah......It's not looking great and I've said so myself recently in another thread. Things were looking relatively on track right up until it took nearly seven months to release 0.60. So I will concede that, in all likelihood, you were right.

Edited July 17, 2016 by ColdAtrophy

[sneakydude 480]

On 7/17/2016 at 2:34 PM, ColdAtrophy said:

Yeah......It's not looking great and I've said so myself recently in another thread. Things were looking relatively on track right up until it took nearly seven months to release 0.60. So I will concede that, in all likelihood, you were right.

This blew my mind CA.

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/dayzplayerrefundgroup

I just about died laughing. WTF

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

1 hour ago, sneakydude said:

This blew my mind CA.

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/dayzplayerrefundgroup

I just about died laughing. WTF

For the record, I'm not joining the alpha sux, give refund now crowd. I'm just saying he was likely right that we aren't getting 1.0 in 2016. The people complaining about how broken this alpha is are still incomprehensibly stupid.

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

alpha

[al-fuh]

8. (of an animal) having the highest rank in a dominance hierarchy

 

I mean, this is what I thought it meant. Don't tell me I was wrong. DayZ is the most alpha zombie game, breh.

[sneakydude 480]

15 hours ago, ColdAtrophy said:

For the record, I'm not joining the alpha sux, give refund now crowd. I'm just saying he was likely right that we aren't getting 1.0 in 2016. The people complaining about how broken this alpha is are still incomprehensibly stupid.

Totally surprised me one even existed. I ran by it, by mistake.

 

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

5 hours ago, sneakydude said:

Totally surprised me one even existed. I ran by it, by mistake.

 

I'm surprised you are surprised. Every day I wake up and think my opinion of humanity couldn't possibly get any worse and every day I'm proven horribly wrong.

[bfisher 561]

A couple of thoughts:

- I don't know that I ever thought the game would have an "alpha" or formal release.  I kind of thought they would get it to a stable, playable state and just continue adding content over time.  Basically the way Minecraft was released.

- DayZ is a game a lot of people are not going to "get".  It is, in fact, a big "walking simulator" with long stretches of nothing to do (but explore and survive) interspersed with brief moments of terror, followed by rage or smug satisfaction.  

- I can't decide if I want more zombies or no zombies at this point.  Right now, they are just a mild buggy nuisance.  DayZ ether needs more zombies and they are an integral part of the survival aspect of the game, or just do away with them and make the game about surviving the elements and other players.  

-I don't know much about game design, but I feel like this game has been out for 3 years and they are still screwing around with the basic gameplay mechanics.  Adding new guns and clothing is great, but things like disease, starvation/thirst, temperature, health, damage all feels very unfinished and watered down.  Like you have a very pretty environment filled with a lot of loot assets, but no real gameplay.

-Updates are too infrequent.  I'd rather have smaller updates each week than massive disappointing updates a random number of months apart.

 

 

 

 

[bfisher 561]

I hadn't realized I actually responded to this thread over six months ago.  I guess that given the past six months all we've seen is a prettier graphics engine (which I guess is a big deal) and some new content, I'm not really surprised by the lukewarm reviews.

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

The way Minecraft did things worked well for that project. DayZ is entirely a different beast. We see so many guns and clothes because the mechanics for those things are already fairly well defined and very functional, and the art team isn't allowed to take six-month in-office paid sabbaticals, and also because DayZ is ambitious where possibilities are concerned. We all know that there are a lot of placeholder systems in the game at the moment, but the ones they've been working on for the past few slow updates, are pretty important. At least, it seems that way to me. Like, holy fuck, I can loot Cherno again without worrying about FPS death. That's a pretty fucking big change - I haven't been able to reliably play in Cherno since the mod, guys, and even then it was questionable.

[Kronons 98]

I want to clarify a lot of people's concerns here. First and foremost everyone who payed money to get into early access has every right to review the game. Whether it be good reviews or bad reviews. Now to address others concern on Dayz. I will quote my other post.

Quote

Apparently you are not well versed in game development. You have to understand a lot of games today take anywhere from 5-10 years of development before they are released. Depending on the difficulty it can vary. For example Fallout 4 was released late 2015. But development started back in 2010. Almost 6 years of development before it was released. Even to this day they are still developing DLC and fixing bugs. Now as you said about Dayz Standalone has only been in development for almost 2.5 years as you stated. Which is not very long at all for this type of game or the gaming industry. The reason early access was invented was to first and foremost help fund the project. Secondly to help with development. By having the community involved the developers would not have to guess what the community wants, instead they would know exactly what the community wants due to working with each other. Because they are having to do 2 jobs instead of one it seems the development my be slow. But you have to understand the traditional route taken would be to have the development studio be only development orientated until the game is complete. The studio would then transition to a service type studio. Because the team of Dayz decided to go the route of early access. They have to do 2 jobs. I hope you gain some sympathy for the work they have to do.

Regarding your linear time line for development. Development work is not linear in big companies like Bohemia. They don't have all the developers working on one feature, bug, etc...They have what you would call dedicated teams. Each team is assigned certain tasks to complete. I.e. engine team, graphics team, sound team, bug team, etc...All the teams are working in unison to develop the game to hit 1.0. Some teams maybe working on features for 0.61 while others are already working on features for 0.81. At this moment we don't know how the road map would look. But I have no doubt they would lump patches together. For example they can go from 0.61 to 0.63 in a few weeks or less because the work has been finished by said teams.

Now it has been confirmed by Brain Hicks, Dayz would have a very high chance to hit 1.0 at the end of 2016 or the beginning of 2017. He was confident which says a lot. Now if you do the math that can be 5-8 months of development before we hit 1.0. So in that time frame they would have to hit 39 more revisions to hit 1.0. You may think that is a short amount of time for that many revisions, but keep in mind. The previous patches 0.60 and earlier dealt with rewriting the engine, creating new modules, implementing new core systems, etc...Once the foundation is solid. It is a simple task to add features on top of the core systems. As we get closer to having all of the core components implemented, development would pick up and we should see more revisions. A good analogy would be, if you are building a house. The most time taken would be for the design, framework and foundation of the building. After the core tasks are complete a house can be built pretty fast. Such as template walls, easy installation windows, etc...It would not take the workers very long to build and finished the house. The same goes for game development. Once the engine and core components are finished. It would not take the developers very long to implement new features.

All in all open your mind and enlighten yourself. A game is not made over night or in a few years. It takes a lot of time. Enjoy the game and if you are not then quit for a while and come back in a few month or a year. 

 

 

[sneakydude 480]

8 minutes ago, Kronons said:

I want to clarify a lot of people's concerns here. First and foremost everyone who payed money to get into early access has every right to review the game. Whether it be good reviews or bad reviews. Now to address others concern on Dayz. I will quote my other post.

 

Unfortunately closed alpha, beta with NDA things are of the past. It costs money to get things rolling these days. Example---- SOE Sold at a loss i am sure.

The only ones i think are still doing the majority of that are AAA game firms. Isn't battlefield 1 closed alpha, beta with NDA?

Serious testers are needed, however i think that is of the past, due to the backers involved these days. Frustrates me to no end shit like this goes down this way.

[Noctoras 409]

On 24.7.2016 at 5:00 PM, bfisher said:

A couple of thoughts:

[...]

- DayZ is a game a lot of people are not going to "get".  It is, in fact, a big "walking simulator" with long stretches of nothing to do (but explore and survive) interspersed with brief moments of terror, followed by rage or smug satisfaction.  

- I can't decide if I want more zombies or no zombies at this point.  Right now, they are just a mild buggy nuisance.  DayZ ether needs more zombies and they are an integral part of the survival aspect of the game, or just do away with them and make the game about surviving the elements and other players.  

-I don't know much about game design, but I feel like this game has been out for 3 years and they are still screwing around with the basic gameplay mechanics.  Adding new guns and clothing is great, but things like disease, starvation/thirst, temperature, health, damage all feels very unfinished and watered down.  Like you have a very pretty environment filled with a lot of loot assets, but no real gameplay.[...]

 

And since we are at it, the whole "survival" part is why I lately decided to write a - negative - review. It simply should not be advertised as any sort of survival game, because to me it is moving away from a survival game at an enormous pace. Sucks, if you bought it as a survival game.

Pretty much everything which has been added over the last year has been pretty much designed to optimise the PvP aspect. The introduction of (never needed) farming is back how far? one and a half years by now`?

Since then, apart from the needed player controller all I hear is:

- gun sounds, weapon sway, damage box, loot economy (mostly related to which gun is where), vehicles and how to shoot from them, barricading and how to use it in PvP, obviously new weapons and ammo, gun jamming, reloading animations.

I never hear about:

- rework or expansion of the medical system, the rudimentary skill system they maybe want to introduce (if I only can chop wood quicker, better leave it out anyway), ways to actually make guns /ammo / food more rare.

 

Now, I have clocked hundreds of hours in this game, yet after the first 10 hours I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER died to a zombie, hunger, thirst or anything survival related. As long as a zombie means to run 200 meters and be safe, no matter what, is it a threat? Dying of hunger or thirst is an achievement and dying of hyperthermia is easily avoided if you don't feel the dire need of walking around like a fully armored yeti. Yes, I know, zombies are still in the works, other aspects of the game as well. But a review can only encompass past experience and realistic outlook. Currently, as you say, we have a jogging simulator with no real threat apart from the bullet in your back.

Now, if I want a PvP-only game (can't call it FPS for obvious reasons), I choose a game where it does not take me 3 hours of walking to actually get this PvP. If you get it at all, sometimes after 3 hours of walking you get a "you are dead message" - whether that is a sniper, a sheed or a stair doesn't matter too much to me. If I want a survival experience, I would definitely look elsewhere.

That doesn't mean I do not enjoy playing it every once in a while. But I would not recommend buying it. And personally I will refrain from early access in the future.

Just my 2 cents.

[sneakydude 480]

3 minutes ago, Noctoras said:

And since we are at it, the whole "survival" part is why I lately decided to write a - negative - review. It simply should not be advertised as any sort of survival game, because to me it is moving away from a survival game at an enormous pace. Sucks, if you bought it as a survival game.

Pretty much everything which has been added over the last year has been pretty much designed to optimise the PvP aspect. The introduction of (never needed) farming is back how far? one and a half years by now`?

Since then, apart from the needed player controller all I hear is:

- gun sounds, weapon sway, damage box, loot economy (mostly related to which gun is where), vehicles and how to shoot from them, barricading and how to use it in PvP, obviously new weapons and ammo, gun jamming, reloading animations.

I never hear about:

- rework or expansion of the medical system, the rudimentary skill system they maybe want to introduce (if I only can chop wood quicker, better leave it out anyway), ways to actually make guns /ammo / food more rare.

 

Now, I have clocked hundreds of hours in this game, yet after the first 10 hours I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER died to a zombie, hunger, thirst or anything survival related. As long as a zombie means to run 200 meters and be safe, no matter what, is it a threat? Dying of hunger or thirst is an achievement and dying of hyperthermia is easily avoided if you don't feel the dire need of walking around like a fully armored yeti. Yes, I know, zombies are still in the works, other aspects of the game as well. But a review can only encompass past experience and realistic outlook. Currently, as you say, we have a jogging simulator with no real threat apart from the bullet in your back.

Now, if I want a PvP-only game (can't call it FPS for obvious reasons), I choose a game where it does not take me 3 hours of walking to actually get this PvP. If you get it at all, sometimes after 3 hours of walking you get a "you are dead message" - whether that is a sniper, a sheed or a stair doesn't matter too much to me. If I want a survival experience, I would definitely look elsewhere.

That doesn't mean I do not enjoy playing it every once in a while. But I would not recommend buying it. And personally I will refrain from early access in the future.

Just my 2 cents.

Good write up, and yes many of us feel the same way. It should have a high survival rate even with PVP in the mix.

We want a trade skill style of a game, and we want to be able to control our environment around us. It has to be the way, we want it in Real Life just as real as we can make it.

Lets keep hoping for it to go this way.

 

 

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

15 hours ago, Noctoras said:

And since we are at it, the whole "survival" part is why I lately decided to write a - negative - review. It simply should not be advertised as any sort of survival game, because to me it is moving away from a survival game at an enormous pace. Sucks, if you bought it as a survival game.

Advertising it as a survival game isn't wrong at all. I agree that survival is a piddly aspect of DayZ in its current incarnation, however. But because it's an early access game, you're not advertising the game in its current state - you're advertising the end product. And we all know that DayZ is intended to be a fairly hardcore zombie survival game with an important PvP element, and that's been the well-advertised plan from day one. Don't be so silly.