Reviews starting to come out

[-Gews- 7443]

This may be one downside of doing the 1.0 release at the time they did...

PC Gamer: https://www.pcgamer.com/dayz-review/



I haven't heard of "mspoweruser", but this review is, unfortunately, the very first result I see if I Google "dayz": https://mspoweruser.com/review-dayz-standalone-is-an-empty-lifeless-husk-that-still-doesnt-feel-finished/







Here's the conclusion of RockPaperShotgun's review: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/12/19/dayz-review/



Polygon review:







Thoughts and comments?

Edited December 22, 2018 by -Gews-

[pilgrim* 3514]

- Bet there are max 2 people around who know who 'Pangloss' was.  Wonder why a Game critic mentions HIM ??  Alienate the Fans??
- DayZ started life as an anecdote generator - that's sure TRUE. Most of them were crazy exciting anecdotes and lots of folk lived them, told them, and loved that.

for the rest..  I think it's all been quoted across the blog 100 times. Seems like folk want 5 minute zero-concentration no-brainer Apps and instant kicks so they can play short battles while they're Facebooking.  The "Weakness" of DayZ is the same weakness as ArmA.. = These games really DO NOT appeal to MOST of the 80 million home players (I guess there are more now).; and never will.. .. but they never intended to .. and never have..  They appeal to players who have two or three games max, not to players who have 20 or 30 games to jump through in a week..  NOT a good game for switching channels often IMO. 

The irritating BUGS (specially if you're new to DayZ) and one or two REAL messy glitches are .. "unfortunate"..  given the timing.. I don't know if that was a bad call or sheer bad luck or an out of the blue Fluke.. but, yeah, = unfortunate = .. {sigh}  ..

On the other hand, maybe BI have leaned too much towards making the game more of a mass seller, and somehow convinced themselves they could stay unique AND sell MANY COPIES .. they made it easier.. more of a standard "gear up & FPS" .. faded out on the "complicated" stuff.. concentrate on the obvious, make it more like the other mass seller games..  why.. because they sell a lot..  

e.g. Using "bases" as the main selling point must have wrong footed a LOT of new players who thought they knew what they were getting into as soon as they saw that magic word.   DayZ = BASES & gear up & FPS ... "so what the hell's the point having a big map" .. where's the AUTORUN.. ??

* * *

Yeah, well .. it will get better.   Difficult equilibrium between "plenty sales" and "special game" .. not my choice to make,  IMO go for the Special Game and see who keeps up with it.  DayZ started with an ATTITUDE and I think that's the most important thing about it, even if it doesn't appeal to everyone & theirt kid brother , it appeals to a solid long-term minority.  Depends how many million sales you want, I guess?

[IMT 3190]

I mean, we all warned them about this. This is nothing new and also not surprising. I was talking to Art and Fing earlier today and told them, I'm sure that if they waited with the 1.0 release until all features were in and major bugs were out, there would probably be more people playing right now. Not only that, I'm certain that those players or the majority of those players would play the game longer. Just with every big patch, you're going to see an influx of players but that always dies down rather fast. If 1.0 was released fully complete, I'm sure it would die down much slower. Plus, the reviews would've been much better. All this was the reason why I wanted them to wait with 1.0, it was this. After all the shit they have been through and had to take, I think they would've deserved some positivity with 1.0 but releasing it early will only do the opposite.

It's a shame but the damage is already done.

Edited December 21, 2018 by IMT

[Buakaw 274]

Quote

an effortless; tired; and empty world

first off whats with the semicolons secondly what the fuck?

[Survivor-Kyle 148]

I actually thought that the PC gamer review was fairly honest. he accurately captured that the appeal of the game is to human interactions, and that despite their being numerous bugs, those bugs do not affect the interactions between players. if I were to review the game, and I am still a fan of it, I probably would have written a very similar review.

[-Gews- 7443]

Polygon review came out: https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2018/12/21/18149309/dayz-review-pc-1-0-release

 Unfortunately, their review is pretty much how my first night of 1.0 went. For me that was an epic struggle with the server browser, multiple crashes to desktop and attempting to join community servers for almost half an hour. It had great performance once I got in, but getting in? And staying in? That was a battle.




On the server browser:
"For the rest of the evening I logged into a dozen servers claiming to be running daylight. Every time I showed up, it was dark. I closed down the program. I rebooted my computer. Nothing worked. I was trapped in an endless, impenetrable night even when it should have been day."

On melee combat:
"Trouble is that using melee weapons in DayZ is like trying to hammer a nail into a wall with a piece of cooked spaghetti. The animations are perfunctory, with the shambling dead and the player flailing at each other like a pair of pinwheels. Hits are slow to register, with zombies flinching a half second after you connect. The only way to tell if you’re being damaged is if the whole screen flashes red. It’s absurd that a game that’s this high stakes, where one mistake can mean the loss of hours of playtime, has combat that feels this awful."


The review concludes:

"So I died. A fully-loaded firearm on my hip. A pristine blunt object slung across my back. Both useless because of a compass stuck in my hand, and a game so unfinished that it was unable to help me do something as trivial as put something into my pocket.

I died in the dark with my screen flashing red.

I couldn’t see a thing."

 

[Mookie (original) 799]

26 minutes ago, -Gews- said:

 ...an epic struggle with the server browser, multiple crashes to desktop and attempting to join community servers for almost half an hour. It had great performance once I got in, but getting in? And staying in? That was a battle.

 

Yes. Same. Plus dying horribly, and embarrassingly to zombies as my screen locked up.

The browser is better than it was, but those day/night indicators aren't worth the pixels they're made of. 

I think these reviews are pretty fair tbh.

[-Gews- 7443]

7 minutes ago, Mookie (original) said:

Yes. Same. Plus dying horribly, and embarrassingly to zombies as my screen locked up.

The browser is better than it was, but those day/night indicators aren't worth the pixels they're made of. 

I think these reviews are pretty fair tbh.

They are fair.  I was in a Discord server when I fired up 1.0 for the first time. I can show you my reaction to it, as I typed in real-time, trying to play the game.

I'm used to DayZ and its bugs. I like DayZ.

Like I said, once I got in, it ended up performing very nicely. But that initial experience was awful.

And imagine someone coming from your average polished AAA games.

By the way I checked the timestamps. First message, 7:56 PM. Last message, 9:03 PM. That's over an hour from initial server browser to stable server experience.







 

[Evilsausage 87]

I'm not surprised over the reviews, i bet the devs knew this was coming.  I love parts of DayZ but just hate how unfinished it still is. But I love that they can't use the alpha excuse anymore. 1.0 should feel like a full game, or atleast far better then this... 

Six years and this is what we got... I think in best case so few care about DayZ anymore, that it won't get a massive backlash like Fallout 76 or other dissapointments. 

Question is will the devs try to fix it, or will they move on? Man what a massive dissapointment DayZ and Bis is... 

 

[pilgrim* 3514]

Can't argue with Gews  << that initial experience was awful >>  - there it is.
Also I don't want to be the person who apologizes for BI, even though I like DayZ a lot... 

But just to say : We can SEE what is wrong.. but as well as the OBVIOUS current on-screen game problems, there is perhaps some background :

these are only notes

- When ArmA 3 finally came out, a number of people and reviews at first said it was awful, a mess, didn't work, why had they bothered, not ready, what a disaster..  then REALLY very soon it was sorted and opinion changed (or both)  and it was radically better than Arma2.. it was brilliant, etc.. That opinion swing happened fast. Everyone forgot that ArmA 3 was not received as a great game in it's first weeks.

- BI have a strange relationship with the GSPs.. they never say anything about that -  for various reasons, including legal (I assume).. but BI don't have any control - or don't have the agreement they really wanted, with the GSPs - and the franchised GSPs are in fact small companies (all except one), but with big clout, and IMO they have not been helpful.   I'm certain there is a story in that and it has forced some decisions or set a path that wasn't.. er.. "exactly" what BI wanted..  There is an untold history that has been avoided in open discussion. e.g. I notice BI are keen to know WHICH servers are crashing or acting up.

- BI has said Xbox can't have Xbox keyboard players & Xbox controller players on the same server. This has to be because the two together create too many parsing combinations to run both inside a decent number of clicks. Can there be another reason? 

- The more code needed for a DayZ instance the more space and processing time taken up.
But the GSPs make their living running X instances of DayZ per server.. if they have to cut down on number of instances, they either resist, refuse, cut their profit or put up the prices. (this is already why private shard DayZ is more expensive to hire than public shard). Also remember the DayZ PUBLIC servers (last statement I heard) are run 100% at the GSPs expense, in return for their franchise from BI.
So anything that uses more processor time is going to meet resistance, even obstruction or no help, OR put the hire-price up.

- That DayZ instance "size/cost" limit explains a lot of the stuff going on re slow zombies, etc, etc, IMO & perhaps (why not) even the server crashes.  So much to do, not enough clicks to do it?  If that's true, doesn't it require a new agreement between BI and the GSPs.. not only debugging?

- The five studios involved in DayZ (now all BI owned) - according to BI are not yet standardized in development equipment, software & technique,. They are "getting there", or "getting closer" but so far structure & their output has been for PC servers .. and while those link-up problems are "almost ironed out".. there is suddenly work to be done to at a deeper development stage (which was previously solid) to ensure the output game will translate fluidly to Xbox.

And now of course, the mighty Microsoft is involved.. so BI - which is itself a good <fairly-small-middle-sized private firm> (but "only" designs and produces, it does NOT do marketing or distribution) - BI is sandwiched between two other players, MS and the GSPs.  

- As for Xbox - anyone remember Operation Flashpoint  ?? - When BI put it out on Xbox in 2001 it became a SERIOUSLY major disaster and BI lost a lot of money and time on that. It was a crisis for the company, I think. Someone said back then << they had no experience of Xbox, it's completely different to PC >>. This is their first attempt to come back into that market for .. 15+ years??

*

So.. IMT is obviously right in his judgement - but maybe BI were forced into this, or FELT that they were forced into it.. had to make the all-or-nothing move, now, for reasons that will come out sooner or later (probably later) - and also did not calculate how totally bloody intolerant the Xboxers are.? (not blaming, just saying.. they have different expectations, as well as a very different  & "inaccessible" rig plugged into a TV). It's a different market with a different attitude BI weren't ready for. 
Because its their area, BI were too habituated to PC players who have stuck with DayZ,  and we have come to consider the ongoing (forever) strange changes and the glitches and alterations & what works/doesnt work, and the resets & lost gear etc  as PART of the game in general.  And I think the TIMING decision involving legal stuff with other companies, was made and dated months ago, and by bad luck (pure and simple) BI got a sudden game-breaking problem a week before release.  Then the industry gives them 1000% of the blame. That's how the cookie crumbles.

We know this will be sorted out rapidly ... OR DayZ will be suddenly off the books, crisis in BI, and remaindered games on Steam..
IMO they will sort it out.

I'm trying to say there are behind-the-scenes action and constraints, board-meeting stress (!).. as well as what we see on the screen. What is on the screen, programmers can ALWAYS deal with.

I guess the working development/programming team is as freaked-out about this as anybody. Definitely MORE than anybody.

Edited December 22, 2018 by pilgrim*
~

[Buakaw 274]

3 hours ago, -Gews- said:

Spoiler

Polygon review came out: https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2018/12/21/18149309/dayz-review-pc-1-0-release

 Unfortunately, their review is pretty much how my first night of 1.0 went. For me that was an epic struggle with the server browser, multiple crashes to desktop and attempting to join community servers for almost half an hour. It had great performance once I got in, but getting in? And staying in? That was a battle.




On the server browser:
"For the rest of the evening I logged into a dozen servers claiming to be running daylight. Every time I showed up, it was dark. I closed down the program. I rebooted my computer. Nothing worked. I was trapped in an endless, impenetrable night even when it should have been day."

On melee combat:
"Trouble is that using melee weapons in DayZ is like trying to hammer a nail into a wall with a piece of cooked spaghetti. The animations are perfunctory, with the shambling dead and the player flailing at each other like a pair of pinwheels. Hits are slow to register, with zombies flinching a half second after you connect. The only way to tell if you’re being damaged is if the whole screen flashes red. It’s absurd that a game that’s this high stakes, where one mistake can mean the loss of hours of playtime, has combat that feels this awful."


The review concludes:

"So I died. A fully-loaded firearm on my hip. A pristine blunt object slung across my back. Both useless because of a compass stuck in my hand, and a game so unfinished that it was unable to help me do something as trivial as put something into my pocket.

I died in the dark with my screen flashing red.

I couldn’t see a thing."

 

 

strongly agreed on the melee part. this is the key question that should be asked with most things in Dayz from a game design perspective.

[Private Evans 1303]

The problem is that we as fans as well as the devs are always looking at the game not as it really is but as we imagine it to be. We are playing it gearing up, looking for better clothes and setting up camps and fire places....for no reason, just because we imagine we are playing a survival game. Indeed we could survive  just in our underpants wielding a stone knife...all you need is to find some food and water and maybe craft some rags which all is ridiculously simple atm. There are no threats, risks or challenges and therefore no reasons to build communities or even to fight for resources. Combat is horrible and no fun and the Infected are still not working not even the basics (sensors, movement and pathfinding). Version 1.0 is just a charade...we are playing a dream not a functioning game..not even considering all the bugs and glitches...

without the bonus of knowing BI will fix it how long it ever may take...the reviews would be even rightly worse...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Evilsausage 87]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/12/19/dayz-review/amp/

 

No score, but more his thoughts on current DayZ

Edited December 23, 2018 by Evilsausage

[Guy Smiley 534]

12 minutes ago, Evilsausage said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/12/19/dayz-review/amp/

 

No score, but more his thoughts on current DayZ

Sorry, anyone who starts with Wot I think of DayZ and can't spell what is a nobody and not worth the time to read

[Survivor1431 116]

34 minutes ago, Guy Smiley said:

Sorry, anyone who starts with Wot I think of DayZ and can't spell what is a nobody and not worth the time to read

A misspelled word, intentional or not, is not indicative of the value of a person, nor is it indicative of the value of the content they create. One can have poor grammar yet simultaneously create highly valuable content and be of large value to themselves or others, because value is orthogonal to grammar. If you read the text you dismissed so superficially, you will see that he spells 'what' correctly within that text, which demonstrates that the misspelling was intentional for stylistic purposes. You sir have been debunked by logic and facts.
 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Survivor1431

[Guy Smiley 534]

1 minute ago, Survivor1431 said:

A misspelled word, intentional or not, is not indicative of the value of a person, nor is it indicative of the value of the content they create. One can have poor grammar yet simultaneously create highly valuable content and be of large value to themselves or others, because value is orthogonal to grammar. You sir have been debunked by logic and facts.

Actually, no.  it shows a level of maturity, how that person is going to put forth a factual argument and a sound reasoning to their article.  

[Survivor1431 116]

Just now, Guy Smiley said:

Actually, no.  it shows a level of maturity, how that person is going to put forth a factual argument and a sound reasoning to their article.  

Grammar is orthogonal to maturity and reasoning sir, you have been debunked again. I suggest you read the text and notice that the author spelt 'what' correctly within that text. It was intentional for stylistic reasons.

[Guy Smiley 534]

Just now, Survivor1431 said:

Grammar is orthogonal to maturity and reasoning sir, you have been debunked again. I suggest you read the text and notice that the author spelt 'what' correctly within that text. It was intentional for stylistic reasons.

Just like Justin Bieber fans who think his music is better than Led Zeppelin?  You sir, are proof of why that article is horseshit

[Survivor1431 116]

1 minute ago, Guy Smiley said:

Just like Justin Bieber fans who think his music is better than Led Zeppelin?  You sir, are proof of why that article is horseshit

No one was discussing musical preferences sir, you have committed a red herring fallacy. My self is orthogonal to the quality of the article, I wish you a good day sir.

[Uncle Zed 272]

I just glanced through these responses, but one thing stuck out:

THE SERVER BROWSER

Download DZSALauncher. It's much much better than the in-game browser and you'll instantly download any mods running on the server. There's no reason to use the in-game browser once you've got DZSALauncher.

[emuthreat 2837]

1 hour ago, Survivor1431 said:

No one was discussing musical preferences sir, you have committed a red herring fallacy. My self is orthogonal to the quality of the article, I wish you a good day sir.

No one was discussing geometry either, yet here we stand.

I prefer ancillary...

[Survivor1431 116]

7 minutes ago, emuthreat said:

No one was discussing geometry either, yet here we stand.

I prefer ancillary...

The term orthogonal was necessary to invoke the concept of independent variance. Have a splendid afternoon sir.

[FunkInYourTrunk 354]

i get the purpose of reviews but i feel posting them here or any reactions to reviews here lacks in significance whatsoever.  

the only value of a review is either in the eyes of someone to stupid to form their own oppinion or someone qho isnt sure they want to spend some coin and givin a look.  if the review is read by someone who already plays the game (anyone here) they will either agree with the review and say its a great review or they will dissagree and the review is stupid.  either way the review is utterly useless to the seasoned player.  besides even new players should stop reading reviews  i dont need some ideot telling me what to play and what to hate.  i read dozens of reviews tearing fallout 76 to pieces only to find out that aside from a crash now and then that i love the game.  

basically im glad im not one of them ideots that puts value into what some 19 year old twat thinks about his experience playong a game.

[FunkInYourTrunk 354]

damn my inability to spell on my phone..... im not fixing it

[Evilsausage 87]

31 minutes ago, FunkInYourTrunk said:

i get the purpose of reviews but i feel posting them here or any reactions to reviews here lacks in significance whatsoever.  

the only value of a review is either in the eyes of someone to stupid to form their own oppinion or someone qho isnt sure they want to spend some coin and givin a look.  if the review is read by someone who already plays the game (anyone here) they will either agree with the review and say its a great review or they will dissagree and the review is stupid.  either way the review is utterly useless to the seasoned player.  besides even new players should stop reading reviews  i dont need some ideot telling me what to play and what to hate.  i read dozens of reviews tearing fallout 76 to pieces only to find out that aside from a crash now and then that i love the game.  

basically im glad im not one of them ideots that puts value into what some 19 year old twat thinks about his experience playong a game.

But if the reviews came praising DayZ, "The long wait for DayZ was worth it" "Best survival game ever" etc.. 

Now when DayZ is getting mediocre scores at best, I can understand why some just think the reviews are shit. 

But to be honest. Did you really expect anything else? Do you really think DayZ deserves more then a 6/10 in its current state? I don't. 

DayZ has moments where I can rate it a 10 or a 9. But it also have broken ass-stuff that makes it feel like a 2.

Loads of bugs, zombie interactions are one of the worst I have ever seen, horrible melee combat, some of the survival aspects don't even exist, Lacks alot of content etc... This game is still an Alpha. Some stuff is so flawed and poorly crafted that I can't give it more then a 6/10. DayZ still has something special but It could be soo much better. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Evilsausage