This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Totalgym9000 (1455 posts) -

Really having a hard time deciding which one to get at the moment, I like the concept of both...Which in your opinion is the better game in it's current state.

#2 Posted by IvanElk (3798 posts) -

Okay, Rust is better currently, however, DayZ has much more to do and can be incredibly fun when playing with a group.

Rust, is (in my opinion) a lot better off when it comes to bugs and such, but is also much less hardcore "survival game".

It comes down to this, do you want a hardcore survival experience, even to the point of a fault? (Walking is a bitch, wish cars would be implemented faster)

Rust is also a tad more enjoyable to play by yourself, DayZ to me is pretty boring when all alone.

Finished game would most likely be Dayz. It will be one hell of a game after all the content that is planned is added.

#3 Posted by Prexxus (1443 posts) -

I own both but right now I play Rust a bit more. Dayz still has a lot of things to implement to their game Rust seems to be a more finished product at the moment.

Still, Dayz has way better game mechanics overall and the small details in it make it great.

#4 Edited by Arthas045 (5100 posts) -

I tell you right now, looks like both are a blast!

#5 Edited by undeadgoon (599 posts) -

i went for 7 days to die..

#6 Posted by Croag821 (2317 posts) -

They are both far from finished so you really can't judge them based on that.

I'd say it more depends on what your looking for. Rust is a simpler game with more emphasis on building and crafting. DayZ is more of a simulator with emphasis on exploration.

Currently Rust is tough to play casually and solo since you never really log out of the game so your base and all your items can be stolen. Playing solo in DayZ, while not easy, its still much more manageable since you can actually log off and not have to worry about logging back in with nothing.

You really can't go wrong with either one luckily.

#7 Posted by IvanElk (3798 posts) -

@Croag821 said:

They are both far from finished so you really can't judge them based on that.

I'd say it more depends on what your looking for. Rust is a simpler game with more emphasis on building and crafting. DayZ is more of a simulator with emphasis on exploration.

Currently Rust is tough to play casually and solo since you never really log out of the game so your base and all your items can be stolen. Playing solo in DayZ, while not easy, its still much more manageable since you can actually log off and not have to worry about logging back in with nothing.

You really can't go wrong with either one luckily.

There are a plethora of servers without sleepers enabled. There are also pvp disabled ones as well. I don't see this being a large detraction.

#8 Posted by Croag821 (2317 posts) -

@IvanElk said:

There are a plethora of servers without sleepers enabled. There are also pvp disabled ones as well. I don't see this being a large detraction.

Haha I'm pretty sure if he's interested in Rust and DayZ he's not looking for a PvE server. A no sleeper server would help but your entire base and everything you can't fit in your inventory still needs defending when your offline.

Also who said it was a detraction? I love Rust and it's features that encourage teamwork. I'm simple letting the OP know so he can make a decision that's good for him.

#9 Posted by ExtremeBanana (152 posts) -

1v1 rust noscopes only

#10 Posted by RevanBITW (546 posts) -

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

#11 Posted by KHAndAnime (13456 posts) -

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

#12 Edited by RevanBITW (546 posts) -

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

badum-tish

#13 Posted by KHAndAnime (13456 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

badum-tish

Half the time I look down my IR, NV or any other scope it doesn't work :( 2 months after launch FFS

#14 Posted by blob357 (24 posts) -

Hold out on both if you can (it's what I'm doing), neither are amazing in their current state and what's the point in rushing into something when you can wait for a full good game?

#15 Edited by IvanElk (3798 posts) -

@blob357 said:

Hold out on both if you can (it's what I'm doing), neither are amazing in their current state and what's the point in rushing into something when you can wait for a full good game?

Save money, play solid versions of the game earlier. But again rust as of right now is the better game.

#16 Edited by groowagon (2761 posts) -

@blob357 said:

Hold out on both if you can (it's what I'm doing), neither are amazing in their current state and what's the point in rushing into something when you can wait for a full good game?

DayZ is cheaper now than what it will be in future. As the development progresses, the price will also increase. That's the point of buying it now.

#17 Posted by blob357 (24 posts) -

@groowagon: When it's released, I can guarantee that a couple months later it will come out in a sale for half the price.

#18 Edited by KHAndAnime (13456 posts) -

@blob357 said:

@groowagon: When it's released, I can guarantee that a couple months later it will come out in a sale for half the price.

That's what they said about ArmA 3 and it still hasn't happened yet (to my recollection). DayZ is even more popular. If you're holding out on a huge sale, you'll probably be waiting 6+ months past its official release. Why would a game that can sell 1 million copies more than year away from release be put on sale? If you have interest, it's probably better to pick it up sooner than later

#19 Posted by blob357 (24 posts) -

@KHAndAnime: It was on sale twice this winter (40% off), going from $59.99 to $39.99. You can check with steamprices to verify this

#20 Edited by Mortalmaster123 (1226 posts) -

I would go with dayz in my opinion. More so because I'm not that keen on farming items to build houses and what not. Also must say I like the dayz graphics over rust. The dayz engine is also more enjoyable for me to play on so thats my truthful opinion on the matter.

Both games have there pros and cons in there current state, it depends more on what kind of gameplay your looking for.

#21 Posted by MBirdy88 (7741 posts) -

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

...

server problems =I alpha state... the actually game was pretty damn finished.

unlike the 2 games this thread revolves around. 18 months to make the same game on the similar crap engine.... with even less content, £20.

BF ... few weeks of server problems... oh noes.

#22 Edited by KHAndAnime (13456 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

...

server problems =I alpha state... the actually game was pretty damn finished.

So finished that it was completely unplayable on launch for weeks on consoles? Is that a common thing for finished games? Is that your version of finished? I guess you didn't play it or even bother to read about it.

You should research the game's launch. You should read about Sim City's launch too. It should give you insight into EA's version of a finished product. I guess your version of "finished" is "retail but unplayable on most platforms". Server problems didn't even account for the bulk the actual problems. I played DayZ while BF4 didn't work because a game in alpha state was more fun and playable ;)

It will only be a matter of time before DayZ outsells BF4 on PC in alpha state (if it hasn't already).

#23 Edited by MBirdy88 (7741 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

...

server problems =I alpha state... the actually game was pretty damn finished.

So finished that it was completely unplayable on launch for weeks on consoles? Is that a common thing for finished games? Is that your version of finished? I guess you didn't play it or even bother to read about it.

You should research the game's launch. You should read about Sim City's launch too. It should give you insight into EA's version of a finished product. I guess your version of "finished" is "retail but unplayable on most platforms". Server problems didn't even account for the bulk the actual problems. I played DayZ while BF4 didn't work because a game in alpha state was more fun and playable ;)

It will only be a matter of time before DayZ outsells BF4 on PC in alpha state (if it hasn't already).

I played both BF4 and Sim City on launch, the crashes did annoy me. the fact that whenever the Siege of Shangai tower was dropped I would be kicked off a server was annoying. (my favourite map.).

Sim Cities log in problem went away after a week or 2... in which case Im not a 5 year old child that can't wait another week for things to even out.

but then, I payed £30 for BF4... everything worked in terms of gameplay... the game actually looks like it deserves millions in revanue from a graphical and presentation stand point.

Day z? less content than the mod, completely unfinished, 18 months on a new engine that is barely better than the old one... yet more poor choices. and now beta won't be for another year... when will vehicles arrive? 10 months time? DAT £20 BARGAIN.

and yea keep kidding yourself. Day Z is only peaking at around 30-40k .... BF 120k.

not that it matters, BF4 actually has really thorough competition on its own platform let alone other consoles.

living in a little fantasy world.

Edit : "Oh hey guys, pay £20 to have a 40 player limit game .... in a giant map...... but don't worry, we may have loads of pointless animals eventually... and maybe enough zombies to actually make it feel like a zombie apocolypse".

new engine... less players, less zombies ... less everything. BUT PLEASE WAIT A YEAR.

#24 Posted by Flubbbs (2975 posts) -

DayZ

#25 Edited by KHAndAnime (13456 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

...

server problems =I alpha state... the actually game was pretty damn finished.

So finished that it was completely unplayable on launch for weeks on consoles? Is that a common thing for finished games? Is that your version of finished? I guess you didn't play it or even bother to read about it.

You should research the game's launch. You should read about Sim City's launch too. It should give you insight into EA's version of a finished product. I guess your version of "finished" is "retail but unplayable on most platforms". Server problems didn't even account for the bulk the actual problems. I played DayZ while BF4 didn't work because a game in alpha state was more fun and playable ;)

It will only be a matter of time before DayZ outsells BF4 on PC in alpha state (if it hasn't already).

I played both BF4 and Sim City on launch, the crashes did annoy me. the fact that whenever the Siege of Shangai tower was dropped I would be kicked off a server was annoying. (my favourite map.).

Sim Cities log in problem went away after a week or 2... in which case Im not a 5 year old child that can't wait another week for things to even out.

but then, I payed £30 for BF4... everything worked in terms of gameplay... the game actually looks like it deserves millions in revanue from a graphical and presentation stand point.

My $60 copy of BF4 barely worked in terms of anything. Even now - the netcode is still in shambles compared to any other major FPS. Still can't use 1/3rd of my unlocked scopes because scoping in the game is broken. Broken scope = major broken gameplay. Defend it all you like, EA's reputation speaks for itself. Unlike BF4, a game that has been finished for almost a couple of months - All my scopes in DayZ work fine. 1 year pre release, too. I guess you have extremely high standards for unfinished games and extremely low standards for finished ones. You're welcome to this weird preference but it looks nutty.

Right now, this second, only 70k people are playing BF4, and 40k people are playing DayZ, a completely unfinished game. BF4 must really suck or DayZ must be really amazing for an unfinished game. According to you, those 40k people are paying out of their money just to test it! It's really interesting to see how many people are willing to "pay to test" an uber niche hardcore zombie survival game compared to the amount of people playing one of the biggest mainstream FPS titles around. Maybe people are getting tired of playing the same ol' rehashed games.

Really, with BF4, you're paying $60 for a limited version of a sequel to BF3, a game which in most ways is very similar if not identical to BF4. You're basically paying $60 to have a near identical game experience to one we just had a couple of years ago. And you'll miss out on a ton of the experience if you don't pay $60 more. Sounds crazy to me personally, but I do know some people really like to rehash their game experiences at expensive prices. For $30, I already got more time out of DayZ than I did for BF3+BF4 combined. Had more fun too. :\

#26 Posted by RevanBITW (546 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

...

server problems =I alpha state... the actually game was pretty damn finished.

So finished that it was completely unplayable on launch for weeks on consoles? Is that a common thing for finished games? Is that your version of finished? I guess you didn't play it or even bother to read about it.

You should research the game's launch. You should read about Sim City's launch too. It should give you insight into EA's version of a finished product. I guess your version of "finished" is "retail but unplayable on most platforms". Server problems didn't even account for the bulk the actual problems. I played DayZ while BF4 didn't work because a game in alpha state was more fun and playable ;)

It will only be a matter of time before DayZ outsells BF4 on PC in alpha state (if it hasn't already).

I played both BF4 and Sim City on launch, the crashes did annoy me. the fact that whenever the Siege of Shangai tower was dropped I would be kicked off a server was annoying. (my favourite map.).

Sim Cities log in problem went away after a week or 2... in which case Im not a 5 year old child that can't wait another week for things to even out.

but then, I payed £30 for BF4... everything worked in terms of gameplay... the game actually looks like it deserves millions in revanue from a graphical and presentation stand point.

My $60 copy of BF4 barely worked in terms of anything. Even now - the netcode is still in shambles compared to any other major FPS. Still can't use 1/3rd of my unlocked scopes because scoping in the game is broken. Broken scope = major broken gameplay. Defend it all you like, EA's reputation speaks for itself. Unlike BF4, a game that has been finished for almost a couple of months - All my scopes in DayZ work fine. 1 year pre release, too. I guess you have extremely high standards for unfinished games and extremely low standards for finished ones. You're welcome to this weird preference but it looks nutty.

Right now, this second, only 70k people are playing BF4, and 40k people are playing DayZ, a completely unfinished game. BF4 must really suck or DayZ must be really amazing for an unfinished game.

I just think people are weirdly obsessed with zombies. I think they're boring enemies.

#27 Edited by KHAndAnime (13456 posts) -

@RevanBITW said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

...

server problems =I alpha state... the actually game was pretty damn finished.

So finished that it was completely unplayable on launch for weeks on consoles? Is that a common thing for finished games? Is that your version of finished? I guess you didn't play it or even bother to read about it.

You should research the game's launch. You should read about Sim City's launch too. It should give you insight into EA's version of a finished product. I guess your version of "finished" is "retail but unplayable on most platforms". Server problems didn't even account for the bulk the actual problems. I played DayZ while BF4 didn't work because a game in alpha state was more fun and playable ;)

It will only be a matter of time before DayZ outsells BF4 on PC in alpha state (if it hasn't already).

I played both BF4 and Sim City on launch, the crashes did annoy me. the fact that whenever the Siege of Shangai tower was dropped I would be kicked off a server was annoying. (my favourite map.).

Sim Cities log in problem went away after a week or 2... in which case Im not a 5 year old child that can't wait another week for things to even out.

but then, I payed £30 for BF4... everything worked in terms of gameplay... the game actually looks like it deserves millions in revanue from a graphical and presentation stand point.

My $60 copy of BF4 barely worked in terms of anything. Even now - the netcode is still in shambles compared to any other major FPS. Still can't use 1/3rd of my unlocked scopes because scoping in the game is broken. Broken scope = major broken gameplay. Defend it all you like, EA's reputation speaks for itself. Unlike BF4, a game that has been finished for almost a couple of months - All my scopes in DayZ work fine. 1 year pre release, too. I guess you have extremely high standards for unfinished games and extremely low standards for finished ones. You're welcome to this weird preference but it looks nutty.

Right now, this second, only 70k people are playing BF4, and 40k people are playing DayZ, a completely unfinished game. BF4 must really suck or DayZ must be really amazing for an unfinished game.

I just think people are weirdly obsessed with zombies. I think they're boring enemies.

What makes you think people play DayZ for zombies? DayZ barely even has zombies in its current state - and never had decently working zombies in the past. In fact, the worst thing about DayZ has always been the zombies. Replace the zombies with just about any enemy (Xenomorphs for example) and you have roughly the same game.

#28 Edited by MBirdy88 (7741 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@RevanBITW said:

Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.

A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too

...

server problems =I alpha state... the actually game was pretty damn finished.

So finished that it was completely unplayable on launch for weeks on consoles? Is that a common thing for finished games? Is that your version of finished? I guess you didn't play it or even bother to read about it.

You should research the game's launch. You should read about Sim City's launch too. It should give you insight into EA's version of a finished product. I guess your version of "finished" is "retail but unplayable on most platforms". Server problems didn't even account for the bulk the actual problems. I played DayZ while BF4 didn't work because a game in alpha state was more fun and playable ;)

It will only be a matter of time before DayZ outsells BF4 on PC in alpha state (if it hasn't already).

I played both BF4 and Sim City on launch, the crashes did annoy me. the fact that whenever the Siege of Shangai tower was dropped I would be kicked off a server was annoying. (my favourite map.).

Sim Cities log in problem went away after a week or 2... in which case Im not a 5 year old child that can't wait another week for things to even out.

but then, I payed £30 for BF4... everything worked in terms of gameplay... the game actually looks like it deserves millions in revanue from a graphical and presentation stand point.

My $60 copy of BF4 barely worked in terms of anything. Even now - the netcode is still in shambles compared to any other major FPS. Still can't use 1/3rd of my unlocked scopes because scoping in the game is broken. Broken scope = major broken gameplay. Defend it all you like, EA's reputation speaks for itself. Unlike BF4, a game that has been finished for almost a couple of months - All my scopes in DayZ work fine. 1 year pre release, too. I guess you have extremely high standards for unfinished games and extremely low standards for finished ones. You're welcome to this weird preference but it looks nutty.

Right now, this second, only 70k people are playing BF4, and 40k people are playing DayZ, a completely unfinished game. BF4 must really suck or DayZ must be really amazing for an unfinished game. According to you, those 40k people are paying out of their money just to test it! It's really interesting to see how many people are willing to "pay to test" an uber niche hardcore zombie survival game compared to the amount of people playing one of the biggest mainstream FPS titles around. Maybe people are getting tired of playing the same ol' rehashed games.

Really, with BF4, you're paying $60 for a limited version of a sequel to BF3, a game which in most ways is very similar if not identical to BF4. You're basically paying $60 to have a near identical game experience to one we just had a couple of years ago. And you'll miss out on a ton of the experience if you don't pay $60 more. Sounds crazy to me personally, but I do know some people really like to rehash their game experiences at expensive prices. For $30, I already got more time out of DayZ than I did for BF3+BF4 combined. Had more fun too. :\

so a fraction of scopes (which you dont even need) is broken, compared to the vast array of gamemodes, classes and specs that are not? 99% of the content works as intended and is far more than anything like DayZ could possible offer, which you in response to the other guy suggests "can't even make zombies worth having."... right. call it what you want, that is VERY nit picky. as for netcode.... I dunno, mine has been fine ever since a week after release. I see many MANY bigger problems with games like DayZ. like I pointed out, it went backwards in player count because its on yet another s*tty engine and poor start-up quality netcode.... whats worse is, the games multiplayer shooting/physics/content/atmosphere ... or hell lets be honest ANYTHING is so uneventful... so small scale .... that its a joke that it has less players than battlefield.

You mean that mainstream FPS that is available on 6 different platforms? even alone on the PC has very very stiff competition to face up to with counterstrike, Team Fortress, call of duty and the slew of other FPS games that have stood the test of time even its own predecessors? compared to what? a ONE PLATFORM popular mod (LMAO if you call it "NICHE" at this point... what a joke).... its like saying Terraria or starbound are niche... no.

and you are paying £20 for an experience you already payed £25 to get through ARMA II (but let me guess, you was already an avid ARMA fan AMIRITE?) ... only with as i pointed out less.... for god knows how long.

The time part is subjective so whats the point in bringing it up? I gaurentee the highest played on BF is higher than that of DayZ.

I'm not saying it can't be enjoyed, but its quality is a joke, people are hooked on a concept that was much better sold to developers that are actually good, to a team, hell maybe to VALVE if they wanted it ... oh how much better it would of been. and actually justifiable.

I mean, you can say you prefer wandering around emptyness preying on pot luck spawns, not fighting zombies... just a death match game with one life and 99% walking around. with a 40 player limit..... call me crazy. but for a stand alone game to be developed out of this in 2 years.... it should be so much more.... and should not be charging people for alpha.

its not niche, it stopped being niche long ago.

#29 Edited by MBirdy88 (7741 posts) -

This coming from someone who liked the mod btw. I love the concept.

When it was announced as stand alone, I was like "great! the potential for soemthing truly great" .... fast foward 2 years.... worse than the mod.... £20 alpha.... same s*itty engine just rewrote specifically for the game. less players.. less zombies... ok crafting terrific.... no reason to play any other way than "shoot everyone on sight" because the PvE threat is non existant. you fight item spawns.

2 years.

£20.

the mod is better. flat out ... still.

glad to see preventing combat logging was a prior...... oh wait... he hasn't even revealed his plans for it "just coming eventually" ... yup... a deathmatch with no reprucussions ... just alt f4 to victory... dat simulator.

#30 Edited by darksusperia (6899 posts) -

7 days to die.

#31 Posted by Jimmy_Russell (557 posts) -

DayZ is a better game. Rust is like Garry's Mod with zombies.

#33 Edited by groowagon (2761 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

This coming from someone who liked the mod btw. I love the concept.

When it was announced as stand alone, I was like "great! the potential for soemthing truly great" .... fast foward 2 years.... worse than the mod.... £20 alpha.... same s*itty engine just rewrote specifically for the game. less players.. less zombies... ok crafting terrific.... no reason to play any other way than "shoot everyone on sight" because the PvE threat is non existant. you fight item spawns.

2 years.

£20.

the mod is better. flat out ... still.

glad to see preventing combat logging was a prior...... oh wait... he hasn't even revealed his plans for it "just coming eventually" ... yup... a deathmatch with no reprucussions ... just alt f4 to victory... dat simulator.

mod is still better, but standalone will eventually be a lot bigger. it's early alpha. at it's current state, it may not be worth it's price tag (it is for me, though), but in the long run £20 is very little for what it's going to be. consider it a pre-order price.

oh, and 2 years is nothing when making a game like this with a small team. with the recent sales success, i think Bohemia will give them s*itloads more resources now.

simply redicilous of you to start judging the final product at this point.

#34 Posted by MBirdy88 (7741 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

This coming from someone who liked the mod btw. I love the concept.

When it was announced as stand alone, I was like "great! the potential for soemthing truly great" .... fast foward 2 years.... worse than the mod.... £20 alpha.... same s*itty engine just rewrote specifically for the game. less players.. less zombies... ok crafting terrific.... no reason to play any other way than "shoot everyone on sight" because the PvE threat is non existant. you fight item spawns.

2 years.

£20.

the mod is better. flat out ... still.

glad to see preventing combat logging was a prior...... oh wait... he hasn't even revealed his plans for it "just coming eventually" ... yup... a deathmatch with no reprucussions ... just alt f4 to victory... dat simulator.

mod is still better, but standalone will eventually be a lot bigger. it's early alpha. at it's current state, it may not be worth it's price tag (it is for me, though), but in the long run £20 is very little for what it's going to be. consider it a pre-order price.

oh, and 2 years is nothing when making a game like this with a small team. with the recent sales success, i think Bohemia will give them s*itloads more resources now.

simply redicilous of you to start judging the final product at this point.

I'm not judging the final product, that is where the misunderstanding lies, and where defenders of kickstarting/ridiculously-early-access misunderstand critics of it.

You also have to factor in that the map, game design ect was already done for him. its not a new engine, its the already used engine, but written specifically for the game. nothing about it... screams that long term.

His communication is not that great either... all of the problems from the mod still exist, his anti cheat addition is a complete joke to get past (bless certain forums.).

These projects "make you part of the development process" is a lie, your in no more control/help than being in a Battlefeld open beta... just as little communication until some major patch hits. 1 year off release with no idea "what he is going to do to solve the PvE, combat log or general deathmatch only effect" of the game.... it could well be crap. what you play now other than ofcourse working vehicles and more items I bet is largely the finished project no matter what he says.

Many people on steam reviews and forums have already reviewed the game from a techinical stand point and modding... and have all claimed it to be the same s*tty engine which was a poor choice and its no wonder why development is so slow.

for gods sake the engine renders anything in front of your camera's cone no matter if it is visable or not. a problem with ARMA's optimization as well, factor in NPCs ect and you have a strictly limited potential from an engine that was never a smart choice to re-use.

#35 Edited by groowagon (2761 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@groowagon said:

@MBirdy88 said:

This coming from someone who liked the mod btw. I love the concept.

When it was announced as stand alone, I was like "great! the potential for soemthing truly great" .... fast foward 2 years.... worse than the mod.... £20 alpha.... same s*itty engine just rewrote specifically for the game. less players.. less zombies... ok crafting terrific.... no reason to play any other way than "shoot everyone on sight" because the PvE threat is non existant. you fight item spawns.

2 years.

£20.

the mod is better. flat out ... still.

glad to see preventing combat logging was a prior...... oh wait... he hasn't even revealed his plans for it "just coming eventually" ... yup... a deathmatch with no reprucussions ... just alt f4 to victory... dat simulator.

mod is still better, but standalone will eventually be a lot bigger. it's early alpha. at it's current state, it may not be worth it's price tag (it is for me, though), but in the long run £20 is very little for what it's going to be. consider it a pre-order price.

oh, and 2 years is nothing when making a game like this with a small team. with the recent sales success, i think Bohemia will give them s*itloads more resources now.

simply redicilous of you to start judging the final product at this point.

I'm not judging the final product, that is where the misunderstanding lies, and where defenders of kickstarting/ridiculously-early-access misunderstand critics of it.

You also have to factor in that the map, game design ect was already done for him. its not a new engine, its the already used engine, but written specifically for the game. nothing about it... screams that long term.

His communication is not that great either... all of the problems from the mod still exist, his anti cheat addition is a complete joke to get past (bless certain forums.).

These projects "make you part of the development process" is a lie, your in no more control/help than being in a Battlefeld open beta... just as little communication until some major patch hits. 1 year off release with no idea "what he is going to do to solve the PvE, combat log or general deathmatch only effect" of the game.... it could well be crap. what you play now other than ofcourse working vehicles and more items I bet is largely the finished project no matter what he says.

Many people on steam reviews and forums have already reviewed the game from a techinical stand point and modding... and have all claimed it to be the same s*tty engine which was a poor choice and its no wonder why development is so slow.

for gods sake the engine renders anything in front of your camera's cone no matter if it is visable or not. a problem with ARMA's optimization as well, factor in NPCs ect and you have a strictly limited potential from an engine that was never a smart choice to re-use.

he did say that he wishes to make some bad development choices too in order to learn from them, so if some idea doesn't work, it will be fixed. they obviously can't make every single wish within the community come true. you get that, right? or when you cast your humble wish on the DayZ formus, do you expect that feature to be impleted in the game next day?

engine is sh*tty. i can agree with that. i just hope they can make it work as smooth as simply possible with that sh*t engine. the thing is, DayZ is still like nothing else out there. as soon as someone does this better, i'm gonna bury DayZ and never look back. i can handle the sh*t engine, cos i'm having so much fun despite all the bugs.

there's much to improve when it comes to gameplay mechanics too, but i have faith. i will wait patiently.

e: we're getting a little offtopic here :P

#36 Posted by IvanElk (3798 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@groowagon said:

@MBirdy88 said:

This coming from someone who liked the mod btw. I love the concept.

When it was announced as stand alone, I was like "great! the potential for soemthing truly great" .... fast foward 2 years.... worse than the mod.... £20 alpha.... same s*itty engine just rewrote specifically for the game. less players.. less zombies... ok crafting terrific.... no reason to play any other way than "shoot everyone on sight" because the PvE threat is non existant. you fight item spawns.

2 years.

£20.

the mod is better. flat out ... still.

glad to see preventing combat logging was a prior...... oh wait... he hasn't even revealed his plans for it "just coming eventually" ... yup... a deathmatch with no reprucussions ... just alt f4 to victory... dat simulator.

mod is still better, but standalone will eventually be a lot bigger. it's early alpha. at it's current state, it may not be worth it's price tag (it is for me, though), but in the long run £20 is very little for what it's going to be. consider it a pre-order price.

oh, and 2 years is nothing when making a game like this with a small team. with the recent sales success, i think Bohemia will give them s*itloads more resources now.

simply redicilous of you to start judging the final product at this point.

I'm not judging the final product, that is where the misunderstanding lies, and where defenders of kickstarting/ridiculously-early-access misunderstand critics of it.

You also have to factor in that the map, game design ect was already done for him. its not a new engine, its the already used engine, but written specifically for the game. nothing about it... screams that long term.

His communication is not that great either... all of the problems from the mod still exist, his anti cheat addition is a complete joke to get past (bless certain forums.).

These projects "make you part of the development process" is a lie, your in no more control/help than being in a Battlefeld open beta... just as little communication until some major patch hits. 1 year off release with no idea "what he is going to do to solve the PvE, combat log or general deathmatch only effect" of the game.... it could well be crap. what you play now other than ofcourse working vehicles and more items I bet is largely the finished project no matter what he says.

Many people on steam reviews and forums have already reviewed the game from a techinical stand point and modding... and have all claimed it to be the same s*tty engine which was a poor choice and its no wonder why development is so slow.

for gods sake the engine renders anything in front of your camera's cone no matter if it is visable or not. a problem with ARMA's optimization as well, factor in NPCs ect and you have a strictly limited potential from an engine that was never a smart choice to re-use.

Well first off. Of course it is not optimized as of yet, that's part of the alpha stage of the game. Don't buy the game if your comp can't handle it. "Cheater protections" are also not something that is necessarily finished, but it will change as time goes on. I can remember a lot of games in beta that didn't have anti-cheat protections to where they needed to be. Your judging an unfinished product for the sole reason that it is able to be bought now.