Dying Light 2

+
"I spend $2,000 on to-of-the-line PC hardware, build it, get everything installed and working -- and the first game I install won't even launch! I pay $60+ for a new game, then it needs to be "patched" 10 times before I can even play it without crashing constantly...
I don't know, I've been on consoles since the early 90s and rarely had problems with games. At least until 2010s and the opportunity to patch games after launch on (and after that in a couple of weeks at worst the game was good enough). But, you know, closed systems and every user has (within physiological differences in hardware manufacturing and aging) the same experience, plus Devs don't have to consider the billions possible combinations you have on pc. So the situation is easier there, if you will. :shrug:

P.S. thank god indie Devs know their limits and, when talented enough, deliver Jems. The problem comes when they try to overdo. I can cite the very recent example of Baldo.
 
I don't know, I've been on consoles since the early 90s and rarely had problems with games. At least until 2010s and the opportunity to patch games after launch on (and after that in a couple of weeks at worst the game was good enough). But, you know, closed systems and every user has (within physiological differences in hardware manufacturing and aging) the same experience, plus Devs don't have to consider the billions possible combinations you have on pc. So the situation is easier there, if you will. :shrug:

P.S. thank god indie Devs know their limits and, when talented enough, deliver Jems. The problem comes when they try to overdo. I can cite the very recent example of Baldo.
That was a major reason consoles took off. Unified hardware and software. So it both limited the resources that developers had to use and, at the same time, created a solid framework for them to work within. That meant that I may not be able to pull off everything I wanted with my game, but I could put together a finished title in far less time with fewer issues.

That was how it started...

...and then not only did consoles start becoming far more complex and robust, but they also started becoming non-standardized, with different makes and models of hardware and software being used in different regions. While they all have the same specs -- they're not all manufactured using exactly the same parts...

...and on top of that, there are now far more consoles and generations of consoles that come out a lot more regulalry than in the past...

...and that technology becoming more complex means that there are more moving parts in every machine. Building graphics for a 16-bit, 2D sprite system is not the same thing as building modern real-time, 3D procedural rendering utilizing multiple layers of textures and shaders, and running on independent graphical processing units that must be able to communicate with other hardware in the system to interpret calls being made by a game.

Games also weren't 1 million+ of lines of code, in the past. In-game functionality has increased exponentially since the '90s. A complete RPG might have been 100,000 lines of code back then. Nowadays, that block of code might be just the part of the engine that controls the camera. Every added dot is something that needs to be connected to various other parts, and every junction is a new opportunity for something to go wrong.

So even if writing for consoles is still potentially "easier" than writing for PC, it has still become a monumental task that requires huge teams of developers to pull off a big project. If we're talking about 20 people total working in a single office -- we're not going to be producing something like Cyberpunk 2077. We're going to be producing something like Shadowrun Returns. Those can be fantastic games -- but they're not on the same level of development. And look at how much patching those smaller games still need.

It's not a matter of competence. It's not a matter of greed. It's a matter of the sheer complexity of the task. The options are the same as anything else life: we play it safe, keep it small, and do something that's been done before...or we branch off, take risks, and know full-well challenges might spring out of thin air. One of these things results in simpler games that can still be very good but less likely to "wow!" people...the other is ambitious and likely to get the spotlight, but also prone to unexpected problems that can result in failures along the way.

No risk, no reward. No pain, no gain.
 
consoles
That was a major reason consoles took off. Unified hardware and software. So it both limited the resources that developers had to use and, at the same time, created a solid framework for them to work within. That meant that I may not be able to pull off everything I wanted with my game, but I could put together a finished title in far less time with fewer issues.

That was how it started...

...and then not only did consoles start becoming far more complex and robust, but they also started becoming non-standardized, with different makes and models of hardware and software being used in different regions. While they all have the same specs -- they're not all manufactured using exactly the same parts...

...and on top of that, there are now far more consoles and generations of consoles that come out a lot more regulalry than in the past...

...and that technology becoming more complex means that there are more moving parts in every machine. Building graphics for a 16-bit, 2D sprite system is not the same thing as building modern real-time, 3D procedural rendering utilizing multiple layers of textures and shaders, and running on independent graphical processing units that must be able to communicate with other hardware in the system to interpret calls being made by a game.

Games also weren't 1 million+ of lines of code, in the past. In-game functionality has increased exponentially since the '90s. A complete RPG might have been 100,000 lines of code back then. Nowadays, that block of code might be just the part of the engine that controls the camera. Every added dot is something that needs to be connected to various other parts, and every junction is a new opportunity for something to go wrong.

So even if writing for consoles is still potentially "easier" than writing for PC, it has still become a monumental task that requires huge teams of developers to pull off a big project. If we're talking about 20 people total working in a single office -- we're not going to be producing something like Cyberpunk 2077. We're going to be producing something like Shadowrun Returns. Those can be fantastic games -- but they're not on the same level of development. And look at how much patching those smaller games still need.

It's not a matter of competence. It's not a matter of greed. It's a matter of the sheer complexity of the task. The options are the same as anything else life: we play it safe, keep it small, and do something that's been done before...or we branch off, take risks, and know full-well challenges might spring out of thin air. One of these things results in simpler games that can still be very good but less likely to "wow!" people...the other is ambitious and likely to get the spotlight, but also prone to unexpected problems that can result in failures along the way.

No risk, no reward. No pain, no gain.
IMHO it is (also) a matter of competence and of greed. An amateur could never deliver a RDR2 and rockstar could have shipped a broken game (on consoles) but actually took their time and we got a perfectly polished game from day one. And boy if I "wowed" at it...

Regarding innovative games that took risks, among AAA games, I think I can count them with one hand's fingers for the last 10 years. Not necessarily for gameplay, but even making a slow game like rdr2 or an harsh story like TLOU2 is quite a big risk (and you can read users reviews in particular for the latter)(I loved both of them). Regarding pure gameplay, without going too back in time, death stranding got its complaints as well, but it sold well enough apparently (sure, kojima and the actors helped a lot). More recent AAA games that took risks... Mmm... I don't know if I can't find any... I was making a joke about Ubisoft but actually Watch dogs legion took quite a big risk and to be fair it worked, somehow and to some extent. I played it but it's not my cup of tea, like any Ubisoft game of the last 7 years.
 
Last edited:
IMHO it is (also) a matter of competence and of greed. An amateur could never deliver a RDR2 and rockstar could have shipped a broken game (on consoles) but actually took their time and we got a perfectly polished game from day one. And boy if I "wowed" at it...

Regarding innovative games that took risks, among AAA games, I think I can count them with one hand's fingers for the last 10 years. Not necessarily for gameplay, but even making a slow game like rdr2 or an harsh story like TLOU2 is quite a big risk (and you can read users reviews in particular for the latter)(I loved both of them). Regarding pure gameplay, without going too back in time, death stranding got its complaints as well, but it sold well enough apparently (sure, kojima and the actors helped a lot). More recent AAA games that took risks... Mmm... I don't know if I can't find any... I was making a joke about Ubisoft but actually Watch dogs legion took quite a big risk and to be fair it worked, somehow and to some extent. I played it but it's not my cup of tea, like any Ubisoft game of the last 7 years.
What is purpose of game being slow as RDR2? Why do you think story of TLOU2 is harsh?
 
What is purpose of game being slow as RDR2? Why do you think story of TLOU2 is harsh?
The purpose in rdr2 being slow is to make it as realistic as possible.

I don't want to spoil TLOU2's plot but many people didn't like it because it's not an happy ending, quite the contrary from the beginning to the end. I loved it.
 
The purpose in rdr2 being slow is to make it as realistic as possible.

I don't want to spoil TLOU2's plot but many people didn't like it because it's not an happy ending, quite the contrary from the beginning to the end. I loved it.
RDR2 is not realistic at all, what is point of skinning animation when skinning animals IRL is much more complicated and time consuming? Same with many other things like takin care of your horse etc. it's just time sink, waste of time. Even world is not realistic, its like few climate zones packed on small map, its more like western theme park than something realistic. Making long animations= game more realistic... Let's imagine Arthur realistically checking bodies it would take like 30 minutes after every shooting. Forests are not realistic, ecosystem is not realistic, so why making these painfully long animations, it's like paying taxes. The whole philosophy behind this game is deeply flawed for me.
TLOU2 I don't get it...is this first mainstream game with no happy ending? That's nothing new, almost all RPG have at least one "bad" ending. Damn Ubisoft doing it in almost all Far Cry game...
 
Last edited:
RDR2 is not realistic at all, what is point of skinning animation when skinning animals IRL is much more complicated and time consuming? Same with many other things like takin care of your horse etc. it's just time sink, waste of time. Even world is not realistic, its like few climate zones packed on small map, its more like western theme park than something realistic. Making long animations= game more realistic... Let's imagine Arthur realistically checking bodies it would take like 30 minutes after every shooting. Forests are not realistic, ecosystem is not realistic, so why making these painfully long animations, it's like paying taxes. The whole philosophy behind this game is deeply flawed for me.
TLOU2 I don't get it...is this first mainstream game with no happy ending? That's nothing new, almost all RPG have at least one "bad" ending. Damn Ubisoft doing it in almost all Far Cry game...
"As realistic as possible" That's what was possible.
 
"As realistic as possible" That's what was possible.
Well I don't think so. There is no value in making games realistic as much as possible if they are not some kind of simulators. When game is trying to achieve realism in some areas and ignoring them in others it's really not that great.and to some extent immersion breaking.
Let's imagine same philosophy while trying to make game like Dying Light, forget about parkour and killing zombies with weird, funky weapons. It's like with movies, trying to show something realistic way have no value at the end of the day, because movies being copy of reality 1-1 is not some ultimate goal, same with games. That's just my opinion.
 
Well I don't think so. There is no value in making games realistic as much as possible if they are not some kind of simulators. When game is trying to achieve realism in some areas and ignoring them in others it's really not that great.and to some extent immersion breaking.
Let's imagine same philosophy while trying to make game like Dying Light, forget about parkour and killing zombies with weird, funky weapons. It's like with movies, trying to show something realistic way have no value at the end of the day, because movies being copy of reality 1-1 is not some ultimate goal, same with games. That's just my opinion.
"As realistic as possible" in a fantasy background. Better now? Anyway, i think it was clear but we're getting out of topic here.
 
Well I don't think so. There is no value in making games realistic as much as possible if they are not some kind of simulators. When game is trying to achieve realism in some areas and ignoring them in others it's really not that great.and to some extent immersion breaking.
Let's imagine same philosophy while trying to make game like Dying Light, forget about parkour and killing zombies with weird, funky weapons. It's like with movies, trying to show something realistic way have no value at the end of the day, because movies being copy of reality 1-1 is not some ultimate goal, same with games. That's just my opinion.
I'd love if dying light 2 would get rid of the funky weapons like electric hammers and whatnot. Ideally not even dropkick but just a kick would be nice.

No need to comment on the rest from me because it's literally a matter of tastes and we clearly don't have the same, about movies as well. :) Also off topic.
 
I'd love if dying light 2 would get rid of the funky weapons like electric hammers and whatnot. Ideally not even dropkick but just a kick would be nice.

No need to comment on the rest from me because it's literally a matter of tastes and we clearly don't have the same, about movies as well. :) Also off topic.
Why? Things like this makes Dying Light different than other games...Why remove only dropkick, when whole parkour in game is pure fantasy?
This is zombie game after all, whole genre is based around some type of fantasy. These things are not out of place in this type of game.
 
Why? Things like this makes Dying Light different than other games...Why remove only dropkick, when whole parkour in game is pure fantasy?
This is zombie game after all, whole genre is based around some type of fantasy. These things are not out of place in this type of game.
As I said, just a matter of taste: I like games that take themselves seriously when in a believable context (not necessarily realistic but consistent to its rules). Otherwise it's immersion breaking. The same applies to mechanics like loot based progression (looter games). If the context is not realistic and the narrative is superfluous (e.g. Hades, ori, Doom to some extent) then I don't care. An example of a non realistic but consistent to its rules game could be control or Spiderman (or other super heroes). An example of "serious" zombie game is days gone: you have a fantasy element (zombies) but you use believable weapons and your bike needs fuel you can't find everywhere. It is believable in its fantasy scenario. Of course it cannot be 1:1 with reality or it wouldn't be a game and would be boring. Not a fan but for other reasons (boring narrative and open world structure). TLOU is another believable zombie game.

P.S. parkour in DL needs to be non purely realistic because it needs to be enjoyable. Good thing they changed the grappling hook from the first game to a more realistic version in the sequel.
 
Last edited:
As a Polish game developer, CDPR needs to learn from Techland in some aspects, such as action, animation fluency and control, and npc ai, these are the shortcomings of CDPR, CDPR should consider merging with Techland, at least Techland is much stronger than CDPR in terms of technology, look at CDPR's own red engine, it's a mess, even to fix some bugs take a lot of time, not to mention the improvement of the game experience.
 
As a Polish game developer, CDPR needs to learn from Techland in some aspects, such as action, animation fluency and control, and npc ai, these are the shortcomings of CDPR, CDPR should consider merging with Techland, at least Techland is much stronger than CDPR in terms of technology, look at CDPR's own red engine, it's a mess, even to fix some bugs take a lot of time, not to mention the improvement of the game experience.
Yes, but Dying Light 2 is nowhere near the same type of game as Cyberpunk. It has nowhere near the variables in any given scene that will need to be accounted for by the REDengine. It's the difference between comparing something like the detail possible in a single level of Call of Duty (which is all that will ever be loaded at one time) with the a real-time, 16x16 km sqare, theatre of war in ArmA. Yes, Call of Duty will sport better graphics, more detailed animations, more fluid controls, etc.

Even though DL2 is also open world, the sheer number of assets and functions that need to be running at one time are going to be exponentially less than CP2077 at any given moment. That frees up a lot more processing power for visuals, more detailed AI routines per character, etc.
 
Just by looking at the gameplay trailer I see many similarities with Cyberpunk. I think many people will like this game, it is quite atmospheric.

I did not like the graphics though. It is outdated. In 4K it looks like an upscaled 720p.

My hope is on the cause and effect on the open world like they promise. We all know some great examples like the Witcher and terrible ones like Assassin's Creed where there is only an illusion that your choice matters.
 
Just by looking at the gameplay trailer I see many similarities with Cyberpunk. I think many people will like this game, it is quite atmospheric.

I did not like the graphics though. It is outdated. In 4K it looks like an upscaled 720p.

My hope is on the cause and effect on the open world like they promise. We all know some great examples like the Witcher and terrible ones like Assassin's Creed where there is only an illusion that your choice matters.
Not my point. Graphics are only one cog in the big machine that makes up an entire game. Dying Light is an action-adventure game along the lines of FarCry or GTA. Yup, it's open world. Yup, there are cosmetic customization options. Yup, it can be visually stunning. But games like that have about as much in common with a complex RPG as Battle Chess has with Total War. Either can be great games, but the world and game mechanics for something like Dying Light will be easier for devs to realize than all the moving parts that need to work together in something like Cyberpunk 2077. Plus, they've already built one game that did pretty well! No reason to imagine DL2 can't improve on things across the board.

As for the illusion of choice -- it's always an illusion. Computers can't think. They can't create. They can't interpret what a player "meant". Any game, no matter how many choices the player seems to have, will always be limited to those things the devs decided to make into options, and how many of those decisions actually make it into the final game. (Working in even 2-3 major plot branches is a really big task.)
 
Top Bottom