Dying Light 2

+
Didn't like the first game other than parkour and skill system, but this looks like it's improving upon every piece of criticism that i had. The level of detail in environment reminds me of Metro games which is insane since this is open world also the story seems way more interesting.

Excited for this, might get it on sale.
 
Looks great. Not the biggest fan of these binary morally ambiguous decisions, especially if the game is filled with them but it looks like they'll have pretty big gameplay implications which makes them more interesting. Other than that it seems improved in every single aspect over its predecessor. I hope they also managed to keep that simple to pick up, natural feel of the original and not overstuffed it, like how it sometimes happens with certain sequels when they overdevelop features, it risks losing that simple but fun factor.
 
Ive played this series, wasnt it quite generic open world game? Whats the big fuss about it.
If you weren't into open-world zombie-themed games, it could seem like it. If you were, it was one of the best ever. It's sort of like how because I'm not terribly big on fantasy-themed rpg games, I'm kinda lost on why some people gush all over the Witcher series; you need to be into the thing to get the thing, I suppose.
 
If you weren't into open-world zombie-themed games, it could seem like it. If you were, it was one of the best ever. It's sort of like how because I'm not terribly big on fantasy-themed rpg games, I'm kinda lost on why some people gush all over the Witcher series; you need to be into the thing to get the thing, I suppose.

Witcher was story-driven game, much harder to make some simple open world game, deeper you go into lore, story, characters etc, harder its gonna get. I liked Dying Light too, but Im afraid it looks exactly what gamers what these days, more and more open world games, like Ubisoft hasnt done it already enough etc.
 
Last edited:
Witcher was story-driven game, much harder to make some simple open world game, deeper you go into lore, story, characters etc, harder its gonna get. I liked Dying Light too, but Im afraid it looks exactly what gamers what these days, more and more open world games, like Ubisoft hasnt done it already enough etc.
Maybe that's why I didn't get into the Witcher series; for me, when it comes to books the story is a top priority, but when it comes to video games, the gameplay is king, and the Witcher games had...adequately passable gameplay, I suppose?
 
Maybe that's why I didn't get into the Witcher series; for me, when it comes to books the story is a top priority, but when it comes to video games, the gameplay is king, and the Witcher games had...adequately passable gameplay, I suppose?

Excellent gameplay is definitely one path in game industry, who doesnt like good gameplay.
 

OH MY F**KING GOD!

This game looks glorious!

-Repeatable IMMERSIVE contextual animations: CHECK (who dares to say they're making the game slow? :sneaky:).

-No useless little numbers that gate objects, areas or enemies and break the immersion: CHECK.

-Minimal HUD: check.

-Great FPP melee combat (clearly played at easy in the demo): check (ragdoll is a little bit too much, but not very important).

-Branching story whose decisions REALLY affect the world: CHECK!

-Progression system that affects your active skills (how stamina lets you open doors if you are strong enough, but still need to give the input repeatedly pushing X, not a simple yes/no), no magic DMG added to bullets: CHECK!

-Avellone: check.

-Same demo journalists saw at E3, making us gamers feel as worthy as them: check.

I don't want to get overexcited, but this game looks like everything I want in an RPG. I'll may have a new favourite polish software house in May 2020. 100% will buy the game at full price to support Techland, but no pre-order since I'm firmly against it (you don't buy something just because you trust a company).

Agreed on all counts, man. Can’t wait for it! Also CDPR might want to take s page out of Techland’s book regarding most of the points you listed in your post.

P.S.: it looks great, reflections and lighting especially are very nice. Notice how the sparks from that big guy’s hammer illuminate the floor.
Post automatically merged:

Ive played this series, wasnt it quite generic open world game? Whats the big fuss about it.

You’re probably thinking of Dead Island which was quite generic.
Post automatically merged:

Not the biggest fan of these binary morally ambiguous decisions, especially if the game is filled with them but it looks like they'll have pretty big gameplay implications which makes them more interesting.

Why not? It was one of the things that made the first Witcher game great and what two and three were desperately lacking.

I’m sick of games with goodie-two-shoes protagonists that are somehow magically able to right all wrongs, help everyone around them making you feel like NPCs inhabiting the world are doing nothing but waiting for you to help them which in turn makes the world feel like a soulless backdrop for the player.
 
Last edited:
Why not? It was one of the things that made the first Witcher game great and what two and three were desperately lacking.

Hard to say. I'll put it like this: there's a fine line between "good" morally ambiguous choices and "bad" ones. Some games just throw these at you for the sake of them without proper buildup or appropriateness (a good example of this would be DA Inquisition where somehow everyone and their dogs, left personal life changing decisions to you, someone they met days ago).

Plus, I'm usually the kind of player that tends to agonize over most of these two ways, consequence vague decisions and often regret choices due to a lack of proper presentation of their consequences. You might say that that is their point, to keep you on your toes, to surprise you and I tend to agree but as I said there's a bad and a good, non frustrating way of doing it. I can't really say from an on rails demo like the one we saw. But the more there are, the more chances they're there just as a way of throwing the player off than anything.

Imo, whether they're good-evil or gray-gray choices makes little to no difference. If it were good-evil though it would be easier to choose and anticipate the consequences, mainly due to prior role-playing decisions pertaining your character (full good/bad) but those can get frustrating just as fast.

That said i really like what i saw regarding the new area that became accessible and the enemies that got freed because of your choices (here's hoping the rest of the choices don't lead to the exact same spot further down the line)
 
I'm really interested about the co-op in this second instalment, how it's going to play out with the new decisions system. The first had one of the best Co op modes i've ever played.
 
how it's going to play out with the new decisions system.
the host makes all the decision and the people playing in his/her world simply see the effects of such decisions. They said it long ago and this is because they want players to see different worlds while playing online.
 
the host makes all the decision and the people playing in his/her world simply see the effects of such decisions. They said it long ago and this is because they want players to see different worlds while playing online.

Cool. Anything about Hunter/Invasion mode?
 
Hard to say. I'll put it like this: there's a fine line between "good" morally ambiguous choices and "bad" ones. Some games just throw these at you for the sake of them without proper buildup or appropriateness (a good example of this would be DA Inquisition where somehow everyone and their dogs, left personal life changing decisions to you, someone they met days ago).

Plus, I'm usually the kind of player that tends to agonize over most of these two ways, consequence vague decisions and often regret choices due to a lack of proper presentation of their consequences. You might say that that is their point, to keep you on your toes, to surprise you and I tend to agree but as I said there's a bad and a good, non frustrating way of doing it. I can't really say from an on rails demo like the one we saw. But the more there are, the more chances they're there just as a way of throwing the player off than anything.

Imo, whether they're good-evil or gray-gray choices makes little to no difference. If it were good-evil though it would be easier to choose and anticipate the consequences, mainly due to prior role-playing decisions pertaining your character (full good/bad) but those can get frustrating just as fast.

That said i really like what i saw regarding the new area that became accessible and the enemies that got freed because of your choices (here's hoping the rest of the choices don't lead to the exact same spot further down the line)

Admit it, man, you like all your movies to have a happy ending?

Seriously though, meaningful choices are actually memorable.

As I see it the way Techland is doing is not good or bad, it’s the RIGHT way of doing it.
 
Admit it, man, you like all your movies to have a happy ending?

Seriously though, meaningful choices are actually memorable.

As I see it the way Techland is doing is not good or bad, it’s the RIGHT way of doing it.

Depends on whether the "bad endings" are just for the shock factor or to get people talking. I'm not a fan of the kind of cheap emotional blackmail some games use and then call them "meaningful". :shrug:
 
So far, it looks like some of these decisions will be huge in the ways they alter the game, from the first time the game was shown at E3 where a decision to either cut a deal with or kill some guys in one mission determines who runs the city, how safe it is, what it looks like, etc. to this video...I dig this, definitely encourages multiple playthroughs.
 
Depends on whether the "bad endings" are just for the shock factor or to get people talking. I'm not a fan of the kind of cheap emotional blackmail some games use and then call them "meaningful". :shrug:

I agree. I love Blade Runner’s and Repo Men’s endings. They are both fine example how a bad ending is exactly within the confines of the world’s reality depicted in the film.

However the way how for example Game of Thrones ended was definitely only to subvert expectations and years of character development and their respective storylines.
 
Top Bottom