| Page 2 of 9 |
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
 Posted: Mon, 9th Feb 2009 21:26 Post subject: |
|
 |
| atf300 wrote: | | let it have a normal save system !!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 9th Feb 2009 22:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | As long as the difficulty level isn't ridiculous this time around, I'm a happy chappy! |
The difficulty was fine. You're supposed to play it through a few times first, while just fucking around and leveling up, then go for the story.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 9th Feb 2009 22:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, but I don't buy that mate.
"You're supposed to die, repeatedly, playing through from the start while keeping your stats" is a lousy trick in order to garner longevity. If a game is good enough, it won't NEED tricks like that to make me go back and play it again. I'll go back because I WANT to.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 9th Feb 2009 22:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | Sorry, but I don't buy that mate.
"You're supposed to die, repeatedly, playing through from the start while keeping your stats" is a lousy trick in order to garner longevity. If a game is good enough, it won't NEED tricks like that to make me go back and play it again. I'll go back because I WANT to. |
It really wasnt that hard and you could use food to stay alive and books to make weapons stronger and so on. The game was tough in some spots but with the right weapons no probelm I beat the end boss within three tries if anything they should make it harder I want a challenge not a game that wont let you die or holds your hand to much. The only reason I had to restart was becuase my buddy missed one of the main missions by a minute that part I didnt like no time limit this time would be good.
Im not digging the new guy where is FranK?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 9th Feb 2009 23:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadpool66 wrote: | | sabin1981 wrote: | Sorry, but I don't buy that mate.
"You're supposed to die, repeatedly, playing through from the start while keeping your stats" is a lousy trick in order to garner longevity. If a game is good enough, it won't NEED tricks like that to make me go back and play it again. I'll go back because I WANT to. |
It really wasnt that hard and you could use food to stay alive and books to make weapons stronger and so on. The game was tough in some spots but with the right weapons no probelm I beat the end boss within three tries if anything they should make it harder I want a challenge not a game that wont let you die or holds your hand to much. The only reason I had to restart was becuase my buddy missed one of the main missions by a minute that part I didnt like no time limit this time would be good.
Im not digging the new guy where is FranK? |
i agree i want frank back he was the best. this new guy looks like a fag.
and it wasn't too hard either, i agree and the save system was fine. everyone who complains that the game was hard or the save system was gay needs to learn2play games or go play little kiddy games
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 9th Feb 2009 23:38 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 9th Feb 2009 23:45 Post subject: |
|
|
NEVER ... its Capcom the guys that hate you and say you are a pussy making it near impossible to finish their games in 1 day , adding the twists as MEMORY MANIA (megaman was not about skill, it was about how much you could remember)and FRUSTRATION to every their product(only in Capcom games you will scream at inanimate objects so much)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Feb 2009 23:17 Post subject: |
|
|
graphics look a lot better. a little more realistic. good to see the new main character hasn't got a bulbous cartoon nose like that photographer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Feb 2009 13:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Hurray for lawnmowing Zombies!!!  First one was fantastic, loved it. Hope this one lives up to it...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Feb 2009 16:00 Post subject: |
|
|
More of the same and I'm a happy chap, to be honest.
Any one complaining about the save system can fuck right off, it worked perfectly for what the game set out to do. Boo fucking hoo if you couldn't handle it, they did something different and it worked.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Feb 2009 21:04 Post subject: |
|
|
I didn´t find the game was overly hard either.
No restarts needed. Sure some boss fights was hard, but nothing that bad. Actually they were all very fun. The chainsaw clown. Classic. Maybe a bit too early in the game though. That chainsaw combined with books made the rest of the game a breeze.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 29th Mar 2009 21:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Well this claim isn't right as I just played a game of Empire Total war that certainly had more than 6K troops. So their “‘Dead Rising 2′ deal[s] with the rendering of the greatest number of characters ever seen in a video game,” is already a bullshit.
Also I believe Valve said L4D could handle a huge amount of zombies before the game crashes I can't recall the number but I do believe it was more than 6000. Not that you will ever get that many on the screen of course I doubt you will actually get that many at one time in dead rising 2 either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 29th Mar 2009 22:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| NuclearShadow wrote: | Well this claim isn't right as I just played a game of Empire Total war that certainly had more than 6K troops. So their “‘Dead Rising 2′ deal[s] with the rendering of the greatest number of characters ever seen in a video game,” is already a bullshit.
Also I believe Valve said L4D could handle a huge amount of zombies before the game crashes I can't recall the number but I do believe it was more than 6000. Not that you will ever get that many on the screen of course I doubt you will actually get that many at one time in dead rising 2 either. |
L4D crashes at around 400-500 zombies. In the Total War games, they're not as much characters as they are brain-dead ants following simple commands.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 29th Mar 2009 22:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| dezztroy wrote: | | NuclearShadow wrote: | Well this claim isn't right as I just played a game of Empire Total war that certainly had more than 6K troops. So their “‘Dead Rising 2′ deal[s] with the rendering of the greatest number of characters ever seen in a video game,” is already a bullshit.
Also I believe Valve said L4D could handle a huge amount of zombies before the game crashes I can't recall the number but I do believe it was more than 6000. Not that you will ever get that many on the screen of course I doubt you will actually get that many at one time in dead rising 2 either. |
L4D crashes at around 400-500 zombies. In the Total War games, they're not as much characters as they are brain-dead ants following simple commands. |
Well Maybe on your system but Valve claimed some insane number in the past might not be true but I doubt anyone really tested against the claim under the same conditions.
Also I can't see your argument being valid with the Total War series. Each and every single one has its own life and must be directly hit to die so they are individuals. just as the zombies will be in this game. Also i don't see how insulting the AI brings any logic to your argument either as its not like the zombies in this game will be incredibly intelligent. They will simply try to go up to you and try to get you as zombies should. So you gain no points there.
Also wars were fought like that in that time and they listened to orders before engaging or any other action ( god help them if they didn't and lived through the battle). So are you calling the AI in dead rising 2 smarter than real human beings that lived in that time? Whether you meant to imply that or not by default you did imply such.
Anyways their 6K claim is bullshit even if the game can make it happen it wouldn't be the most characters ever.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 29th Mar 2009 22:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Guys aren't you forgetting that L4D is a multiplayer game and Dead Rising isn't? In L4D you got 3 or 7 other players doing their own stuff along with lots zombies being rendered.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2009 15:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Better AI = Higher system requirements. So, my point about the AI in the Total War games being simple does bring logic to my argument. To be fair though, the Total War games don't need an AI more complex than the current one.
About L4D, I'm pretty sure it was the engine not being able to handle the zombies, as my fps was still 25-ish.
BTW, sounds like this will have coop.
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dead-rising-2-untitled/967266p1.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2009 17:18 Post subject: |
|
|
All depends to what you can call Ai i guess engines can switch less intensive control to background characters and more intense calculations in near characters.
I work sometimes practicing with Massive (http://www.massivesoftware.com/products/) and you can branch a lot of decisions based on several conditions.
In L4D i feel a that most of the zombies behave like a stream maybe some mark the path and say 10 follow the same behavior with different animations.
In Dead rising the do loops until get aware of you.
Real AI calculation like in massive takes a lot of time if involves to many decisions
6000 it´s just an stupid number
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2009 19:41 Post subject: |
|
|
yeah i dont believe that 6000 zombies will be on screen , Aahahah dont make me laugh, x360 would burn or explode with something like that....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Mar 2009 19:43 Post subject: |
|
|
In reality there will probably not be more than 60 zombies on screen at once.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Mar 2009 00:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| deelix wrote: | | In reality there will probably not be more than 60 zombies on screen at once. |
Where did you get that bullshit number from? In the tunnels on the first game you had over 300 zombies on screen.
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Mar 2009 00:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | deelix wrote: | | In reality there will probably not be more than 60 zombies on screen at once. |
Where did you get that bullshit number from? In the tunnels on the first game you had over 300 zombies on screen. |
300? maybe 100... not more.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Mar 2009 00:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Look it up online, there can be up to 800 zombies on screen in the first one. If you can't count that's your problem.
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Mar 2009 03:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Look it up online, there can be up to 800 zombies on screen in the first one. If you can't count that's your problem. |
and the Wii version has like 3 zombies at once on the screen LOLZ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Mar 2009 05:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| dezztroy wrote: | Better AI = Higher system requirements. So, my point about the AI in the Total War games being simple does bring logic to my argument. To be fair though, the Total War games don't need an AI more complex than the current one.
About L4D, I'm pretty sure it was the engine not being able to handle the zombies, as my fps was still 25-ish.
BTW, sounds like this will have coop.
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dead-rising-2-untitled/967266p1.html |
First of all you don't even know what the system requirements are for dead rising 2 and the only way to compare such is with the PC version. Which isn't even out yet. Second the fact that you are insisting that a zombie which simply walks up and tries to get the living is some how smarter than E:TW on Expert is laughable. Maybe on easy it simply sends its men to certain death foolishly but on the harder difficulties it can give quite a challenge.
Dead Rising Zombie = Go get'em and ignore any threats that exist just get'em
Empire Total War AI = Maneuvers try to flank and try to match units against those its likely to beat.
Why is this even a argument for christ sakes your someone how glorifying the AI of zombies (which are perfectly fine the way they are as they are zombies after all)
As for L4D it doesn't really matter however http://www.left4dead411.com/news/2008/11/how-many-zombies/ 1,200 zombies this person got and then stopped counting so its even more than that. So no its not the engine if it crashes for you on 400-500.
| streetunder wrote: | | yeah i dont believe that 6000 zombies will be on screen , Aahahah dont make me laugh, x360 would burn or explode with something like that.... |
Exactly the article even goes on to say | Quote: | | present a large number of characters without losing graphical quality and without having to take shortcuts that would put the game’s zombies in a small number of outfits |
If it wasn't for this claim I could accept 6000 being on screen at once it wouldn't be pretty but it would be possible. But even then the bullshit claim of most characters on a video game at once statement still remains bullshit.
This isn't the first game to have a developers make outstanding claims that are simply not true.
| Quote: | | AnimalMother wrote: | | Look it up online, there can be up to 800 zombies on screen in the first one. If you can't count that's your problem. |
|
I can fully believe and accept that. I can also accept that through optimization they could even increase that max number for the sequel a bit. But the 6000 claim with no slowdowns and keeping the quality at the same level is bullshit. I bet the real number will be much closer to 1000 than it is to 6000.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Mar 2009 05:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Well enough of this "Who's got more Zombies" nonsense. Can't wait for this, love Zombie games.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 9 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
