Review RPG Codex Review: Dead State

[tyrannosaurus rex]

I wish we hadn't already added Dead State to our Steam curator so I could do it now and cause even more butthurt

You make me sick.

 

[HiddenX]

Thanks for your fair review, Zombra. I bought the game some month ago, but decided to wait a few more patches that enhance balancing and combat.

 

[Markman]

The first reply guy was right. Review reads like apologetic shilling attempt.
While I dont mind Zombra reviewing it eventho he's a fanboy, it looks bad cause he did it with Brian's dick in his mouth. Not very codexian sucking up to the devs because you liked their game.
gurgle gurgle

 

[Volrath]

Shit review for a shit game, at least we're being consistent.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Also: how long has this game been out now - two months? And we're still shouting MODS (patches) will fix it?

 

[DeepOcean]

Sorry Zombra but I'm very cautious with your review. I liked you mentioning some flaws like the too easy combat but I still have doubts if you are still being too positive, especially the " It's not Jagged Alliance, but it works well for a game never intended to be a hardcore combat sim." its like a big red flag to me, makes me remember a bunch of fanboys here saying Wasteland 2 wasn't supposed to be Jagged Alliance so that long, boring and unimaginative slog of a combat was okay. I mean, I didn't expect Wasteland 2, for example, to be Jagged Alliance and still the combat was boring as fuck and here it appears to be the same thing, at least, that was the impression I got. Man, I'm still butthurt I trusted Vault Dweller Wasteland 2 review.
In another words, the codex is becomming the IGN of kickstarter RPGs.

 

[naossano]

It's not Jagged Alliance, but it works well for a game never intended to be a hardcore combat sim.".

You would have to be carefull with what you say post-2014. Last iteration of the franchise is definitely not the best combat system.

 

[Infinitron]

Sorry Zombra but I'm very cautious with your review. I liked you mentioning some flaws like the too easy combat but I still have doubts if you are still being too positive, especially the " It's not Jagged Alliance, but it works well for a game never intended to be a hardcore combat sim." its like a big red flag to me, makes me remember a bunch of fanboys here saying Wasteland 2 wasn't supposed to be Jagged Alliance so that long, boring and unimaginative slog of a combat was okay. I mean, I didn't expect Wasteland 2, for example, to be Jagged Alliance and still the combat was boring as fuck and here it appears to be the same thing, at least, that was the impression I got. Man, I'm still butthurt I trusted Vault Dweller Wasteland 2 review.
In another words, the codex is becomming the IGN of kickstarter RPGs.

What is there to be cautious about? In the second-to-last paragraph, he says "Don't buy this game yet".

I think some people on this forum tend to respond overly sensitively to superficial stylistic nuances. It's like, you can't just criticize a game, you have to...well, sound like Darth Roxor while you're doing it.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I think people on this forum respond overly sensitively to superficial stylistic nuances. It's like, you can't just criticize a game, you have to...well, sound like Darth Roxor while you're doing it.

I think you're a shill.

 

[Infinitron]

I think people on this forum respond overly sensitively to superficial stylistic nuances. It's like, you can't just criticize a game, you have to...well, sound like Darth Roxor while you're doing it.

I think you're a shill.

And I thought you were going to drop the tough guy act after l'affaire Morrison, but I guess it takes more than that to change the nature of a man.

 

[naossano]

It seems to me that the review is layered.

I boils down to
- There is a lot of good mechanics, but the balance issues make them meaningless. (like the game being too easy messing up with all the survival/stress/dilemma neat features)
- The writting is irregular but shine at times.
- The landscape feels generic, but makes sense in context.

This always balanced between two opposed ideas, which leave people decide if they prefer their glass half-empty or half-full.

 

[Chemicals Are OK]

I liked your review a lot. You gave the pros and cons and pointed out the flaws, but still conveyed that overall the game was fun. Also, your responses to the criticisms in this thread have been concise and on point. I definitely hope you continue to review games on the site.

 

[Overboard]

which leave people decide if they prefer their glass half-empty or half-full.

On the Codex, your glass is full of shit. All the time, every time.

I liked your review a lot. You gave the pros and cons and pointed out the flaws, but still conveyed that overall the game was fun. Also, your responses to the criticisms in this thread have been concise and on point. I definitely hope you continue to review games on the site.

Clearly, Chemicals are not ok for you.

 

[Jaesun]

I think some people on this forum tend to respond overly sensitively to superficial stylistic nuances. It's like, you can't just criticize a game, you have to...well, sound like Darth Roxor while you're doing it.

Most people are just morans, and can't read.

 

[zero29]

don't know much about the torque engine, how easy is it to mod the game?

 

[Zombra]

UI: When you have to list "does the job" as some kind of plus and say "once you get used to crap, it doesn't seem so painful anymore" but in nicer words, you are producing some serious manure. The fact that there is a manual does not excuse the character generation screen from being uninformative trash either. UI is fucking lousy, admit it.

That's ... what I said.

RPG Elements: Eh, by your own account you were stomping dudes without consideration in combat, maxing almost all your skills and everything, and navigating all the challenges and crises with minimal morale losses or antagonism. At that stage it doesn't sound like there's a lot of decision-making going into character builds.

Yes, the balance is crap. That's what I said. Doesn't change the fact that the system itself is good.

Graphics and Sounds: "Not AAA but surprisingly good." Go fuck yourself. You mean "hovering on the decent side of mediocre, but lower your standards a lot (it's an indie!) and this seems great." There is no fucking reason to say that shit other than desperately trying to like Dead State. Say it's functional and move the fuck on.

It is surprisingly good for an indie. The reason I said it is because it's true. No desperation necessary.

Combat: "Well-designed. Too easy."
You mean "shit" right? Because that's what "too easy" sounds like to me. You also mentioned the lack of tactical options to intentionally make noise and draw attention.

I meant well-designed but too easy. If that sounds bad to you, it's because it is, but bad balance doesn't change the fact that the design is good.

Non-Combat Gameplay: You mean, it is fucking trivial, like the rest of the game, because you get all the shit you want too easily.

Yes, balance is crap. That's what I said. Doesn't change the fact that the systems themselves are engaging and impressive.

Writing, Story, Atmosphere: I can't see how this ranges from "fair to excellent" given the purportedly mediocre writing at start and the distinct lack of danger ruining the atmosphere of a zombie survival game.

You mean when I said "fair to excellent after the disappointing beginning"? And yes, balance is crap. That's what I said.

I gotta say, throwing the things I said in the review back in my face like you're scoring some kind of points on me is pretty dumb.
I made that part big because a few other people have made that mistake too, and it's getting tiresome.

Technical: "Everyone who says it's a buggy mess is full of shit. It only has a bunch of gamebreaking bugs, a bunch more scripting errors breaking some quests and other shit, animation glitches, and the like." Are you high? That sounds like a "buggy mess" to me.

That's not what I said. You're making shit up because your bias is negative. There was one easily fixable major bug and a few other minor errors and cosmetic issues. It's not perfect, but it plays absolutely fine.

Bottom line: "Should you buy it? I want to say yes to immediately put money in DoubleBear's coffers." That certainly sums up your motivations in this review.

And yet I didn't say you should buy it, did I? I qualified my bias. Try it sometime.

Just because we talk shit doesn't mean it's cool to be shit. We talk shit because we give our unvarnished opinion, not because that's what the cool kids do.

And if my opinion is that I liked it despite its problems, I'm not supposed to say that, because it's not edgy enough? Too bad.

Good morning Codex

Thanks for your fair review, Zombra. I bought the game some month ago, but decided to wait a few more patches that enhance balancing and combat.

Good move. Glad if I helped.

Also: how long has this game been out now - two months? And we're still shouting MODS (patches) will fix it?

I'm not shouting anything; I just said the game isn't really done yet ... because it isn't. I never said you should buy it before it's done. I said the opposite.

Sorry Zombra but I'm very cautious with your review.

No offense taken. It's no secret that I went into the game with a positive attitude because of Bloodlines - I said so right in the intro. I hope you can separate my opinion from the more factual information and make your own decision.

Honestly, it's getting weird that everyone seems to think I'm giving the game an unqualified recommendation. Was I not clear that it has major problems?

It seems to me that the review is layered.

I boils down to
- There is a lot of good mechanics, but the balance issues make them meaningless. (like the game being too easy messing up with all the survival/stress/dilemma neat features)
- The writting is irregular but shine at times.
- The landscape feels generic, but makes sense in context.

This always balanced between two opposed ideas, which leave people decide if they prefer their glass half-empty or half-full.

THANK you. You got it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sorry Zombra but I'm very cautious with your review. I liked you mentioning some flaws like the too easy combat but I still have doubts if you are still being too positive, especially the " It's not Jagged Alliance, but it works well for a game never intended to be a hardcore combat sim." its like a big red flag to me, makes me remember a bunch of fanboys here saying Wasteland 2 wasn't supposed to be Jagged Alliance so that long, boring and unimaginative slog of a combat was okay. I mean, I didn't expect Wasteland 2, for example, to be Jagged Alliance and still the combat was boring as fuck and here it appears to be the same thing, at least, that was the impression I got. Man, I'm still butthurt I trusted Vault Dweller Wasteland 2 review.

On WL2 combat:

The combat system is fairly straightforward: attack until you run out of action points...
If your weapon has a burst mode, you can switch to burst, which is better by default...
Thus, your choices are limited to positioning and weapons...
While there are quite a few filler fights...
Thus, the system relies more on handcrafted design rather than complex mechanics...
...different types of ammo have the same stats and are thus flavor only.
Design-wise, the true power comes not from skills but from better weapons and having enough hit points to match the ever-increasing damage coming your way.
Once you get good weapons and level up a few times, the challenge disappears...
The biggest problem is that the AI is often at odds with itself... It cannot form cohesive strategies, like maintaining positions or targeting individuals, which means that the game needs to rely on increasingly larger numbers – more damage, more hit points, more enemies – instead of smarter strategies.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Gozma]

I was p. much just waiting for someone to say, "The writing at the beginning is terrible but it picks up later on." Gat damn the beginning is so bad

 

[Didier]

What's great about Dead State is that it is the first rpg in years that I have played that actually reminds me of Fallout 2, mostly because of the dialogue options but also because of the music and the fact that enemies actually drop what they have equipped as loot.
I can understand that that others might find it tedious because the game also takes the concept of looting npc houses and runs with it. All this hovering over stuff with your mouse and managin inventory can get tedious as I said but I found it enjoyable enough as long as I was founding stuff that I needed back in the shelter.
Finding new NPCs to bring back to the shelter is a lot of fun though, and there are over 30 of them.
Combat vs Zombies is very boring, combat vs other survivors is more entertaining.

This game has a lot of flaws but it also has some things that genuinely stand out like the character interactions and the random encounter design.

I really don't understand why this game is getting so much hate comparered to truly shitty unfinished games like Wasteland 2 and poorly animated ones like Shadowrun:Dragonfall.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

I hate to criticise, as the review is an ambitious attempt in the "old school" tradition brought to us by Zombra - best known for his criticism of the amount of text in PST. But, whereas Codex reviews usually stand out as beacons of clarity and critical thought in a sea of developer cock sucking, this time my first impressions left me frustrated.

It seemed as if the reviewer felt uncomfortable with even mild criticism, without apologising and/or immediately following it up with a cheerful, positive sentiment. The expected "however!" or "fortunately!" became a bit predictable as I reached the usual mid-review slump.

Fortunately, there are a couple of gems hidden beneath the sycophantic swine swill. For example, the dramatic assertion that anyone complaining about the game-breaking bugs and endless scripting errors is "full of shit" and a "spoiled child". That's an acid burn right there! And the suggestion that the best way to become "more engaged" with the game is by turning up the animation speeds to "Benny Hill" levels and invigorating the gameplay. These are great foundations for a possible classic troll review, a bit more polishing and this undoubted potential will surely be realised.

tl;dr: Stumbles at the beginning, toothless and meek, but great potential with some rebalancing.

Bottom line: Should you read it? I want to say yes to put more brofists in Infinitron's coffers. The honest answer: wait for the enhanced edition which will turn it into the glorious troll review it was meant to be.

Spoiler

Am I doing it right?

 

[leferd]

Will give this a second go after the balance patch.

 

[Zombra]

That was awesome Zorba the Hutt

And yeah, you've accurately identified the biggest failing in all my writing: my reflex to constantly "but" and "however" everything. It's tough for me to make a definitive statement without also considering its opposite, and I end up talking about good and bad in the same paragraph. I'm sure if you look, you'll also find examples of "I liked this part; however ..." as well as the "This sucked, but it's okay because".

Don't exaggerate the amount of bugs though - it's dishonest

 

[Darth Roxor]

Huh! I'd be curious to hear about that.

I don't remember much anymore, but some of the stuff that was mentioned often included:

- The fog of war/perception/spotting mechanics being broken and/or really poorly abstracted. Like I said, I don't remember the specifics, but I think it was mostly about absurdities such as not being able to see enemies on the other side of the street, enemies not reacting to getting shot at, etc.

- Enemies not reacting to getting shot at was also an effect of the 'noise' mechanic, which made silent stuff like bows hilariously broken. IIRC he'd show me screens or tell me about instances where he'd slaughter entire hordes of stuff without any opposition just because he was using the bow.

- The 'attention to detail' thingy also springs to mind when he showed me some screens of walled in rooms inside houses, balconies that don't have doors, etc. Or one thing that made really laugh was how at one point you can build a watchtower at the shelter, and the watchtower is dumped right in front of a huge tree that completely obstructs its frontal view. This is like the Korean demilitarised zone all over again!

- The bugs. You talk about how they are grossly exaggerated but that definitely wasn't the case when he played the game. Although obviously bugs are the biggest 'your mileage may vary' aspect of all games, so eh. But I still don't think you should just handwave them away like you did in the review, especially since it looked to me like it really was obviously booted out of early access just to make it for them sweet christmas sales that were just around the corner.

Obviously the above notes are rather vague/general, but unfortunately it's all I remember. The game itself simply seemed like shovelware to me from his pics and broadcasts, I guess my brian didn't feel like storing the info for too long.

 

[Siveon]

I thought the game was fine, for what I've played. But...

Worst PC portraits of any RPG I've ever played (not portraits on the whole as NPC ones are fine).

Seriously. What the hell? The portraits look downright awful, almost like there were two different artists handling the thing.

 

[Lhynn]

- Enemies not reacting to getting shot at was also an effect of the 'noise' mechanic, which made silent stuff like bows hilariously broken. IIRC he'd show me screens or tell me about instances where he'd slaughter entire hordes of stuff without any opposition just because he was using the bow.

This sounds really cool if it only affected zombies, like its suposed to work.