Review RPG Codex Review: Dead State

[naossano]

You guys don't seem to give me much hope. This game is on my A list.

 

[Zombra]

I like RPGs, I like zombie apocalypse, which is why I played this game and eventually concluded it's lackluster. What's your agenda here?

My 'agenda' is to defend what I said, and refute a few people's repeated complaints about DS being a straight-up bad game with no hope of salvation, when most if not all of their frustrations can be directly attributed to bad balance, via such things as lackluster (easy) combat, and other failures to challenge, and to meet the genre's pessimism.

What's your agenda?

Because IT IS a problem, just not the problem. How many times ppl got to reapeat to you that fixing the balance is not the ultimate solution to this games every problem?

As many times as it takes them to describe problems that can't be ameliorated by better balance. I still haven't really heard any.

Zombra What would be a proper analogy for this game, if it were better balanced, in your opinion? X-Com where you have dialogue and C&C in your base between missions?

I'd have to be a lunatic to invoke the mighty name of X-Com, even if I thought that was a proper comparison (I don't). Honestly, I don't know - DS has a combination of elements and a medium scope I don't remember seeing together before in a game of any genre. That's part of what I like about it.

yes its obviously all about no factor other than them balancingz

So far, I'm not aware of any serious complaints about the game that can't be legitimately laid at the feet of bad balancing, one way or the other. Hey, I can be wrong, but right now there's not a single sentence of my review that I'd retract. Folks are just spewing a lot of, "I didn't find it fun, therefore the review is wrong!" which simply doesn't follow.

 

[Necroscope]

As many times as it takes them to describe problems that can't be ameliorated by better balance.

You said it youreself:

You essentially clock in each morning, deal with people's complaints, try to get them all fed, and then clock out and go to bed – repeat forever.

So let's say there's a balance patch so you essentially clock in each morning, deal with hungry people's complaints and decide who's not gonna get antibiotics, and then clock out and go to bed – repeat forever. Now it's a truly historic title!

 

[EG]

You want more than fighting zombies, scavenging, base management, and ally management - even though that's what the whole pitch was about. (...) Nothing wrong with that, but you should have paid attention to the pitch, screenshots, videos, etc. before you bought it. I don't know why you ever thought it was going to be something else.

So I shouldn't complain about a tedious and lacking game because it supposed to be tedious and lacking? Also, I see nothing on said videos and screenshots that would imply that repeating the same activities in the same order over and over again is what this game is all about.

XCOM. What is it? Base management, inventory management, combat.
Civilization. What is it? Min-maxing dependency trees, combat.
Civil War General. What is it? Supply allocation of individual regiments and moving said regiments.

Over and over and over. Repetition is typical gaming.

I like RPGs, I like zombie apocalypse, which is why I played this game and eventually concluded it's lackluster.

In before "What is an RPG" discussion.

---

Dead State is only bad because A) there's far too much loot B) combat is casual once the newb factor wears off C) shelter events (that which the game implied heavily would be its focus for a number of years prior to its initial development) depend mostly A.

Well, that and the only C&C is either shelter events or who you let into the shelter/inadvertently lead to their death. (Take the religious nut for a long walk, kill him, no shelter event. Refuse him entry? No shelter event. Invite him in? Insurrection.)

 

[Overboard]

Dead State: Just as good as XCOM and better than Civ 5 with the expansion

 

[EG]

Dead State: Just as good as XCOM and better than Civ 5 with the expansion

Only if we're talkin' the new XCOM.

 

[naossano]

the new XCOM.

You mean Xenonaut ?

 

[Necroscope]

Repetition is typical gaming.

It's not really repetition per se, as in there's a limited margin of freedom (like in New Vegas - you can buy/upgrade stuff, manage inventory, kill mobs, do quests, repeat), but the fact that the game forces you into a railroad pattern you cannot escape from, hence you're doomed to repeat the same activities in the same order every day. The fact that these activities are rather bland and uninteresting also doesn't help.

And it was said already that there are games that manage to be fun even though the gamepley circles around repeating the same routine. This game is not one of them.

 

[Raapys]

Meh I get what Necro is saying and agree. There's a big difference between 'going out to explore every day'(good in concept) and 'going out to salvage the exact same shit you did yesterday but in a different but similar location'(bad concept). Especially with the current balance, but also had it been more difficult. For my part I ended up getting all the +food/day and +fuel/day as fast as I could; not to save myself from starvation/no electricity, but simply to be free from the grind for a day or two every week.

The game had a few special locations; that evac site with mercs, sekret underground stuff, etc. It needed much more of that. Food/fuel reqs should be decreased hugely to avoid the massive loot grind, but in turn the difficulty of a 'regular salvaging mission' should be increased greatly. There are numerous ways to make the core concept better or more interesting, and combat balance is just a small part of that.

 

[Zombra]

You said it youreself:

You essentially clock in each morning, deal with people's complaints, try to get them all fed, and then clock out and go to bed – repeat forever.

So let's say there's a balance patch so you essentially clock in each morning, deal with hungry people's complaints and decide who's not gonna get antibiotics, and then clock out and go to bed – repeat forever. Now it's a truly historic title!

Some people have been throwing around X-Com itt, so let's take it as an example. That's a game where you essentially suit up your guys, go out, shoot aliens, and go back to base, over and over dozens of times. I guess that means X-Com sucks too, huh?

Food/fuel reqs should be decreased hugely to avoid the massive loot grind, but in turn the difficulty of a 'regular salvaging mission' should be increased greatly. There are numerous ways to make the core concept better or more interesting, and combat balance is just a small part of that.

Completely agree. Combat is not the only thing that needs major balancing.

 

[Necroscope]

I guess that means X-Com sucks too, huh?

Never played X-Com so I can't discuss whenever it sucks or not, but as I said, everything's a matter of execution.

I don't argue that the sole idea for the game was bad, it just lacks further content and additional fields of interaction. A mundane example: Davis wakes you up in the night because there's a break-in, you have to quickly assign allies to fix the fence (one team), get rid of some zombies that made their way through the breach (second team), and find the intruders in the shelter (third team). Such a thing never happens in this game, NOTHING ever brakes the wake up/ride for supplies/go to sleep routine, there's NOTHING in-between. Again, the lack of challenge is not the only reason why this game is bland and boring.

 

[Lurker King]

Writing, Story, and Atmosphere: A few interesting dialogues and radio transmissions is all I can say about the story and writing so far - because this is all there is really. If you're a storyfag this game is not for you, that's for sure.

Not true.

You forget about something called execution. It would certainly add to the game if the environment would be more hostile - as in less food, antibiotics, more difficulty in obtaining them etc. - and the player would have to decide who stays or dies, but still that wouldn't change the shitty routine the game forces you into.

This comment shows how little you understand the game. This is already implemented. You have opportunities to execute NPCs at the shelter.

 

[Necroscope]

Not true.

True.

This comment shows how little you understand the game. This is already implemented. You have opportunities to execute NPCs at the shelter.

(...) and the player would have to decide who stays or dies

I know it is implemented, nevertheless you don't have to/you're not forced to make any sacrifices - you can easily prosper and make everyone happy. Which, again, is not the only problem of this game.

 

[EG]

Repetition is typical gaming.

. . . the game forces you into a railroad pattern you cannot escape from, hence you're doomed to repeat the same activities in the same order every day.

This is like the AoD is not Fallout discussions at this point. What game doesn't railroad you into playing it a certain way?

I know it is implemented, nevertheless you don't have to/you're not forced to make any sacrifices - you can easily prosper and make everyone happy. Which, again, is not the only problem of this game.

Odd, as I've had some . . . unfortunate . . . incidents.

Tell me your secrets.

 

[Necroscope]

Odd, as I've had some . . . unfortunate . . . incidents.

I lost motivation to play after day 33, so if there are any "unfortunate incidents" later in the game I obviously haven't seen them.

What game doesn't railroad you into playing it a certain way?

In the way DS does? Many.

 

[Ellef]

Thanks for the review; nice to see an account that doesn't say all hope is lost. The general negativity means I haven't got it yet, but any proper balance patch will probably swing it.
The noise mechanic sounds like the one in the board game Zombicide that was kickstarted a few years back btw, it creates a lot of tension in that game. Hopefully it can do the same here, if they ever fix this thing.

 

[Necroscope]

The noise mechanic sounds like the one in the board game Zombicide that was kickstarted a few years back btw, it creates a lot of tension in that game. Hopefully it can do the same here, if they ever fix this thing.

Among zombies there's usually a few looters, who tend to shoot at you on sight - and the whole "shhh" goes to hell.

 

[Absinthe]

That's ... what I said.

Bitch, the problem is that you keep trying to have it both fucking ways. When a dartboard is filled with darts, saying that you hit the target is no longer an accomplishment or an honest evaluation of your performance. If you do think it's lousy, have the strength of conviction to outright say it. Don't be a meandering pussyfooter scared of putting a negative blurb down there trying to hedge his bets by saying "oh well I stuck it somewhere in there." "Bottom line: interface is cumbersome and uninformative." There, just say that.

In fact, throughout your review, I feel like you're afraid of having real opinions and sticking to your guns. Instead you try to make some inoffensive shit and act all defensive when people call you out for being a faggot. If you want to like the fucking game, then like it, but have the fucking decency to call things for what they are.

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

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.

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

Let me put this in perspective for you: "The Outdoorsman skill in Fallout 1 is great! I just wish the game would actually give you meaningful opportunities to benefit from it." If that sounds retarded, that's because it is. A normal person would just say "Outdoorsman sucks, doesn't really do anything, don't invest in it." You could also say "Fallout's Outdoorsman skill shows promise in theory but in reality it is worthless." Talking about the concept is great. But actually evaluating the game on the concept is retarded. When we want to know if a game is good, we don't ask ourselves "in some hypothetical other game out there, could this system/idea/etc. be great?" No, we are not judging your hypothetical other game. The question is "In the actual fucking game we have in front of us, how well does this shit matter and function?" And there is a lot of this shit-tier "lets praise the concept in the pros column while putting the actual experience in the cons column" type evaluation in your review which is completely fucking disingenuous and stupid. The practical, end-user experience is what actually matters when we ask ourselves if a game is worth buying.

Your evaluation is an Early Access fanboy's evaluation, because he's not just buying the game he actually gets. He's buying some wishful thinking that somehow in the future it's all going to be totally awesome. Beta/retail/patches/mods/expansion will fix it, guys! That's why he thinks it's okay to praise the game based on the concept. At least you told people not to buy it until it is fixed, I'll give you that.

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

"Surprisingly good for an indie" is a retarded fucking statement. RPG Codex doesn't scale to your level. We don't lower the bar because it's a fucking indie. If you have to qualify "good" with "surprisingly" and "for an indie" then it's not actually good and you're just fishing for things to praise.

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

Idiot, I am saying the atmosphere is being fucking undermined by the lack of challenge. In a zombie survival game, the pressure to survive is hugely important not only for gameplay reasons but also for atmospheric reasons. Yet there's no such pressure in this game. This is relevant.

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.

Bitch please. If you write, expect people to judge you based on what you wrote. Calling that a mistake only reflects on your lack of intellect.

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.

Look, if you are going to make a review, have the decency to look into other people's experiences with bugginess instead of just talking about your bug experience. Because believe it or not, other people can make different decisions and witness other bullshit.

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

Maybe not, but your bias cancerously ruined your entire fucking review.

Try it sometime.

I don't need to qualify my bias. I tell people exactly where I fucking stand and they will fucking know. And I barely give two shits about Dead State. Zombie survival resource management? Nothing against the concept, but nothing about that really appeals to me either. I only have a courtesy interest in it because of AoD. If there is a reason why I think it sucks now, it's because your review is damning it by faint praise. And if there's a reason why I'm annoyed, it's because your review itself is shit and unfit for publication.

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.

Actually, that's exactly what you did wrong, numbnuts. You should've said that you liked it despite its problems. Instead, you tried to minimize the problems and talk about general good shit to qualify why it's okay to like the game. Fuck, you barely even explained what actually appealed to you and how you personally came to like it, as you should have done.

Look, your review is shit not because you have "the wrong opinion" or because it's low on the VD trololol entertainment value. I barely give a damn about that. Your review is shit because you fucking suck at the core essentials of reviewing. You don't deliver real evaluations like "Elements X and Y suck." or "Z is good." You shy away from that like a fucking coward. And you frame your evaluations dishonestly, as if a cool design can excuse a worthless execution. And it's painfully obvious that you're doing this in an attempt to fish for positive things to say.

To review, a man needs two things: A brain and a pair of testicles. You have neither.

 

[Necroscope]

It's painfully obvious to anyone who played this game and managed not to fossilize out of boredoom that this review is full of apologetic gibberish, and the final sentence is just a huge cherry on this turd cake.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

WallofText

 

[Zombra]

Blah, blah, blah

So you pretty much agree with all the facts of my review but you're mad because I didn't say it with enough of a frowny face. Duly noted.

One thing I will bother to reply to directly, because I kind of wanted to follow up on it before:

"Surprisingly good for an indie" is a retarded fucking statement.

You're welcome to think so, but whether you like it or not, it's still descriptive and meaningful. I went into this game with certain expectations based on what I knew about its budget, team, etc.; expectations that the review-reading public may share (and if they've never heard of it, my qualifying opener in that section will prepare them). Those expectations were exceeded. I was literally and honestly surprised by how good it looked, which means it looks 'surprisingly good'. This is what it means to speak English. I'm sure this is all clear to you, so you know what happened and you know what to expect if you look at the game, which is what a review is supposed to do. But again, not said with a frowny face, so you're an angry boy. Must be sad for you to need to see so many frowns in life. Oh well!

EDIT: Oh wait, I forgot to add in mean words to make sure you understand my post. Jerk, meanie, poo-poo head. There, am I getting better?

 

[Necroscope]

(...)

 

[Absinthe]

So you pretty much agree with all the facts of my review but you're mad because I didn't say it with enough of a frowny face. Duly noted.

Reading comprehension, dumbass. I know you don't have much in the way of brains, but do you not have eyes either? In the first case, I don't have much of a frame of reference to cast judgment on your facts - except on the bug issue, where I recall hearing about more serious bugs than you give credit for, so I disagree with you there. In the second case, I already mentioned that the problem wasn't you having a positive opinion of the game, but that you are shit at explaining your opinion, instead choosing to give a bullshit evaluation of the mechanics.

You're welcome to think so, but whether you like it or not, it's still descriptive and meaningful. I went into this game with certain expectations based on what I knew about its budget, team, etc.; expectations that the review-reading public may share (and if they've never heard of it, my qualifying opener in that section will prepare them). Those expectations were exceeded. I was literally and honestly surprised by how good it looked, which means it looks 'surprisingly good'. This is what it means to speak English. I'm sure this is all clear to you, so you know what happened and you know what to expect if you look at the game, which is what a review is supposed to do.

The "review-reading public" argument is a crock of shit on the RPG Codex (which, again, doesn't scale to your level, so now you are claiming to scale to a hypothetical mainstream audience's level) and your low standards for a game that was kickstarted for over $300K with early access funding, etc. on top of that may just be your problem.

But again, not said with a frowny face, so you're an angry boy. Must be sad for you to need to see so many frowns in life. Oh well! EDIT: Oh wait, I forgot to add in mean words to make sure you understand my post. Jerk, meanie, poo-poo head. There, am I getting better?

No, if anything you are getting worse. Your inability to respond to the substantiative aspects of my post coupled with this pathetic attempt to ridicule the tone of my post only betrays your general cowardice and incompetence.

Thank you for proving how you have neither balls nor brains.

 

[Infinitron]

Zombra just got contracted to write more reviews for the Codex in the future. Thanks everybody for making this decision a lot easier.

 

[Absinthe]

Can't we just have someone respectable write for the Codex? Like Cleve?