this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
32 points (90.0% liked)
Gaming
19998 readers
116 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I will never forgive CoD or Halo for killing creativity in the FPS design space; especially weapon design
I don't think they did. The genre could do that all by itself regardless of Halo or CoD. It also feels like there can only be so many creative weapons. Ratchet & Clank reused the same handful of templates after only a handful of entries.
We used to have flak cannons, tri-barreled rocket launchers, railguns-a-plenty, and rifles that straight-up shot everything from super-heated(and occasionally explosive) circular saw blades to literal lightning bolts. What do we have now? Licensed out dime-a-dozen replicas of the same like 30 weapons that keep spilling innocent blood in the hands of irl barbarians; I refuse to believe that would've just been 'the end game anyway' assuming a world without military spectacle as a genre. Not knowing how much Pentagon money goes into military spectacle.
At least Halo tries to look like it didn't jump off the weapons rack at your nearest military outpost's armory. Fails about half the time, but it at least tries.
The sci-fi games that didn't just jump off the weapons rack gave us assault rifles with chainsaws on the end of them. Ratchet & Clank has no connection to the military industrial complex and gave us the same handful of templates within only about 5 years of the franchise. There's just only so much you can do with a weapon that's essentially a gun. Maybe you get one really unique-feeling weapon every game, but you can't get an entire arsenal of that every game.
Well most people have BattleNet for CoD, not Steam. I think this is also because warzone 3 didn't come out at launch like it did with 2.
The zombies mode is really fun, it's what it should have been years ago if Treyarch wasn't so inept.
You paid $70 for dlc
I'd have paid 70 bucks for the zombies mode alone which is all I wanted it for anyways. Team deathmatch and domination are so boring compared to game modes like warzone, DMZ, and the new zombies.
Nice dood, enjoy buying the same thing next year.
Considering it's the first CoD I've purchased since Infinite Warfare, I probably won't. I haven't even bought a new game since Mass Effect: Legendary Edition. I'm a patient gamer 99% of the time, I just love the idea of an open world zombies game and it was absolutely worth the money on that premise alone.
How does the open world affect it? One of the reasons I liked Zombies mode in the earlier CoDs was being able to do quick maneuvers through tight spaces and really getting the game down to a muscle memory to see how far you could go.
Well there's definitely still places where you can flex those muscles! There's nests that you have to go into buildings and clear out, which still requires you be able to dodge and loop through rooms. Getting stuck in a room that doesn't have a window to jump through or a second door is a death sentence unless your gun is way over-leveled for the zone you're in.
There's also a couple other mission types that are "hold out" style that you have to perform in similar ways.
The open world does affect it though, in my opinion for the better. The map has three zones of increasingly difficult enemies (the ones from Cold War Outbreak are back) so you can pick how far you want to go on any given match. The goal isn't to hold out for as long as you can until you die (though you can if you want) but instead the goal is to find and extract items that will allow you to upgrade your gear quicker (all pack-a-punch, rarity upgrades, and perk colas reset on extract) so that you can drop in and gear up fast for a high level set of missions that will earn you higher level equipment and upgrades. Including schematics so you can craft the upgrades eventually and have a little bit more to roll with from the get go.
So basically, perk sodas, P-A-P, and rarity are extractable items that you can stash and stock up (in addition to weapons) and the gameplay loop is either in building your character out for high level missions or acquiring a backstock of critical perks and upgrades so you can drop in and upgrade immediately to go straight into the hot zone. If you survive, you have to extract. Which can be done either at the least dangerous zone but based on the given match's randomness could also be in a higher risk zone as well.
Extracting is just mowing down hordes of zombies while trying to defend the helicopter until it takes off.
It's functionally DMZ+Outbreak, but the itch it scratches is closer to L4D than old school zombies. If you really like the idea of getting to high waves and pretzels with a ray gun it probably won't be enjoyable, but for someone who's always wanted an open world zombies game done right, it's perfect.
So basically dying light minus the platforming?
Don't know, never played dying light.
Open world zombie FPS.
bit wait, I do remember another differentiator. Dying light heavily discouraged frequent use of guns, preferring you to use melee. If you used guns too much, it would spawn in a bunch of 28-day-later zombies that would absolutely fuck your shit up in groups.
Was it multiplayer cooperative?
It does have multiplayer co-op but it was designed to also work as a single player game.