Zero Punctuation: Dead Rising 4

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Thanks for telling me about the time limits in this game. A practice I abhor.
I now know to avoid it if it ever comes out on PC.

Such information is often sorely lacking in reviews.
I would think that such major gameplay techniques would at least merit a mention.

Which is why I've avoided anything Deus Ex after invincible war..
Can't find out if it does or does not contain anything questionable by my standards.

There are no time limits in this game, it's the previous games that had them.

You are absolutely right, thanks. My mistake.

 

[Bindal]

This sounds like the first good Dead Rising game. Especially if they got rid of that time limit which had no business in an open-world game.

It wasn't an open world game. It was a survival game set in a mall.

And here's the thing. If you were one of those people who got triggered by the mere existence of the timer, I've got a tip for you.
- Start DR1
- Play until black guy opens grate between entrance hall and plaza.
- Kill black guy.
- Hit continue.
- Have fun killing zombies for the next 5 and a half hours.
- Repeat until you are satisfied/bored.

The timer was only a hindrance if you wanted to complete the main story AND save a lot of people. That was the point, y'know, so that the game's actually challenging? If you ignored the plot and survivors, you could literally fuck about for the entirety of a 6 hour playthrough. Have all the shallow & boring zombie bashing you want.

And DR3 already had a timer in name only, you would have to leave the game running for like 4 days straight for you to run out of time, and you can 100% the game 7 times over by then, at a comfortable pace.

Had Dead Rising continued along the path set by the first game it would up there with Dark Souls as a really distinct style of game that enjoys popularity. DR1&2 already sold millions of copies. But instead they turned it into a generic Ubisoft-knockoff collectathon shitfest with 0 charm or creativity. And the games aren't selling any better for it.

I played DR2 and the Timelimit was the biggest annoyance I had with it.
It didn't allow me to properly explore the map for stuff to get - something the game encourages you to do due the whole "Needs Zombrex every 24 hours" stuff. And yet it deliberately sabotages that as well by saying you can only continue the story within the next 3 in-game-hours. Or even worse, you can't do shit towards the story for the next 3 hours then have 2 hours to do it...
So, yes, getting rid of the timelimit was an improvement.

 

[JamesStone]

This sounds like the first good Dead Rising game. Especially if they got rid of that time limit which had no business in an open-world game.

It wasn't an open world game. It was a survival game set in a mall.

And here's the thing. If you were one of those people who got triggered by the mere existence of the timer, I've got a tip for you.
- Start DR1
- Play until black guy opens grate between entrance hall and plaza.
- Kill black guy.
- Hit continue.
- Have fun killing zombies for the next 5 and a half hours.
- Repeat until you are satisfied/bored.

The timer was only a hindrance if you wanted to complete the main story AND save a lot of people. That was the point, y'know, so that the game's actually challenging? If you ignored the plot and survivors, you could literally fuck about for the entirety of a 6 hour playthrough. Have all the shallow & boring zombie bashing you want.

And DR3 already had a timer in name only, you would have to leave the game running for like 4 days straight for you to run out of time, and you can 100% the game 7 times over by then, at a comfortable pace.

Had Dead Rising continued along the path set by the first game it would up there with Dark Souls as a really distinct style of game that enjoys popularity. DR1&2 already sold millions of copies. But instead they turned it into a generic Ubisoft-knockoff collectathon shitfest with 0 charm or creativity. And the games aren't selling any better for it.

I played DR2 and the Timelimit was the biggest annoyance I had with it.
It didn't allow me to properly explore the map for stuff to get - something the game encourages you to do due the whole "Needs Zombrex every 24 hours" stuff. And yet it deliberately sabotages that as well by saying you can only continue the story within the next 3 in-game-hours. Or even worse, you can't do shit towards the story for the next 3 hours then have 2 hours to do it...
So, yes, getting rid of the timelimit was an improvement.

Why? If you can't handle the challenge and just want to fuck around, just goddamned fuck around. The game allows you to just say "screw this" and kill zombies for hours on end and explore. True, you will get one of the worst endings because SURPRISE SURPRISE if you fuck around in the middle of a crisis people WILL die and you'll be screwed.


It's called difficulty. It's one of the things that makes the zombie killing fun, the constant pressure and sense of dread that comes from knowing people will die without your help, makes the catharsis of smashing zombies all the more fun.
It's by no means impossible saving everyone. I did that, even those annoying bloggers that insist on not getting out until surronded by like 15 of those Super Zombie jackasses. Managed to get them inside with 30 seconds on the clock. I was sweating bullets, and it was intense as shit, but it was fun. Dark Souls kind of fun, only with the difficulty put on time rather than combat (who god knows it's easy as hell).

It was an improvement in the sandboxing term, making it another generic boring open world game that loses all interest in about 2 hours by how goddamned easy it is. I don't mind the games having a sandbox mode, or spin-offs being almost entirely dedicated to it, like Off the Record. It can be fun, definitely. But removing it completely because people don't understand the kind of series Dead Rising is? Fuck that, it takes an unique game and makes it an exercise on pathetic mediocrity.

 

[srpilha]

Seems Yahtzee has gone back to his previous speech-speed, which is noticeably higher than what he was doing before.

Or at least that's the impression I got, the ending music seemed to go slower than usual. Funny effect.

 

[immortalfrieza]

snip

Snip

Snip

THANK YOU!!! You 2 put this way better than I possibly could have. I find myself laughing at how immeasurably ridiculous and unreasonable all the people who hate the time limit are being and especially how they think Dead Rising is better off without it, it very very obviously isn't. People want to complain about the A.I. or the story or graphics or whatever that's fine, but no reasonable person should ever complain about the time limit. Saying the time limit is bad is like willingly jumping in a lake and complaining that you're getting wet, it's missing the whole point despite the fact that it couldn't possibly be more obvious. This is complaining about a Football game having Football in it, an Action movie having action in it... Hell, it's like complaining about a zombie survival game having ZOMBIES in it! The time limit is core to the entire Dead Rising experience, what makes the IP have any value whatsoever over so many other games much like it. Capcom has made the franchise killing mistake of having taken away the precise thing that out of everything about it makes Dead Rising rare if not unique from so many other zombie survival horror sandbox games out there to satisfy these people. This is despite the fact that every single one of them should've known exactly what they were getting into the moment they ever heard about Dead Rising and thus shouldn't have ever even touched it much less complained about it, just like how someone who hates romantic comedies should know that and not watch one.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

I played DR2 and the Timelimit was the biggest annoyance I had with it.
It didn't allow me to properly explore the map for stuff to get - something the game encourages you to do due the whole "Needs Zombrex every 24 hours" stuff. And yet it deliberately sabotages that as well by saying you can only continue the story within the next 3 in-game-hours. Or even worse, you can't do shit towards the story for the next 3 hours then have 2 hours to do it...
So, yes, getting rid of the timelimit was an improvement.

See, that was the point. YOU were the one who had to adhere to the world of Dead Rising, and not the other way around. Things don't wait for you to happen, you are the one who has to judge whether you have enough time to achieve certain goals, and if need be, forego certain events if you managed your time poorly. [...]

TAKE ALL OF MY LOVE.

... But in all seriousness, the time limit was one of the elements that brought me *into* the franchise. It brings such a freshness to the world to know that it's not centred on you--it's not waiting on you to proceed. It pushes you to make choices, prioritize, strategize.

Along with the apparent switch of tone--DR was always darkly serious with comic undertones--it seems as if the essence of the original (two?) games has been purposefully detached along the way.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Uhhhh, instead of the episode I'm just seeing an ad for the Escapist promoting 4 or 5 content creators that no longer work here. wat?

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I played DR 1 and 2, couldn't finish either because they were just so tedious to play. Felt completely cheap. Time limits was one thing - I have nothing against time limits and quite enjoy the challenge. But to put the ENTIRE game on a time limit seemed needlessly cheap. I was constantly wondering whether I was doing it right or wrong, escorting assholes across the map, thinking I'm definitely not replaying this shit if I even manage to make it somehow.

But the biggest problem was the save points, and psychopath battles. I loved the psychopaths, all of them. Brilliantly designed characters, much fun to fight. But if I died, I'd have to trudge back so fucking far. I don't have that much time or patience, so this wore me down too much to finish the game. It was different with Dark Souls which I've finished multiple times, why I don't know.

I would give DR4 a go, but I'm a bit zombied-out already, plus I enjoy Dead Island and Dying Light much more than this anyway. Maybe once it goes on sale..

 

[Bindal]

I played DR2 and the Timelimit was the biggest annoyance I had with it.
It didn't allow me to properly explore the map for stuff to get - something the game encourages you to do due the whole "Needs Zombrex every 24 hours" stuff. And yet it deliberately sabotages that as well by saying you can only continue the story within the next 3 in-game-hours. Or even worse, you can't do shit towards the story for the next 3 hours then have 2 hours to do it...
So, yes, getting rid of the timelimit was an improvement.

...

Again, the game tells you to do shit - while doing everything in its power to prevent you from doing it in the first place. That's horrible game design.
The zombies were never a problem, as I was carrying god knows how many sledgehammer-axes. But EVERYTHING ELSE was an issue. Things I was supposed to do while at the same time avoid doing it at all cost so I could actually progress in the story properly.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm just pissed they killed off Frank.

 

[Bindal]

I'm just pissed they killed off Frank.

Apparently there is going to be a DLC that adds a follow-up called "Frank Rising" - it also returns the timelimit mechanic for these missions and is set directly after the main game.
Basically what Overtime mode used to be, but apparently more of it.

 

[SecondPrize]

I'm not sure how Japanese devs can write better American characters than Canadians but this series continues to prove that they can.

 

[Quietteshy]

Hey, nerds who like the time limit, why do u need an in-game timer to hold your hand, take control of your own lives - load up a stop watch on your phones, and restart the game every 6 hours ( ͡? ͜ʖ ͡?)

 

[darkrage6]

And so even Dead Rising becomes a dead franchise for me.

Been replaying DR1 on Steam and remembering why it is the best one.

I think that game had a lot of bad design choices, for me 3 is the best one.

Most of the issues people had was because the game had intended challenge and people did not like that. The only complaint I hear that I think was fair is the poor AI which could stand to be fixed. But the single save slot, the time limit, the escorting and difficult bosses all made a fairly challenging survival horror game. Each game after just made it easier and easier, and the games were lesser for it. Sometimes games are about difficulty. It would be like if Dark Souls removed the single file autosave, had souls not disappear after dying without retrieving them, and had everything spoon fed to you.

I liked that and wish they improved the AI and expanded the challenge and survival aspects more. That your level progress carried over should have been enough for most. Worked great for Rogue Legacy.

There was also respawning bosses(stupid fucking convicts, why can't you stay dead?) and not being able to jump or defend yourself while you're talking to people on the radio(and them bitching at you for interrupting them so you don't fucking die, thank fuck Off the Record fixed that bullshit)

I disagree with the whole "challenge" thing, I didn't mind the game being challenging, but the original game was very rough around the edges and had some just straight up bad design choices(enemies with guns being able to stunlock you to death)

I don't buy the whole "Dark Souls" argument, because unlike that series, Dead Rising was never sold on difficulty, it was sold on all the different ways you could kill zombies, I vividly remember the ads in Gameinformer for that game, nothing was mentioned about the game difficulty. So people had every reason to expect the game to be a zombie kill fest.

I agree with Miracle of Sound and Jim Sterling, I don't think the games were "lesser" at all, I think they were better for it, the problem with the difficulty in the original game felt too much like Fake Difficulty a lot of the time because of the bad A.I. and mechanics, that ended up screwing me over far more then the timer ever did.

 

[darkrage6]

I'm just pissed they killed off Frank.

I'm sure they'll find some way to bring him back in the DLC.

 

[Saelune]

And so even Dead Rising becomes a dead franchise for me.

Been replaying DR1 on Steam and remembering why it is the best one.

I think that game had a lot of bad design choices, for me 3 is the best one.

Most of the issues people had was because the game had intended challenge and people did not like that. The only complaint I hear that I think was fair is the poor AI which could stand to be fixed. But the single save slot, the time limit, the escorting and difficult bosses all made a fairly challenging survival horror game. Each game after just made it easier and easier, and the games were lesser for it. Sometimes games are about difficulty. It would be like if Dark Souls removed the single file autosave, had souls not disappear after dying without retrieving them, and had everything spoon fed to you.

I liked that and wish they improved the AI and expanded the challenge and survival aspects more. That your level progress carried over should have been enough for most. Worked great for Rogue Legacy.

There was also respawning bosses(stupid fucking convicts, why can't you stay dead?) and not being able to jump or defend yourself while you're talking to people on the radio(and them bitching at you for interrupting them so you don't fucking die, thank fuck Off the Record fixed that bullshit)

I disagree with the whole "challenge" thing, I didn't mind the game being challenging, but the original game was very rough around the edges and had some just straight up bad design choices(enemies with guns being able to stunlock you to death)

I don't buy the whole "Dark Souls" argument, because unlike that series, Dead Rising was never sold on difficulty, it was sold on all the different ways you could kill zombies, I vividly remember the ads in Gameinformer for that game, nothing was mentioned about the game difficulty. So people had every reason to expect the game to be a zombie kill fest.

I agree with Miracle of Sound and Jim Sterling, I don't think the games were "lesser" at all, I think they were better for it, the problem with the difficulty in the original game felt too much like Fake Difficulty a lot of the time because of the bad A.I. and mechanics, that ended up screwing me over far more then the timer ever did.

The whole die and keep your level progress to try again says otherwise.

I think they could have fixed some of the unfair stuff without making it literally easy as fuck. If DR3 did not tie up the plot nicely, I would not have cared for it.

 

[darkrage6]

Dead Rising is at its best when it is a simple story focused on a small area with a goal of survival and saving other people while uncovering some sort of mystery to drive the main narrative.

Going even further into shitgarbage-hyuklawl Saint's Row teritory will result in a game that is even more worthless than DR4. It's what lead to every element of the game getting shafted in favor of lolwackyrandom overpowered magic weapons that you can make in 5 seconds to effortlessly mow down zombies while you fall asleep.

Going back to the original point of DR, that in the mall every mundane item you can imagine can be used to combat zombies is the way to go. Reign in the bullshit with the awful combo weapons that are basically magic, and instead try to make it be an actual, reasonable DIY system of mixing normal items. DR2 was mostly good for that, though even that had some shite in it already, and it ruined the viability if most normal items like the katana and skateboard due to poor balance in favor of op combo weapons and in some cases, useless combo weapons.

DR4 is not "worthless" at all just cause you don't like it, that's bullshit.

 

[darkrage6]

And so even Dead Rising becomes a dead franchise for me.

Been replaying DR1 on Steam and remembering why it is the best one.

I think that game had a lot of bad design choices, for me 3 is the best one.

Most of the issues people had was because the game had intended challenge and people did not like that. The only complaint I hear that I think was fair is the poor AI which could stand to be fixed. But the single save slot, the time limit, the escorting and difficult bosses all made a fairly challenging survival horror game. Each game after just made it easier and easier, and the games were lesser for it. Sometimes games are about difficulty. It would be like if Dark Souls removed the single file autosave, had souls not disappear after dying without retrieving them, and had everything spoon fed to you.

I liked that and wish they improved the AI and expanded the challenge and survival aspects more. That your level progress carried over should have been enough for most. Worked great for Rogue Legacy.

There was also respawning bosses(stupid fucking convicts, why can't you stay dead?) and not being able to jump or defend yourself while you're talking to people on the radio(and them bitching at you for interrupting them so you don't fucking die, thank fuck Off the Record fixed that bullshit)

I disagree with the whole "challenge" thing, I didn't mind the game being challenging, but the original game was very rough around the edges and had some just straight up bad design choices(enemies with guns being able to stunlock you to death)

I don't buy the whole "Dark Souls" argument, because unlike that series, Dead Rising was never sold on difficulty, it was sold on all the different ways you could kill zombies, I vividly remember the ads in Gameinformer for that game, nothing was mentioned about the game difficulty. So people had every reason to expect the game to be a zombie kill fest.

I agree with Miracle of Sound and Jim Sterling, I don't think the games were "lesser" at all, I think they were better for it, the problem with the difficulty in the original game felt too much like Fake Difficulty a lot of the time because of the bad A.I. and mechanics, that ended up screwing me over far more then the timer ever did.

The whole die and keep your level progress to try again says otherwise.

I think they could have fixed some of the unfair stuff without making it literally easy as fuck. If DR3 did not tie up the plot nicely, I would not have cared for it.

I don't think they made it too easy, and DR3 did kind of leave some loose ends with one character from the previous games in the series(Whose change in character makes no sense, and I was annoyed that DR4 didn't bring that character up at all).

 

[darkrage6]

Are you suggesting that Frank West will come back in a clone body to fight his original body after it turns evil? Because that could work.

That's the sort of thing that's so stupidly, hilariously Capcom-esque that it would work out of sheer insanity. Considering this is Dead Rising we're talking about, now I want to see it.

What Dead Rising have you been playing? Literally none of them, sans the latest, and most garbage one is "sheer insanity" when it comes to story. Narratively, they've always been fairly straightforward, but cheesy at times. Hell, even DR4 tries to be a "serious story" since they hired "real writers" this time, (this is something Blue Castle said themselves, which of course lead to DR4's story to be the most laughable and pathetic one), which I admit, clashed pretty badly with the awful combo weapon shit and the mech suit stuff, but that came from them trying to merge the cathartic, player instigated elements of wackyness with the bland storyline.

See, this is something I don't get about people who talk about Dead Rising like it's zaaaaaaany shit 100% of time meant for memes and cheap laughs. The games themselves are never like that, and they don't even pretend to be that. The wacky videos of Frank wearing a woman's dress with a horse head is all at the impetus of the player, and is allowed as part of the game's point of having a lot of variety and freedom, but the game never acknowledges the wackyness. It is always quasi serious but unintentionally cheesy due to the quirky japanese script and relatively low budget VA, with occasionally deliberate surreal stuff like Adam the Clown thrown in. It's like most people only know Dead Rising from the funny montage videos and haven't played it themselves.

Now of course this is partially Blue Castles fault too, since they introduced shit like the combo weapons, and they were the ones to make psychopaths be elaborate joke bosses, instead of insane, creepy weirdoes that kill people. Which became part of the marketing in a lot of cases, despite the games they made, atleast DR2/OTR, adhering to the DR formula for most of the game. But, still, it's not as if Dead Rising ever had a moment of sheer atrocity like Saints Row 3 and it's random inclusion of a zombie outbreak and you talking to Burt Reynolds to fix the issue. You'd think it was a SR game by the way a lot of people talk about the series.

it's not "garbage" at all just cause you don't like it, also SR3 was not a "sheer atrocity", it was still fun in spite of it's changes. If anything DR going into denser and wackier territory makes more sense then SR doing it since the first SR game was mostly pretty serious(moreso then any of the GTA games), the combo weapons were awesome and not "Awful" in the least.

 

[Saelune]

And so even Dead Rising becomes a dead franchise for me.

Been replaying DR1 on Steam and remembering why it is the best one.

I think that game had a lot of bad design choices, for me 3 is the best one.

Most of the issues people had was because the game had intended challenge and people did not like that. The only complaint I hear that I think was fair is the poor AI which could stand to be fixed. But the single save slot, the time limit, the escorting and difficult bosses all made a fairly challenging survival horror game. Each game after just made it easier and easier, and the games were lesser for it. Sometimes games are about difficulty. It would be like if Dark Souls removed the single file autosave, had souls not disappear after dying without retrieving them, and had everything spoon fed to you.

I liked that and wish they improved the AI and expanded the challenge and survival aspects more. That your level progress carried over should have been enough for most. Worked great for Rogue Legacy.

There was also respawning bosses(stupid fucking convicts, why can't you stay dead?) and not being able to jump or defend yourself while you're talking to people on the radio(and them bitching at you for interrupting them so you don't fucking die, thank fuck Off the Record fixed that bullshit)

I disagree with the whole "challenge" thing, I didn't mind the game being challenging, but the original game was very rough around the edges and had some just straight up bad design choices(enemies with guns being able to stunlock you to death)

I don't buy the whole "Dark Souls" argument, because unlike that series, Dead Rising was never sold on difficulty, it was sold on all the different ways you could kill zombies, I vividly remember the ads in Gameinformer for that game, nothing was mentioned about the game difficulty. So people had every reason to expect the game to be a zombie kill fest.

I agree with Miracle of Sound and Jim Sterling, I don't think the games were "lesser" at all, I think they were better for it, the problem with the difficulty in the original game felt too much like Fake Difficulty a lot of the time because of the bad A.I. and mechanics, that ended up screwing me over far more then the timer ever did.

The whole die and keep your level progress to try again says otherwise.

I think they could have fixed some of the unfair stuff without making it literally easy as fuck. If DR3 did not tie up the plot nicely, I would not have cared for it.

I don't think they made it too easy, and DR3 did kind of leave some loose ends with one character from the previous games in the series(Whose change in character makes no sense, and I was annoyed that DR4 didn't bring that character up at all).

DR3 literally made the default mode with no actual time limit.

And which character?