Disagree. People are still clamoring for such a game hence the crazy popularity of the day after. There has yet been a game that had done it better than dayz stand alone. Which took nearly a decade to actually get good. If a triple a studio actually did a zombie mmo right it would be hella popular. Shit if the day after devs could pivot their game to be what they said it would be people would come flocking back.
Im with you on this, the issue I see is that to get a really big number of zombies, like for a proper “horde” to behave correctly would be a hell of a computing task. Especially when 20 players start throwing grenades into the middle.
lol it's funny, all of the articles I see about this game mention that it's a "Zombie MMO" in the title. Like, I get that it was suggested that it would be, but it's objectively not.
In this particular instance the journalists are doing their job. It was advertised as an MMO. They could change it to “so-called zombie MMO” or something, but that wouldn’t be as neutral as the current title.
It still calls itself an MMO in its Steam description:
The Day Before offers players a uniquely reimagined journey into post-apocalyptic open-world MMO survival set in the present day on the US East Coast following a deadly pandemic.
how do you scam people when it was not possible to preorder this game due to steams early access rules?
And after launch you still have the two hour window for refund and the game has no own launcher, so it’s pretty easy to get rid of this game and get your money back after trying out this mess. So if you loose money it would be at least partly on yourself, right?
Don’t get me wrong this game had “I suck” on the forefront since it’s announcement and it had some really shady marketing, but I wouldn’t call it a scam, since you can very easy avoid to loose money on it.
So if you loose money it would be at least partly on yourself, right?
You could say this about most if not all scams I dare say. It’s “your fault” you fell for it.
If I remember correctly the studio is known for releasing half-baked titles into EA, grab as much money as possible and abandon it.
The game was marketed as the most ambituous MMO since a very long time and apparently what they released is a bad extraction shooter so idk if I could call it anything but a scam.
You could say this about most if not all scams I dare say. It’s “your fault” you fell for it.
Only if there is no chance to see your money back. A scam for me is something that is clearly desigend to trick you into buying it and then you out of luck because there is no chance of refunding your money. But in this case everybody who spend more then 20 minutes into it can see what this game is about and has no issues to get their money back.
The game was marketed as the most ambituous MMO since a very long time and apparently what they released is a bad extraction shooter so idk if I could call it anything but a scam.
I completeley agree on the shady marketing but again I dont see the possible advantage for the developers in this. They marketed their game as something that it is clearly not, so people just can check it for themselves or from valid ressources and then refund the game. No damage done except a little loss of time on your end.
And please don’t think that I defend this game, I dont give a flying fuck about it, not even interested in it. I just find that a scam is something like Chronicles of Elyria, where all the kickstarter backers never wil see their money back. But The Day before is just a very terrible video game, nothing more, nothing less, at least in my opinion.
I mean… technically you are not wrong, but I feel you are handwaving a bit just because there is the 2 hour window forna refund. Not sure how the game is structured, but you can definitely make it look good enough to not see the scam in 2 hours.
Didn’t play so can’t really judge but from what I’ve seen and heard up until now it just looks they are selling promises they don’t intend to keep - and that’s the heart of the scam.
Edit: so I just read the studio is shutting down. Guess that explains why they released the game - might as well.
Studio or Publisher? Because Wolfenstein and Doom are not boring *EDIT hmm down votes without comments why…I sense redditors. *EDIT sorry if I offended anyone.
Personally I find all games made by Bethesda boring. Modding though is what made them great. By then end of Skyrim it was more Saints Row than Elder Scrolls and loved it.*EDIT How do people disagree with my opinion? Most people I know agree modded Bethesda games are better.
Some people have made “Bethesda” their trigger word and reflexively bite everyone saying it out. Right before they claim everyone else is at fault for that.
You don’t get to tell us what you think is a Redditor thing to do. We’ve all spent time there, we know how it all works, we don’t need you to tell us how it works.
Just trying to understand you better by asking questions. Something that seems to have made you angry. So sorry I wanted to understand you better. Have a great day.
You need to go check out this game. It’s like the No Man’s Sky situation all over again but on a MUCH, WORSE scale. To put it into context, imagine Bethesda promised Starfield, and delivered Asteroids, but it only sometimes worked.
What Fntastic put out is borderline criminal for the price they asked you to pay.
Actually if you look at my comments I am trying to be understanding. Most everyone else has been hostile. First time ever seeing this on Lemmy. So all I can say is sorry if I offended anyone and tried to understand others. Have a great day.
I can see that in your first comment, but all the responses after that definitely come across as needlessly confrontational and I can’t see how you feel that’s being “understanding” personally.
Lots of replies which don’t actually address or respond to comments but rather attempt to put the other person down, example:
Attacking people’s replies but then suggesting they replied to the wrong person (which one is it?)
Attacking someone’s language/typing skills instead of responding.
Suggesting anyone who disagreed with you are “behaving like redditors”
These little put downs come across as attempting to belittle the person you’re replying to and is a common way to “win a debate” by discouraging the other person from replying, in the absence of actually having a discussion.
I have no intention of winning anything. I am a IT and guess direct and to the point. Sometimes just being inquisitive. Though I do notice many over the last year have gotten more aggressive for just asking. I still don’t see a issue with my statements. How are we suppose to understand each other if we don’t ask questions?
But that’s the point, you aren’t actually engaging in the discussion, your questions aren’t on topic but are more rhetorical attacks on personality.
If someone at work speaks to you in broken English and your response is “is English even your first language” instead of responding to their comment, then your next conversation would be with HR.
Break it down what are you trying to achieve with that question and how does that add value to the discussion?
Apologies for misquoting you, but the correct quote is equally disingenuous and your attempt to turn my reply into an attack on character instead of answering the question is exactly why you’re being downvoted.
You come across as a person who looks for the negative in everything and doesn’t actually want to engage but rather make yourself feel superior, but that generally doesn’t work outside of traditional social media. I bet you’re a joy to work with /s. Have a good day.
You misquoted me. Are you saying it was wrong to defend myself? You seem to only see negative in a lot of statements. My original statement was straight and to the point. How would you ask someone? Or would you choose not to know and just try and wing it?
What are you defending yourself from? No one’s attacking you… you asked me why I felt your comments came across that way and I replied. The misquote changes nothing, you still wouldn’t ask someone if English is their first language and ignore the comment, to suggest so is clearly ingenuous.
Like I said, you come across as someone who sees the negatives. It looks to me like you think everyone is attacking you and are therefore responding defensively, which then comes across as aggressive.
To answer your question, how would I ask someone? I wouldn’t, it’s obviously irrelevant, as is this discussion at this point.
From being misquoted and taken out of context. I have several times asked that question. I worked on night shift for years with Mexicans and Brazilians. Hell I use to ask that question in Spanish and was part of my job to help translate when the supervisor was out. All I am getting from this is people don’t want to understand each other and just want yes men. What is the point of coming to a social website if people are not social?
Yea, everyone down voting you is wrong, you’re the only person who is right. Do you not see the irony?
As for your question, what is the point of coming to a social website if people are not being social? In my opinion (and I’d assume a fair chunk of the people down voting you) everyone else is being social, you’re coming across as being anti social.
I do not change the way I talk. My comments on other sections of Lemmy are doing fine. Only this one post and section of Lemmy appears to have issues. To say the least next time I post anything hear I will have to change my grammar and syntax to reflect more positive emotions. I am asking questions and edited my old replies to get feedback. Maybe it’s a generational thing or cultural difference. Hence why I ask questions. I am from the North East, US and in my late thirties. I am just trying to get to the root of the issue. Where is the context. Who made the statement negative now? Why can I ask the same thing some where else and not have a issue?
You got a negative response from me because you asked me a question, I gave a fair response and you got shitty. It’s not that hard to understand, if you’re rude to people then eventually they’ll be rude back.
Re cultural or generational issue, oh come off it mate, if you ask for feedback and then attack people who give it to you, then what do you expect? For reference I’m also 30’s, UK. Nope it’s not that, you’re just needlessly rude.
Define shitty? Please explain. I honestly don’t understand. UK is it true those who insult each other are more friendly? If true that is a cultural difference right there.
I’ll assume you mean well but that you’re just not super well versed in communicating over text.
You’re coming across as snarky and condecending. The easiest example to help pinpoint a clear example is when you asked if the person you responded to spoke English as their primary language. From a very charitable perspective it could be construed as a benign question, aimed at helping you understand why you didn’t understand each other (since you had differing opinions).
But given the context of an argument, an argument on the Internet at that, the first instinct for pretty much everyone is to assume it’s meant as an ad hominem, an attempt at discrediting the person criticizing you by belittling them for their spelling and/or grammar mistakes.
It’s also important to know that when you’re replying many times in a thread people will likely read more than one of your comments so it’s enough for one of them to come of snarky/condescending/elitist etc for that to the color the reading of all your other comments. This is exactly how we handle verbal communication as well as humans, it only takes one shitty joke, instance of poor attitude or a rude comment for everyone in earshot to form an opinion about what kind of person they deem you likely to be. People with a larger sample size of your behaviour might chalk it up to a bad day or a reaction to something someone else did earlier.
Wow, you stirred up some kind of hornets nest. I, for one, don’t see anything wrong with any of your comments. They were perhaps blunt at times, but never derisive or derogatory, just thought I should put it out there.
Add comment