Review RPG Codex Review: Dead State

[Zombra]

Maybe you can also tell me whether or not the devs were busy doing the important stuff like laying a stable foundation for the game, its engine, and its systems, instead of worrying about balance, which actually is about shifting numbers - and is the last thing smart developers worry about. It's important, but meaningless if your game doesn't work at all.

Not sure if serious ...

Absolutely. Granted that they released too early, given the choice between a well-balanced release that doesn't run period, and a game that actually works but has crap balance, they made the right decision. You don't tune the engine first and build it later.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Maybe you can also tell me whether or not the devs were busy doing the important stuff like laying a stable foundation for the game, its engine, and its systems, instead of worrying about balance, which actually is about shifting numbers - and is the last thing smart developers worry about. It's important, but meaningless if your game doesn't work at all.

Not sure if serious ...

Absolutely. Granted that they released too early, given the choice between a well-balanced release that doesn't run period, and a game that actually works but has crap balance, they made the right decision. You don't tune the engine first and build it later.

1. Fun polished experienced at launch = good word of mouth, sales;

2. Unpolished release and hope to patch it 6 months later = bad word of mouth, no sales, no one will care.

I realize they were probably couldn't delay the game anymore, but that speaks for bad project management in the end, and the game suffered for it both in terms of PR and post release sales.

 

[Zombra]

I realize they were probably couldn't delay the game anymore, but that speaks for bad project management in the end, and the game suffered for it both in terms of PR and post release sales.

Not to mention the gameplay itself. I'm in complete agreement with you here. They released too early, and it's a shame.

I don't even know why I'm talking about their development process. My only real interest was in reviewing the game I played.

 

[EG]

1. Fun polished experienced at launch = good word of mouth, sales;

2. Unpolished release and hope to patch it 6 months later = bad word of mouth, no sales, no one will care.

I realize they were probably couldn't delay the game anymore, but that speaks for bad project management in the end, and the game suffered for it both in terms of PR and post release sales.

Eh, their current number of players is pretty close to Neo Scavenger's and half of Project Zomboid's averaged current players. Like PZ, it's doubtful there's much player retention (people play for a few hours/days then just drop it), meaning it relies on new purchases to sustain these numbers. I'd call that quite successful despite the mildly buggy / poorly balanced criticisms leveled against it. It also sells at double the price.

If it goes anything like Age of Decadence's initial Steam EA release, they'll probably have enough to continue funding maintenance of Dead State and whatever their next project is. And all on "bad" word of mouth. (But plenty of faulty assumptions in this post.)

 

[Kem0sabe]

1. Fun polished experienced at launch = good word of mouth, sales;

2. Unpolished release and hope to patch it 6 months later = bad word of mouth, no sales, no one will care.

I realize they were probably couldn't delay the game anymore, but that speaks for bad project management in the end, and the game suffered for it both in terms of PR and post release sales.

Eh, their current number of players is pretty close to Neo Scavenger's and half of Project Zomboid's averaged current players. Like PZ, it's doubtful there's much player retention (people play for a few hours/days then just drop it), meaning it relies on new purchases to sustain these numbers. I'd call that quite successful despite the mildly buggy / poorly balanced criticisms leveled against it. It also sells at double the price.

If it goes anything like Age of Decadence's initial Steam EA release, they'll probably have enough to continue funding maintenance of Dead State and whatever their next project is. And all on "bad" word of mouth. (But plenty of faulty assumptions in this post.)

Neo Scavenger manages to be even more niche than this, is almost a browser game in its conception, costing probably a fraction of what it took to bring Dead State screaming out of the Mitsoda's basement... still manages more players.

Project Zomboid has been in development hell for years, has had its source code stolen, has had money problems, has been pirated heavily since pre-alpha... and still manages to have twice as many players as Dead State. It helps that the devs have kept with the project and nurtured a great community despite all that happened.

Age of Decadence is still in early release... which Dead State is not.

Dead State, despite amusing opinions, is not alpha, beta, pre-release, early access... its a release version of a game that was launched too soon, plagued with bugs, design problems, balance problems and a slightly hysteric developer.

 

[EG]

Neo Scavenger manages to be even more niche than this, is almost a browser game in its conception, costing probably a fraction of what it took to bring Dead State screaming out of the Mitsoda's basement... still manages more players.

It may well be a browser game, but it's taken someone around 4 years full-time to produce it, likely costing an equivalent of what Dead State earned through its KickStarter.

It doesn't have more players. It has half the number of players, give or take: http://steamcharts.com/app/248860 vs http://steamcharts.com/app/239840

Project Zomboid has been in development hell for years, has had its source code stolen, has had money problems, has been pirated heavily since pre-alpha... and still manages to have twice as many players as Dead State. It helps that the devs have kept with the project and nurtured a great community despite all that happened.

Approximately the same length of development as Neo Scavenger, however. It's public demo was released in 2011. Like Neo Scavenger, it is a niche game, just with four primary developers, yet manages to carry on development from its earnings, even in EA.

Age of Decadence is still in early release... which Dead State is not.

Dead State, despite amusing opinions, is not alpha, beta, pre-release, early access... its a release version of a game that was launched too soon, plagued with bugs, design problems, balance problems and a slightly hysteric developer.

Correct, yet from outside appearances, it should be a financially viable project, thus successful, despite the bitter tears of 25% of its reviews.

Hardly an example of no one caring.

 

[MicoSelva]

Thanks for the review, Zombra. I was looking forward to the Codex take on this game.

As for the discussion following the review...

What makes Banner Saga's better designed? I never played it because it seemed pretty dull. Blackguards' "complex and obtuse" doesn't sound better at all; nor does D:OS' "complex and unbalanced" sound better than DS' "simple and unbalanced".
(...)
you're going to tout Shadowrun's 2AP combat as a resounding triumph over DS?

You should probably check these games out, they might surprise you. And you might (not saying you will) reevaluate Dead State's combat design after experiencing those other ones. But even if that does not happen, criticizing design of games you have not played to defend your review opinion is not a good approach.

 

[Zombra]

As for the discussion following the review...

What makes Banner Saga's better designed? I never played it because it seemed pretty dull. Blackguards' "complex and obtuse" doesn't sound better at all; nor does D:OS' "complex and unbalanced" sound better than DS' "simple and unbalanced".
you're going to tout Shadowrun's 2AP combat as a resounding triumph over DS?

You should probably check these games out, they might surprise you. And you might (not saying you will) reevaluate Dead State's combat design after experiencing those other ones. But even if that does not happen, criticizing design of games you have not played to defend your review opinion is not a good approach.

Just to follow up, I did play Shadowrun. Didn't hate the combat, but it didn't have me crying tears of joy either and I don't think it's especially better than Dead State's - certainly not resoundingly better. As for the rest, all I had to go by in the moment was whatshisname's descriptions ... you have to admit that "complex and obtuse" doesn't exactly sound enthralling

And anybody who wants to PM me gift codes to any of those games can feel free!

Glad you got something out of the review.

 

[Kem0sabe]

As for the discussion following the review...

What makes Banner Saga's better designed? I never played it because it seemed pretty dull. Blackguards' "complex and obtuse" doesn't sound better at all; nor does D:OS' "complex and unbalanced" sound better than DS' "simple and unbalanced".
you're going to tout Shadowrun's 2AP combat as a resounding triumph over DS?

You should probably check these games out, they might surprise you. And you might (not saying you will) reevaluate Dead State's combat design after experiencing those other ones. But even if that does not happen, criticizing design of games you have not played to defend your review opinion is not a good approach.

Just to follow up, I did play Shadowrun. Didn't hate the combat, but it didn't have me crying tears of joy either and I don't think it's especially better than Dead State's - certainly not resoundingly better. As for the rest, all I had to go by in the moment was whatshisname's descriptions ... you have to admit that "complex and obtuse" doesn't exactly sound enthralling

And anybody who wants to PM me gift codes to any of those games can feel free!

Glad you got something out of the review.

Complex but hard for new players to understand the mechanics from the get go, especially the stats and skill relations. The combat itself is good with a lot of puzzle elements to it.

Also, point me one thing Dead State's combat does better than Shadowrun... a tablet game. Stealth and morale dont count because they dont work as intended and are utterly broken.

 

[Zombra]

Complex but hard for new players to understand the mechanics from the get go, especially the stats and skill relations. The combat itself is good with a lot of puzzle elements to it.

I'll take your word for it.

Also, point me one thing Dead State's combat does better than Shadowrun...

Off the top of my head? More melee options.

EDIT: a few more.
Fine grain AP system.
Procedural status effects from basic melee attacks.
Knockdown and push attacks.
Complex armor system.
Weapon variety.
Weapons & armor displayed on player and enemy models.
Chokepoints.
Player control over when and where fights begin and end.
Mobile 3D camera.
Noise.
Multi-faction conflicts.
Large fights.

Stealth and morale dont count because they dont work as intended and are utterly broken.

Are they? They worked great for me.

 

[Ninjerk]

What do you mean when you say complex armor system? From everything I've read it's, "Put armor on -> become invincible"

 

[Zombra]

What do you mean when you say complex armor system? From everything I've read it's, "Put armor on -> become invincible"

Yes, but that's down to crap balancing; the system is cool. There are seven different damage types, and every piece of armor has a different rating for each type. A Ballistic Vest is bulletproof but doesn't help as much against bites, while Chainmail is great for fighting zombies but not so great against gunfire.

I didn't cover that in the review because it basically didn't matter once my Defense got up to about 6.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Complex but hard for new players to understand the mechanics from the get go, especially the stats and skill relations. The combat itself is good with a lot of puzzle elements to it.

I'll take your word for it.

Also, point me one thing Dead State's combat does better than Shadowrun...

Off the top of my head? More melee options.

EDIT: a few more.
Fine grain AP system.
Procedural status effects from basic melee attacks.
Knockdown and push attacks.
Complex armor system.
Weapon variety.
Weapons & armor displayed on player and enemy models.
Chokepoints.
Player control over when and where fights begin and end.
Mobile 3D camera.
Noise.
Multi-faction conflicts.
Large fights.

Stealth and morale dont count because they dont work as intended and are utterly broken.

Are they? They worked great for me.

All those are meaningless if the game tells you to exploit the system, put on heavy armor and the biggest stick you can find and go crazy on the zombies with invincible mode.

Shadowrun actually launched with semi competent combat that allowed you to:

1. have 4 basic ranged weapon categories, each with at least 2 unique special abilities
2. have 3 basic melee disciplines, unarmed, melee weapons, adept skills that mix magic with melee.
3. have mage spells
4. have summons
5. have buffs
6. have environmental interactions
7. have multiple solutions to encounters
8. use a meta layer of the matrix to influence the encounters happening in the "real world"
9. use C&C to actually avoid hostile encounters all together

In the end, we are evaluating the games that we actually have on our hands, and not the promises for balance and fun from the devs that might or might not materialize. Game development is a risky business, and any prognostication is hazardous at best, look at inxile and larian, much more money and people, months after release still no major balance changes in sight.

 

[GloomFrost]

Combat in dead state is dull and broken beyond belief. Not sure what is there to argue about. I wouldnt even call it "unbalanced", it would need some serious patching before it has the right to be called "unbalanced". Vampire bloodlines or fallout have "unbalanced" combat. DS at the moment it is just a mess. The post above me shows that even Shadowrun's combat wins hands down.

 

[Zombra]

All those are meaningless if the game [has crap balance].

So you concede that Dead State has some good systems, and does "one thing" (several things) better than Shadowrun, except they don't function well because balance is crap?
You're telling me what I already said.

I didn't ask for a laundry list of cool things in Shadowrun, and don't care, because Dead State would not be better if you could shoot fireballs and summon ghosts.

 

[EG]

All those are meaningless if the game tells you to exploit the system, put on heavy armor and the biggest stick you can find and go crazy on the zombies with invincible mode.

Please, there's very few games out there that aren't this. Jagged Alliance, X-Com, Fallout .etc are all cake walks once you learn to game the system, be it armor, stick, or a combination of both.

At least Dead State relies to some extent on randomized loot -- you won't always find the preferred type of armor every playthrough, in the same location. Nor do they grant invincibility; I've lost plenty of survivors, over the 50 hours i've played, to zombies (or humans) getting past the armor, since often there's no choice but to alert the enemies of your presence directly, if LOS doesn't permit sneaking. Should they get more hits in? Definitely, but you and your companions are not invincible.

 

[shadow9d9]

There is a lot of combat in the game, so in terms of complexity I think they again hit the sweet spot here...

For me, combat was challenging enough to be scary and nerve-wracking at first...

Throughout the game, not a single zombie infected a member of my party in combat.


I wanted to worry about people starving. I wanted to run out of antibiotics. I wanted allies to get angry about decisions I'd made, to the point of leaving the shelter. I wanted to turn people away because we didn't have enough food. I wanted a nervous ally to come to me and admit that they'd been infected in the field and hid it as long as they could. I wanted to be the only one to make it back after taking a scavenging team to the big hospital. None of this was possible, just because of the numbers.

Huh? It seems like important, key mechanics are missing. By your own admission there's a lot of combat in the game, and it's not good. There's no urgency, and there's no threat. Codex has embraced the .

Edit: Factor in the bitching about bad reviews/trying to get them removed and one of the devs putting her foot in her mouth constantly on social media, a purchase of this game is a purchase of .

The devs weren't trolled. They just couldn't handle negative criticism and acted like lunatics in response.

What do you mean when you say complex armor system? From everything I've read it's, "Put armor on -> become invincible"

Yes, but that's down to crap balancing; the system is cool. There are seven different damage types, and every piece of armor has a different rating for each type. A Ballistic Vest is bulletproof but doesn't help as much against bites, while Chainmail is great for fighting zombies but not so great against gunfire.

I didn't cover that in the review because it basically didn't matter once my Defense got up to about 6.

If the way the game actually plays makes the armor system meaningless, then you can't name that meaningless system as a way that it is superior to others. Cool concepts are great for previews. Released games have what is in place.. not what could have been.

All those are meaningless if the game tells you to exploit the system, put on heavy armor and the biggest stick you can find and go crazy on the zombies with invincible mode.

Please, there's very few games out there that aren't this. Jagged Alliance, X-Com, Fallout .etc are all cake walks once you learn to game the system, be it armor, stick, or a combination of both.

At least Dead State relies to some extent on randomized loot -- you won't always find the preferred type of armor every playthrough, in the same location. Nor do they grant invincibility; I've lost plenty of survivors, over the 50 hours i've played, to zombies (or humans) getting past the armor, since often there's no choice but to alert the enemies of your presence directly, if LOS doesn't permit sneaking. Should they get more hits in? Definitely, but you and your companions are not invincible.

I remember Fallout 2 and X-com being fairly difficult, even when having a firm grasp on the system. I think you are confusing the idea of knowing where every best item in the game is and how to get the best items early with the idea that the game is so simple and broken that it is beaten senseless within minutes.

All those are meaningless if the game [has crap balance].

So you concede that Dead State has some good systems, and does "one thing" (several things) better than Shadowrun, except they don't function well because balance is crap?
You're telling me what I already said.

I didn't ask for a laundry list of cool things in Shadowrun, and don't care, because Dead State would not be better if you could shoot fireballs and summon ghosts.

You are confusing game systems as ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED IN A RELEASED GAME and cool concepts that sound awesome and might have been created if this were an alternate universe. So, no, the systems as actually implemented, including post release support, are not "good systems." Good in concept or in "what if" scenarios cannot be used as a substitute for reality.

 

[Raapys]

That's true, but it's a bit more complex than that though. If JA2 had a weapon which killed every hostile on the map the moment you fired it, that'd be horrible balance and would, in 'reality', make the combat shit. But would it automatically make the game's combat system shit?

 

[Zombra]

You are confusing game systems as ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED IN A RELEASED GAME and cool concepts that sound awesome and might have been created if this were an alternate universe. So, no, the systems as actually implemented, including post release support, are not "good systems." Good in concept or in "what if" scenarios cannot be used as a substitute for reality.

OK, I get it, you don't see the difference between systems and content. To you they are the same thing, might as well eliminate one of those words from the dictionary eh? Take that ignorance and run with it.

 

[Burning Bridges]

25 micro quotes

VD alt detected

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I love the cast off of "balancing" as something that's just sooooo easy to fix. You don't know how good the core systems are until they are balanced - you're talking about how amazing the armor system and the more complex AP system are while saying "if only they were balanced you'd all see!"

How do you know those systems work in practice if they're irrelevant due to the shitty balance? Also, lol at the idea that balance is just something that's so easy to fix. The game sucks, this review is bad and you should feel bad.

 

[Lhynn]

I love the cast off of "balancing" as something that's just sooooo easy to fix. You don't know how good the core systems are until they are balanced - you're talking about how amazing the armor system and the more complex AP system are while saying "if only they were balanced you'd all see!"

How do you know those systems work in practice if they're irrelevant due to the shitty balance? Also, lol at the idea that balance is just something that's so easy to fix. The game sucks, this review is bad and you should feel bad.

Go back to GD you retarded cunt, you have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Grunker]

You don't know how good the core systems are until they are balanced

To quote a great man: "youa re dumb"

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

You don't know how good the core systems are until they are balanced

To quote a great man: "youa re dumb"

Excellent retort! There are too many good games out nowadays to make excuses for this poorly made piece of shit.

 

[Zombra]

How do you know those systems work in practice if they're irrelevant due to the shitty balance?

Because ... I've seen them work in practice?