Dying Light 2: Stay Human

[one-armed dwarf]

What they should talk more about is how much unique stuff actually happens along the way. Wasn't that a big marketing point of this game? A really flexible story?

 

They brought Avellone on after all. Dude might be disgraced now but he had that storybuilding reputation for a reason. He worked on some of the best written games in the industry.

 

If it actually delivered on any of that stuff they were claiming it would be incredible, but I need convincing.

[mfnick]

23 minutes ago, Maf said:

Just this time it bit them in the ass. 

Good.

[DisturbedSwan]

How is it good? 🤔

 

Techland seem to have a lot of issues behind the scenes but they're still an independent dev so I hope this is as big a success as the first game was for them. PR-wise they made a mistake with the 500 hour thing, but they've rectified that now. 

[mmmark]

Why did that tweet need clarifying? Are people that thick?

[one-armed dwarf]

I mean that tweet 'clarified' what people already know though. It just doesn't make the game sound interesting, it's like bragging about the most boring of open world tropes. It wasn't a misunderstanding at all.

[HandsomeDead]

Game journalist brain is taking over then conversation with this.  Anyone else knows they can just stop once they've had their fill.  No-one else has to play everything in a few weeks.

[mfnick]

10 hours ago, DisturbedSwan said:

How is it good?

Good to see people recognising quality not quantity of content is what actually matters and pushing back against bragging about having empty filler in their games. No way can they create 500 hours worth of meaningful stuff to do. Especially with how difficult games are to make these days. This just screams that it’s going to be a game full of boring filler that’d make even a Ubisoft game blush. 

[one-armed dwarf]

tbh, it's good to look at the other perspective too. They've billed it as a highly emergent kinda immersive sim game where narrative decisions branch off the plot (I think, maybe). But not only that, they have game changing consequences (literally, according to themselves anyway). If it's even close to what they're saying it is, it's probably plausible that it could take an extremely long time to see it all

 

key thing is will it even come close to that. The development seems really troubled and their narrative guy got cancelled. It's a really hard thing to deliver so I hope these dudes prove most of us fantastically wrong about the whole thing.

[Maf]

I’m put off by them saying 500 hours too but to me it doesn’t scream low quality, to me it just makes me think I don’t have 500 hours laying around. Obviously don’t need to play all of it. But even seeing the number is deflating

[mfnick]

10 hours ago, Maf said:

But even seeing the number is deflating

That too. 

[DisturbedSwan]

12 hours ago, mfnick said:

Good to see people recognising quality not quantity of content is what actually matters and pushing back against bragging about having empty filler in their games. No way can they create 500 hours worth of meaningful stuff to do. Especially with how difficult games are to make these days. This just screams that it’s going to be a game full of boring filler that’d make even a Ubisoft game blush. 

 

Right, ok, I get where you're coming from now then and I do agree that quality over quantity is better in general, but I also think open world games need to have a lot of stuff to do or you get the open world of Halo Infinite where it feels barren, lifeless and devoid of much to do.

 

They have put out a tweet clarifying the 500 hours (linked in previous page), the 500 hours basically includes multiple playthroughs making different story choices to see how those branches change things up. It'll be 20 hours to finish the main story mode and 80 to finish the game with all side quests completed which is about the norm for an open world game these days.

 

11 hours ago, Maf said:

I’m put off by them saying 500 hours too but to me it doesn’t scream low quality, to me it just makes me think I don’t have 500 hours laying around. Obviously don’t need to play all of it. But even seeing the number is deflating

 

I mean, they have clarified the 500 hours now (link in previous page) the 500 hours is basically if you want to go through multiple playthroughs to see every different decision branch play out. I don't think many folks here will be arsed to do that so the 500 hours stuff is moot, almost all will be done with it between 20-80 hours. 

[HandsomeDead]

The case is it's not out and the they're alluding to definitive statements that being a 500 hour game means it's a bad thing on that merit alone.  I barely play any open world games but I have played a few that are good at filling that space, whether it's just getting around being fun, having good loadout options that are fun to experiment with or having an interesting variety of quests.  Will this? no idea yet, no-one does.  I didn't play the first one but at least did some of these things well enough from what I've heard.

 

It just feels like they're talking like a ton of dull 10 hour games don't exist.  Either way, they get dropped after 2 and I'm down £50 or whatever.

[Maf]

Pre-emptively - I don't believe 100% competition will take 500 hours. Neither do I think a 100% game completion is necessary for a game to be satisfying or entertaining. Neither, either do I think the hour count dictates quality of those hours. 

 

But taking them at their word for the minute I think there's just something inherent to someone saying that for the full experience it's 500 hours. Especially as video gamers tend to have OCD/Completionist/100% mindsets. When someone is effectively saying for the full Dying Light 2 experience you need 500 hours. The immediate reaction is I don't want to spend that much time on one game. 

 

And even if you don't have too. It's like if someone said oh this film is 2 hours long but you only need to watch 80 minutes and you can leave. There's just something about that where you go well why would I watch it at all. I'll just watch something I enjoy in it's entirety instead of getting invested in something I'm not going to have the time for most of

 

For me it's not about quality it's just the gut reaction thing invoked when they say that. 

[one-armed dwarf]

Some of these points and analogies are really weird. Nobody would suggest a partially viewed film to be even close to a complete experience. Maybe if we're talking about watching the theatrical LOTR over extended (watch theatrical)

 

Some of you dudes would melt if you tried to play a MMO lol. maf please dont buy Endwalker when it goes back on sale

[mfnick]

Open world games are far more likely to have empty filler rubbish in them. It’s just part of the package in making a large area. It’s like when devs brag about it being “their largest world yet” but it actually has even less content than their smaller worlds. Nothing puts me off more. Smaller and denser is usually better.

Also, give me a boring 10 hour game over a boring 20-500 hour game any day. Love being bored for longer. That’s always great. 

 

Yea I’m being acting up a bit there, but it’s one of my most hated things about modern games. So much is made of them being larger and longer (oo-er) & it’s very rarely for the better. Then they have the balls to whine about how long and expensive it is to develop games so they have to include mtx. How about reducing the scope a bit then? 
 

Sorry, tangent. To summarise, big games = bad. Small games = good. 

[Maf]

9 minutes ago, one-armed dwarf said:

Some of these points and analogies are really weird. Nobody would suggest a partially viewed film to be even close to a complete experience. Maybe if we're talking about watching the theatrical LOTR over extended (watch theatrical)

 

Some of you dudes would melt if you tried to play a MMO lol. maf please dont buy Endwalker when it goes back on sale

 

A TV show then. If someone recommended a TV show that was 5 seasons at 20 hours per and you know you don't have the time for it would you even bother starting it. 

 

Granted games are a bit different because TV shows don't have optional episodes as side quests but I think for a lot (Including me) it's still that gut thing of I'm put off from watching any of it, or in this case wanting to start the game, because I know I'm not going to see all of it 

[DisturbedSwan]

1 hour ago, mfnick said:

Open world games are far more likely to have empty filler rubbish in them. It’s just part of the package in making a large area. It’s like when devs brag about it being “their largest world yet” but it actually has even less content than their smaller worlds. Nothing puts me off more. Smaller and denser is usually better.

Also, give me a boring 10 hour game over a boring 20-500 hour game any day. Love being bored for longer. That’s always great. 

 

Yea I’m being acting up a bit there, but it’s one of my most hated things about modern games. So much is made of them being larger and longer (oo-er) & it’s very rarely for the better. Then they have the balls to whine about how long and expensive it is to develop games so they have to include mtx. How about reducing the scope a bit then? 
 

Sorry, tangent. To summarise, big games = bad. Small games = good. 

 

This is turning into more of a discussion on open worlds themselves rather than DL2 so maybe this should be spun off into it's own thread but I'll bite for now.

 

I don't think it's as black and white as big games = bad, small games = good, maybe in your mind a big game will immediately turn you off but for me a big game can be fantastic and can be bad, a small game can be good and a small game can be bad. It's not as simple as that. The fact is it's nuanced and subjective really, what is 'filler' for you is great for someone else, what is too big for you is just right for someone else. It's about how much a game keeps you entertained over those hours, how much the activities enthral and keep your interest over its run time which is important, if they don't resonate with you then obviously you'll feel those hours more than if you love them where they'll fly by in minutes.

 

We've all played many open world games over the years, some which are smaller with less stuff to do but then they feel devoid of life (hello Halo Infinite), some that strike that perfect balance of giving you just enough without you feeling like you're going through a checklist (Miles Morales is the best example of this). Similarly with bigger open world games, things like Arkham City, Far Cry 5, Horizon 4 and AC Odyssey felt like too much but AC Origins, AC Valhalla, Horizon 5 all struck the right balance for me, but might not for someone else. Getting that balance is so difficult. 

 

Also I find it ironic that you go on about not liking bigger games and 'filler' stuff and smaller games but love Horizon 5 which is filled to the brim with filler bits and pieces and icons everywhere all over the map. All the tropes you apparently dislike? 

 

I think it's unrealistic to expect every open world to be small and devoid of filler collectibles and fetch quests as these are much less time consuming to develop than the alternative, which would be essentially making every side quest meaningful. To get something meaningful takes much more time and effort.

 

Going back to what @HandsomeDeadis saying as well, we don't know whether this game will be filled with 'filler' stuff or good stuff yet really. All the preview material and footage seems really promising with choices mattering and changing the game significantly and stuff, as well as the previous game using its open world superbly and having one of the best in recent memory. So I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage.

 

There's no doubt about it, they made a PR gaff with that 500 hour number, if someone had put a '75 hours to complete' figure on TLOUP2 I think a lot of folks' jaws would've dropped too. That's how long it took me to do the 1.5 playthroughs required to get the Plat and all the collectibles. It's a similar case with the 500 hour number, I get why its off-putting for a lot of folks on the face of it, but look deeper and almost all of us here will never hit anywhere close to that number.

[Nag]

31 minutes ago, DisturbedSwan said:

The fact is it's nuanced and subjective really

 

32 minutes ago, DisturbedSwan said:

but then they feel devoid of life (hello Halo Infinite)

 

How long is this drum going to get beaten for?... like you say subjective.👍

[DisturbedSwan]

A long time @Nag lol, I really liked the game overall (more thoughts in the thread), just not so much the open world but albeit, for a first time effort 343i still did really well. 

[HandsomeDead]

I'm not even doubting it could be too full of filler, the genre often is, but we just don't know and a lack of consideration of other fair possibilities goes into the armchair analysis.  It's just complaining about a developer who largely makes open world games making follow up to one that was slowly successful.

 

It's more I have an issue with the gaming press and it's attitude to the very idea of a game you could spend a lot of time with, especially after praising BotW and Witcher 3 for the past five years and wanting a sequel and gagging for the new Horizon.  It's just so stupid.  They fucking love it except when they arbitrarily decide they don't.