Dead Island! Zombie games are no longer over-rated.

[Sicron]

Still, I think the developers will have had at least something to do with the story portrayed in the trailer. And for that reason, it may be a very interesting game. Even this trailer is very controversial, hurting children in a video game is usually frowned upon by the community, and few developers still dare to pull stunts like that. To that extent, this trailer was unsettling, yet strangely fascinating to watch. And if this trailer is a precursor for the game in exactly the same way it is portrayed in the trailer, it should become a very interesting game, perhaps one of the most emotional engaging (horror) games around. They managed to do it in the trailer, so they should be able to put it in the game as well. That said, the backwards playing and slow motion is a lot more difficult to simulate in the game, and both those factors add a lot to the wow factor of this trailer, including the music.

 

[Zeonix]

From what I understand, the developer gives the trailer guys very vague, wide parameters with which to make an appealing video. Nothing in the trailer has to appear in the game. It just has to be related. As for the content of the trailer, I think it was a cheap ploy designed not so much to tug heart strings, but to be controversial. Because, as you stated, no one kills children in video games. And they still haven't. But now you're talking about the game, and you'll probably be following it until release day with the expectation that the game will live up to the trailer's standards.

Mission accomplished.

 

[DiebytheSword]

They didn't even make the trailer, though. They hired someone else to do it for them, much like DC Universe did. Sure, DCO's trailer made me want to see a DC Universe CGI movie, but it isn't even close to being representative of the game.

From what I understand, the developer gives the trailer guys very vague, wide parameters with which to make an appealing video. Nothing in the trailer has to appear in the game. It just has to be related. As for the content of the trailer, I think it was a cheap ploy designed not so much to tug heart strings, but to be controversial. Because, as you stated, no one kills children in video games. And they still haven't. But now you're talking about the game, and you'll probably be following it until release day with the expectation that the game will live up to the trailer's standards.

Mission accomplished.

While you are quite right about trailers not often reflecting the content of the final work, I did post a link to an early view of the game that explains what the game is about somewhat better, its not as if I didn't back any of my statements.

For ease of access, I'll repost that here:

http://www.destructoid.com/impressions-your-first-look-at-dead-island-194120.phtml

At worst we will have a bad L4D clone with new elements, at best, something that may be better than the sum of its homages. While there is no need to be calling this game of the year yet, there is also no need to come in and calm the masses, so we aren't so dissapointed with the lack of cutscene in our content. Unless you are on their development staff, or a game magazine writer dangerously close to being in breach of your NDA, you know next to nothing about this project, as well as everyone else in this thread. Its fairly obvious that the three main humans in the story do not survive. It is also then fairly obvious that these are not main characters, simply a window into the world which the developer wanted us to see. Now, in their interview with Destructoid, it is stated that there are several side missions which give you pieces of the tale. I would suspect that this will not be the last sad story we see in Dead Island. I have seen nothing to proove otherwise, I remain positively excited about the game's possibilities.

As for cheap ploys, literary mechanisms which hook audiences into a story are very valid writing techniques. I was moved, but then I'm a father with a daughter her age, I suppose the value of it is in the eye of the beholder, and I will steadfastly disagree with your position. Something about the scenario and the power of the scenes stems from the writer's ability to place you there, regardless of who wrote it, or what edgy boundry you think it took. Dead Space has had killer babies, and I'm fairly sure that those Necromorphs were not the first dead offspring story in a video game.

 

[Z Power]

That just won me over big time.

 

[Zeonix]

At worst, it'll be a mess of a game that fails to achieve any of its goals and is, instead, a shadow of what it could have been. To suggest that the worst case scenario is significantly better than this suggests you have inflated hopes for the game based on the trailer created by a foreign entity and what little information is accessable to us about the game via the article you posted. I don't know if it's just wishful thinking or empathizing on an extreme level because you have a kid, clouding your judgment and allowing your imagination to run amok, creating a better game than currently exists, but it seems unwarranted, again, based on the very little information we currently have. Unfortunately, our imaginations don't determine the final product, nor do they really influence the developmental cycle of a game unless it's in danger of failing. I'm not attempting to calm the masses, in much the same way I'm sure you're not attempting to hype up the masses (provided you aren't on the development staff or a game magazine writer who knows far more than he lets on, or is simply doing his PR job). I'm saying this community has had this conversation multiple times about multiple games and the end result is the same 9 times out of 10.

Necromorphs are a hell of a lot less human than the zombie kid was, so I'm unable to draw a parallel or state Deadspace set a precedent. It didn't.

I'm probably not as excited about the game as you because the trailer just didn't affect me on an emotional level. It could be because I don't have a kid, or it could be because even if I did, the thing trying to kill me wouldn't be my offspring in much the same way a corpse in a coffin is not my friend; it's simply what's left. Take that as you will, but it seems to me you have a lot more invested in the trailer in game than I do. Energy well spent? We'll see.

 

[sub]

You killed "children" in Bioshock I think.

 

[Z Power]

I'm probably not as excited about the game as you because the trailer just didn't affect me on an emotional level. It could be because I don't have a kid, or it could be because even if I did, the thing trying to kill me wouldn't be my offspring in much the same way a corpse in a coffin is not my friend; it's simply what's left. Take that as you will, but it seems to me you have a lot more invested in the trailer in game than I do. Energy well spent? We'll see.

You hate everything don't you! :-/

 

[Zeonix]

You killed "children" in Bioshock I think.

It was implied, but never shown.

@ Spidey300: I don't invest my emotions in video games. So no. Not everything.

 

[Z Power]

Then for the very same reason, why are you getting so pent up about it?

I agree with you, so many games are just a shadow of what their trailer portrayed, but i also agree with Cuc, that each game has the potential to deliver its promises. From what i've read, the game has interesting mechanics but at the same time i know not to expect everything in its shiny glory. Thus the best thing that should be done, and i've always followed, is to wait and see.

Except Skryim, because that game is created with tons of Awesomesauce as ingredients.

 

[DiebytheSword]

At worst, it'll be a mess of a game that fails to achieve any of its goals and is, instead, a shadow of what it could have been. To suggest that the worst case scenario is significantly better than this suggests you have inflated hopes for the game based on the trailer created by a foreign entity and what little information is accessable to us about the game via the article you posted.

I don't see how I've suggested that a bad left 4 dead clone was a good thing, but hey, lets argue over opinions on adjectives. Oh wait, I don't care to.

I don't know if it's just wishful thinking or empathizing on an extreme level because you have a kid, clouding your judgment and allowing your imagination to run amok, creating a better game than currently exists, but it seems unwarranted, again, based on the very little information we currently have. Unfortunately, our imaginations don't determine the final product, nor do they really influence the developmental cycle of a game unless it's in danger of failing.

Nor does our negativity. I chose to believe that the game may be good, you choose to believe it may be bad. In the end, there are many crappy games. This supports your opinion that you'd not like to be hoodwinked, but it does not automatically make others wrong, users of poor judgement, or extreme empathizers.

I'm not attempting to calm the masses, in much the same way I'm sure you're not attempting to hype up the masses (provided you aren't on the development staff or a game magazine writer who knows far more than he lets on, or is simply doing his PR job). I'm saying this community has had this conversation multiple times about multiple games and the end result is the same 9 times out of 10.

And yet you came here, in your infinite wisdom, to explain to us how our opinions were wrong. I don't believe anyone has stated that this game will kick ass, only that the trailer was very effective.

Necromorphs are a hell of a lot less human than the zombie kid was, so I'm unable to draw a parallel or state Deadspace set a precedent. It didn't.

You are the one to say that this sets a precident of killing kids, not me. I am pointing out one case where kids were killed. There have been others.

I'm probably not as excited about the game as you because the trailer just didn't affect me on an emotional level. It could be because I don't have a kid, or it could be because even if I did, the thing trying to kill me wouldn't be my offspring in much the same way a corpse in a coffin is not my friend; it's simply what's left. Take that as you will, but it seems to me you have a lot more invested in the trailer in game than I do. Energy well spent? We'll see.

You are quite right, and quite callous. While I would agree that the child was no longer that man's daughter, I cannot say with certainty, that there would be no psychological scarring from the incident, and that I'd make a clean decision either way with no pause. Then again, I'm not a Marine.

I have allowed myself to enjoy the trailer, without the jaded eye you posess, energy well spent indeed. Either I will enjoy the game or I will not, it will not matter the day after. You chose to expend energy debating opinions on said game with scepticism, how is the net energy spent any different? I'm not sure I care.

 

[Zeonix]

I don't see how I've suggested that a bad left 4 dead clone was a good thing, but hey, lets argue over opinions on adjectives. Oh wait, I don't care to.

Not a good thing, but not the worst thing, which is generally what a worst case scenario implies.

Nor does our negativity. I chose to believe that the game may be good, you choose to believe it may be bad. In the end, there are many crappy games. This supports your opinion that you'd not like to be hoodwinked, but it does not automatically make others wrong, users of poor judgement, or extreme empathizers.

You mistake thinking it can go either way with taking part in a false dichotomy. As stated, there's simply nothing there to judge the game with. It's fluff. I can't form an opinion based on a trailer created by a third party. You can, and that's spectacular. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to.

And yet you came here, in your infinite wisdom, to explain to us how our opinions were wrong. I don't believe anyone has stated that this game will kick ass, only that the trailer was very effective.

Nay, here I am, in my infinite wisdom, expressing how much of a leap you're taking based on absolutely nothing. I, too, stated the trailer was effective. It's effectiveness was not what I was arguing; only its relevance to the actual game.

You are the one to say that this sets a precident of killing kids, not me. I am pointing out one case where kids were killed. There have been others.

Negatory. My post was in response to the one above mine, which stated hurting children is frowned upon in the video game community and most developers don't even broach the subject. I responded by saying it was true that children are rarely killed in video games. And if you look at the next sentence, I am saying this game has yet to join the ranks of games that have allowed players to kill children. Why? Because the trailer is not the game. A common theme in all of my posts, no? Though I'm not a fan of pedantry, if I were to choose to be, I'd probably focus on every part of a sentence. Just a note to self.

You are quite right, and quite callous. While I would agree that the child was no longer that man's daughter, I cannot say with certainty, that there would be no psychological scarring from the incident, and that I'd make a clean decision either way with no pause. Then again, I'm not a Marine.

While I can not say with certainty there would be no psychological scarring after the incident, I can say with absolute certainty my life is worth more than an undead's and so there'd be even less hesitation to take what little life it has in order to preserve my own or that of the people around me than if I were in a real life scenario. And you are right. You are not a Marine, and more importantly, you aren't a grunt. You aren't responsible for a dozen kids, each of whom have families. If killing my zombie kid means they (or in this particular scenario, the civilians I'm protecting) live and are able to return to their families, then there is only one option. If hesitating, even for a second, means one of them gets bitten or dies, again, there simply is no choice. It's been made for me. Is it callousness? Perhaps, but I have my priorities straight.

I have allowed myself to enjoy the trailer, without the jaded eye you posess, energy well spent indeed. Either I will enjoy the game or I will not, it will not matter the day after. You chose to expend energy debating opinions on said game with scepticism, how is the net energy spent any different? I'm not sure I care.

I enjoyed the trailer for what it was: a trailer. It's done nothing to sway my opinion in either direction for the actual game, however. Also, keep in mind that it was you who decided to explain yourself and debate my opinion.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I enjoyed the trailer for what it was: a trailer. It's done nothing to sway my opinion in either direction for the actual game, however.

Nor has the trailer swayed my opinion of the game, or have you not payed attention to the fact the article is what I used to form an opinion on this game? The story of the game is the only thing we can glean from the trailer, which my comment referenced as good story. You insist that I think this game will be awesome beacuse I liked the trailer, I maintain that I like where this game is going based on the limited information in the article in conjunction with the good writing sense shown by the storytelling in the trailer. This is not up for a debate, you are changing the opinion that I posted.

Also, keep in mind that it was you who decided to explain yourself and debate my opinion.

Nay, was it not you who chose to debate mine? I'll allow you to scroll up and view the sequence of events again. You quoted me and misunderstood what I was saying, I have tried in vain to remind you that you are not correct in what you assumed was my position. While we are all entitled to our own opinions and perhaps even opinions of opinions, you clearly don't have command of the facts here. You responeded to me, I responded to you, and here we are again. Perhaps it was my fault for not writing more in my post, perhaps its yours for not clicking on a link that may have been underlining my point. Then again, perhaps its my fault for even talking to you.

Either way, I'm done, this is pointless at best, and you trolling me at the absolute worst.

One final note, I may not be a Marine but I understand the sacrifce that is made by them to be who they are and do what they do. My point in saying that I was not a Marine was not to insult you, rather to commend you on your conditioning; yes, callous can be positive if emotion has no place in the rational decision. If you insist on giving me a teachable lesson on the needs of the many in a crisis situation I will insist on being quite dissapointed with your misunderstanding of my comment. As a normal civilian who has only faced life and death situations in First Aid scenarios, I find I lack the experience to say with certainty that I can and will act properly in a combat scenario. That is not to say that I will not endevor to do the right thing.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

lol, i have military training and i know for a fact that if i was faced with having to kill one of my kids "for the greater good", that the decision alone would tear me apart. let alone following through on that decision.

besides, at the end of the day regardless of how well the military has trained you, there are some things it can never train you for. they're good at training you to surpress emotion and think "logically". but they never train you to deal with a sudden researgance of those emotions.

 

[Zeonix]

They didn't even make the trailer, though. They hired someone else to do it for them, much like DC Universe did. Sure, DCO's trailer made me want to see a DC Universe CGI movie, but it isn't even close to being representative of the game.

Nothing in this post even attempts to argue against your opinion. Instead, it makes a series of observations based on previous experience. The second post you quoted but combined with the first was in response to Sicron. It was you who decided this thread just wasn't serious enough. Congrats. It's super serial now.

My being a Marine had no relevance whatsoever and shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. As you pointed out, training and experience is not required to endeavor to do the right thing. 3 years ago, my response would have been the same as it is now.

Last time you tried engaging in an argument, I told you I was tired of this dance. You have a tendency to create an argument, and bow out when you feel you've made a point. I don't know what point you've made, but I'm still weary of this dance. If every conversation absolutely has to devolve into an emotional break dance unless we share the same opinion, we need to stop communicating.

@Gir: While you have military training, training and experience are two entirely different things. It's easy to say on a purely intellectual level, but once you experience combat, it becomes pretty damn evident.

It doesn't have to be for the greater good. If it comes down to me and my zombie kid, I choose me. Why is it so easy? It is no longer my kid. It is no longer your kid. It is an it. Nothing more. It can't think, it can't feel and it's only goal is to feed. I wouldn't even consider it human, let alone little Jake the Snake, or whatever name you fancy.

But on the topic of training, a certain degree of training with a certain mentality absolutely will protect you from psychological and emotional trauma later on, once the dust has settled. Its why PTSD is proportionally more frequent in one branch than another.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Nothing in this post even attempts to argue against your opinion. Instead, it makes a series of observations based on previous experience. The second post you quoted but combined with the first was in response to Sicron. It was you who decided this thread just wasn't serious enough. Congrats. It's super serial now.

My being a Marine had no relevance whatsoever and shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. As you pointed out, training and experience is not required to endeavor to do the right thing. 3 years ago, my response would have been the same as it is now.

Last time you tried engaging in an argument, I told you I was tired of this dance. You have a tendency to create an argument, and bow out when you feel you've made a point. I don't know what point you've made, but I'm still weary of this dance. If every conversation absolutely has to devolve into an emotional break dance unless we share the same opinion, we need to stop communicating.

We are both then quite weary of this dance. Now that I know you'd rather not have me reference your experience, I'll keep that out of any future communications. For future reference, I bow out when I've had enough of the windmill steps we tend to do, not when I feel I've made a point.

 

[Zeonix]

You're a windmill.

 

[DiebytheSword]

You're a windmill.

Really Nix? Really?

Always have to spin things.

[video=youtube;mihppXHhpD0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mihppXHhpD0[/video]

 

[Viper]

Did someone say GAMEPLAY TRAILER?

 

[Mkilbride]

Ah yeah, saw that abit ago. Decent trailer, but it has none of the epicness the video trailer had, but that was to be expected. It's kinda like Fallout 3 with Zombies. Infact, the Giant Mutants even show up:

 

[Avenger]

Looks good to me. I'll probably play it.