10 replies to this topic

[Julio93]

I haven't gotten around getting ZombiU, the gaming media has so many mixed feelings on it but it sold very well so I guess its a good thing. I may picking it up if the price is well under.....20 bucks, but as always with Ubisoft games, first game in the series is somewhat terrible but the sequel is  1000X better, (Red Steel, No More Heroes)

 

So what do you want to see if they make a sequel,what should they keep, improve or take out completely.

[Auzzie Wingman]

They really need to refurbish the entire inventory system. It literally for me was the scariest part of the game, kinda like how people think the shaky camera is the most terrifying part of RE: Darkside Chronicles.

 

Being able to use practical variants of melee weapons would be nice. Cricket bat was alright but later on melee should be easier on the player as they encounter more deadly difficulties in enemies. Things like a fireman's axe or a rich guy's imported katana or a taser.

 

Perhaps a segmented Bug-Out-Bag. Different sections for different items, which starts small to begin with, but upgradeable as you progress throughout the game. I'd not be swayed either way if items had weight.

[Gamejunkie]

I haven't gotten around getting ZombiU, the gaming media has so many mixed feelings on it but it sold very well so I guess its a good thing. I may picking it up if the price is well under.....20 bucks, but as always with Ubisoft games, first game in the series is somewhat terrible but the sequel is  1000X better, (Red Steel, No More Heroes)
 
So what do you want to see if they make a sequel,what should they keep, improve or take out completely.

Those aren't very good examples though and I don't believe Ubisoft deserves that reputation anyway. No More Heroes was published by them but not developed by them. As for Red Steel the main reason the second one was better is because it used the Wii remote motion plus which was developed and introduced by Nintendo. If Ubisoft had access to in the first game it would probably have been a lot better. With regards to Zombie U it was a pretty good effort for the first game on a new platform on Ubisoft's part. It was one of the best launch games despite its flaws and actually started out as a different game to begin with. Its not really my type of game but I can appreciate it for what it is. At the end of the day no games are perfect and all of them can be improved someway or other.

[Wolfensen]

More variety In weapons would be nice.

It's gets old with the few guns and bullets we find lying around.

Edited by Wolfensen, 07 April 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[namkotje]

Things the game should have:

- (offline/multiplayer)CO-OP -> Something we would have, if they had more time developing ZombiU.

- More variety in weapons

- A better story

[Hunter]

The trouble with "more weapons" is that the game starts to become an action game instead of survival horror. I agree that some more melee weapons would be nice, but only things like knives, hammers, and other common household items. Things like a katana or a taser are so uncommon and scarce that it seems unrealistic for your character to find them and it takes away the difficulty (and therefore the fear factor) of the game. The same goes for normal weapons- there shouldn't be a huge amount of different and high tech guns as it takes away the challenge and realism of the game.

I think the best thing Zombi2 could have is a more open world with some new weapons. There should be less explosive zombies (I found the amount that were in ZombiU unrealistic) and definitely more scares. There should also be a better, more engaging story and a logical explanation of how different survivors would fit into the story (wouldnt the doc make a comment about you being a different survivor?). Improved graphics would also be nice (and are pretty much a given in a sequel) but is less important than gameplay and story improvements.

The only thing I'm worried about is if this game turns into an action game like Resident Evil or Dead Space.

[Auzzie Wingman]

The trouble with "more weapons" is that the game starts to become an action game instead of survival horror.

 

I wouldn't agree on that. I'd say that how your character can interact within the environment is more likely to affect how much of an action game it becomes. You can give a person many weapons, doesn't mean they are a fighting fit soldier from them. If they start doing silly things like putting in a jump button or suddenly you have proficient combat handling then it would wreck the effect.

 

 

Things like a katana or a taser are so uncommon and scarce that it seems unrealistic for your character to find them and it takes away the difficulty (and therefore the fear factor) of the game.

 

I don't agree on this either. First off, it assumes these weapons are more powerful than other melee types. A katana would probably be less effective against multiple opponents than the bludgeoning power of a bat. A taser fires a charge which you'd need to reload. Very useful when you want to take down a semi powerful opponent, but the ammo would be rarer than Magnum Rounds in a old RE titles (since you were so nice to pronounce the scarcity of tasers).

 

The point of these is to give players options, and potentially something to strive for. They aren't melee replacements, or rather, they aren't necessarily good replacements. Just variety.

 

 The same goes for normal weapons- there shouldn't be a huge amount of different and high tech guns as it takes away the challenge and realism of the game.

 

Didn't stop a high caliber turret mini-game existing out the front of Buckingham.

 

Stronger firearms could exist in the game. It depends on how the developers make it so that they did exist in the game. I'm sure the rest of the world will just sit idly by while London turns into a decaying cesspit.

 

 

They should attempt to bring in a psychological effect. (Perhaps not when fighting zombies because that's kind of a given. You shoot the ****ers, they're gonna kill you if you don't). I'm referring to when you interact with other NPC's. Not everyone is going to have their head screwed on tight during a zombie apocalypse. You can choose to eat all the words they feed you, or ignore them. At the end of the day you're a survivor amongst others and you want to be the one who lives through the nightmare. Your decisions can affect who lives and who dies, with a chance of a perfect playthrough available.

[Colinx]

Just make the game completely open world, it just felt weird having to go here, travel through these rooms, get this then go back. It would have been better if it was just open world. 

More melee weapons and guns. I had some other ideas in different threads but can't remember them all.

[Hunter]

It's not really more powerful weapons that bother me, it's the unrealistic ones. I'm not saying you will never find a taser, katana, or heavy machine gun in London (lets say, for arguments sake, the sequel is set in london), I'm just saying that when going through flats in the east end I doubt you will find them. It adds realism to the game if you can just use everyday household items to attack zombies instead of having a sword which makes it more like a comic-book.

Also, I still feel that more weapons generally means more action. Maybe not when first introduced but soon the challenge of killing zombies is gone so they give them guns to make it more challenging (im looking at you resident evil...).

I just want a realistic, gritty, Zombie game and i dont think adding more weapons will produce that. Save the the big guns and swords for multiplayer.

Edited by Hunter, 07 April 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[Goom]

They need to add more melee moves. Instead of just having one forward cricket bat attack.

[Expansion Pak]

More melee weapons (Axe, sledgehammer, machete).

Online co-op.

More weapon upgrades and customization.

And finally (And this is a big one): THE ABILITY TO AIM DOWN THE GUN'S SIGHTS! You dont know how many times I've missed with my guns in ZombiU because of the hip firing.