No way! I actually like Metal Gear Survive, and usually give ALOT of games leeway. The issue is more that I thought this game was getting a full fledged AAA treatment… it looks more of the same… a semi B budget game. I’m not saying its going to suck, but I DID expect upgraded graphics and a bigger map (not 3 maps of similar size). If the game has more depth then I’ll be fine… but the price being 30 bux tells me its just a rehash of SoD1 with a few modifications. and I can bet it’ll focus on consoley controls… damn that.
SoD is one of those games that truly deserves a full upgraded sequel. Why Is MS being so cheap? or is it Undead Labs isn’t that enthusiastic about having to make a sequel, they did waste time on that card game free to play that failed pretty quick.
Maybe just have to wait for Dying Light 2…that hasn’t even been announced. wtf. I want a truly deep zombie game like SoD with the great graphics that it deserves.
If the E3 trailer upthread had contained all the scenes in the IGN video, I wouldn’t have been worried at all. Instead, the E3 trailer shows locations that look almost exactly like the locations in the towns from SoD1. The IGN video clearly shows different (new) locations, so perhaps only the starting town is going to be similar. Hoping for all new storylines as well, with 3X the map space to play with, they should be able to tie together some interesting narratives. Fingers crossed, as that IGN video does make me a bit more hopeful.
The reason it is $30 is likely that $30 includes the initial game release and one month of patch support. If you want more patches, you need to pay another $30 for State of Decay 2: Year One Survival Edition.
In brief, Zombie Labs did an XBone HD remaster of the game, by Microsoft’s request.
Microsoft did not allow Zombie Labs to provide this remaster to owners of the original game for free. It didn’t help that the original game still had some significant issues that needed to be ironed out.
OK, I must have forgotten. Or maybe I just bought the remaster, since I don’t remember getting stuck like that. I can see where it would be annoying though.
My understanding is that the original still has plenty of bugs, but they aren’t fixed but only fixed in year one edition (“give us more moolah and we’ll fix our game!”). I played the original I think 1-2 years ago and it played fine (but cbf finishing it so it is in the backlog purgatory).
Basically what scharmers said. It never stopped working.
I played the original game all the way through, including the Lifeline DLC, and didn’t really experience any game breaking bugs, so it wasn’t like State of Decay was broken and abandoned then owners had no recourse but to purchase Year One Edition to finish the game. Year One Edition had a very nice looking HD remaster and a bunch of gameplay tweaks and fixes that made the game more enjoyable, that’s it. The fact that they wanted to charge previous owners of State of Decay for Year One DID piss me off as a customer. But I got over it since I’d already finished the game anyway.
Bottom line, State of Decay was a fantastic zombie survival game with a lot of unique (to that point) mechanics and a compelling story. I really enjoyed it, and it’s still my favorite zombie game to date. I’m excited for State of Decay 2, and I assume there will be no “Year One” foolishness this time around because it should launch on Xbone and PC at the same time.
I’m looking back at Steam reviews, and you are correct. Though there were extremely angry reviews about how the original game was broken and only the new one worked, they were referring to the fact that the newer version received patches for things that were still broken in the original, not that the game itself wouldn’t run anymore. I confused my various flavors of hyperbolic vitriol. Sorry for that.
