Darkest of Days

[Remus]

Erm tried it and.... it's mediocre at best. As a run and gun shooter it fails. The controls feel very stiff and sluggish. It always feels like your moving through water, and the gravity seems wrong too. The graphics are nice but not extraordinary, and it's badly optimised.
Probably the most annoying thing is that they got the field of view all wrong. Right now it feels like your moving around with binoculars glued to your eyes, which makes the game very disorienting.

EDIT: Also what he said ^^

So I take it back, Buck Tuddrussel does not approve of this...

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

So I take it back, Buck Tuddrussel does not approve of this...

sadchar

 

[Lucid]

It's okay.

You're pretty much forced into a cornfield to have a line battle, literally, the computer takes control of you and you're forced into it... that was irritating.
The mouse and keyboard controls are extremely unresponsive and overall sluggish.
The voice acting is a mix of great(Dexter, and your boss) and god awful(fellow soldiers and the like) bits, sound effects are overall pretty good, enemy ai is borderline retarded, graphics are serviceable, and there's an ungodly amount of ****ing invisible walls that are so damn annoying.

I see the potential for an immensely fun game, it's like the devs came up with a cool idea and poorly executed it... for the PC atleast, this might be a whole different story on consoles.

Overall, I'd have to say that the mouse and keyboard control is really the only gripe that I have with the game that keeps me from enjoying it.

 

[Remus]

Besides everything else already mentioned I was disappointed that I just didn't get that "I'm gonna open a can of whup ass on these primitives with mah futurez wepon" feeling...

The idea behind the game is good, but the execution is just... how can I put this politely... It's unfortunate.

 

[stemot]

The voice acting is a mix of great(your boss)

So your the new f*cking recruit!

That one line instantly turned me off to the voice acting because of the awful way it was delivered.

 

[Barnz]

honestly, what were you guys expecting from guys who did some poker games?

 

[MJ12]

Just tried the Demo.

Pretty much what everyone already stated.
It's a shame though, because there are some neat aspects in the game that drew me in. I liked the overall bizarre atmosphere of it at times, but it's really poorly executed in terms of gameplay.

The AI is worse than Bethesda, the dialog is bad, but forgivable.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

This was great. I laughed my ass off when the future cowboy gave me that assault rifle. Ironically, I went in front of the Unionist waving it around like the world's largest cock and they killed me.

Also, that "Broomhandle" gun is in fact, pretty badass. I'll probably be picking this up.

Also

Spoiler

I chased a bunch of rebels down with it while yelling "GET BACK HERE I AM NOT DONE WITH YOU", then they got to their second line of defense and there were like 100 muskets vs me. Darkest of days indeed.

 

[jverne]

interesting concept...but pretty ****ing obvious gameplay, shoot everything that moves with different guns. they just don't get it. or maybe they do? maybe this is how the video game industry is progressing, adding small changes to a tried concept so they can cash in on the general idiotic market.

 

[Remus]

Like I've said before in this thread I'm fine with a mindless "shoot everything that moves" type FPS, but this just FAILS. It just isn't fun. Going by this demo, I'm sure they will have great sales...

This was great.

*facepalm*

 

[Bob_Marley]

interesting concept...but pretty ****ing obvious gameplay, shoot everything that moves with different guns. they just don't get it. or maybe they do? maybe this is how the video game industry is progressing, adding small changes to a tried concept so they can cash in on the general idiotic market.

Its a safer bet than attempting to revolutionise everything all at once, look what happened to Trespasser.

 

[Krynn72]

I just played it and liked it pretty well. Reminds me of the game Vietcong a bit. I'll probably pick it up if the price isnt too high, if it is then i'll wait for it to drop.

 

[MJ12]

I looked up the price and it's 40 dollars. No way they are going to be able to sell this game at that price.

 

[stemot]

Its a safer bet than attempting to revolutionise everything all at once, look what happened to Trespasser.

That's fair enough, but if your going to try to revolutionise one thing you'd better make sure the rest of your game is solid and on par with it's rivals. DoD feels and looks like a 1999 game.

 

[Remus]

looks like a 1999 game.

O RLY?

 

[stemot]

O RLY?

Okay, maybe not, but you get the point I was trying to make. It is in no way any competition in either gameplay or graphics to the games of today. There is so much better available why the hell would you even bother with this?

 

[Krynn72]

Because you can time travel.


I'll actually likely buy this simply because of the sheer amount of work this indie developer put into this. Their engine has one of the best rendering engines out today, and I'm betting the only reason the graphics look only average is because of the large quantity of assets they needed to make. They released their Marmoset tools and you can see the quality of their renderer in these screenshots taken from the model viewer by artists using it.

Some high res ones:

http://gaetm.free.fr/3d/2009/Sniper/1.jpg
http://www.bradm3d.com/images/TDI Kriss Super V/KrissScreenShot_MarmosetEngine.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7088/28584951zh3.jpg


Check out this thread if you want to see more.

Anyways, the more I think about this game, the more I want it. I'm a bit of a history buff when it comes to military campaigns and such, so I dont think I'd be able to pass this up.

 

[stemot]

It puzzles me how people can forgive the terrible voice acting, bad FOV, horrible feeling controls (not that there is anything wrong with how the game controls as far as mechanics go, it just doesn't feel right) and shoddy gameplay, yet when a AAA game comes along and they so much as put a foot wrong they get jumped on.

Indie or not, there has to be something there to enjoy, and DoD just feels like it's out of place by a decade.

 

[Warped]

looks refreshing if you ask me

 

[Remus]

It puzzles me how people can forgive the terrible voice acting, bad FOV, horrible feeling controls (not that there is anything wrong with how the game controls as far as mechanics go, it just doesn't feel right) and shoddy gameplay, yet when a AAA game comes along and they so much as put a foot wrong they get jumped on.

Indie or not, there has to be something there to enjoy, and DoD just feels like it's out of place by a decade.

I'm not "forgiving it". I was just saying the graphics engine is OK, but it needs a lot of optimising though. However the actual "gameplay" is horrible. Indie or not, I won't be picking this up.

 

[stemot]

I'm not "forgiving it". I was just saying the graphics engine is OK, but it needs a lot of optimising though. However the actual "gameplay" is horrible. Indie or not, I won't be picking this up.

It wasn't directed to you Remus, but the ones who are saying it's a good game

 

[Shakermaker]

I wouldn't say the demo is very good, but it is interesting enough. Like Krynn said, if you are a history buff this game holds some extra attraction. I for one enjoyed the demo.

 

[Krynn72]

What was wrong with the gameplay? I didn't have any problems with it at all. Its just generic shooter gameplay.

 

[stemot]

What was wrong with the gameplay? I didn't have any problems with it at all. Its just generic shooter gameplay.

You mean apart from the section where it walks for you through a cornfield, roots you to the spot then forces you to reload after every shot? Okay, the FOV is far too narrow and the controls, while they should and do work fine, feel to floaty. It's hard to describe but it just feels wrong. Then there's the fact that it's the same shooter gameplay we've seen a thousand times before yet it's done nowhere near as competently.

 

[Krynn72]

I didn't mind the rail bit really, and you only have to reload after every shot if you're dumb and were using that stupid gun instead of the one that gets like 13 shots before each loading. The FOV is something I agree with, but i didnt feel any floatyness at all.

For a first real game with people straight out of school, they did wonderfully well and they have loads of potential to make great games as they get more experience, so I'll support them.

 

[stemot]

I didn't mind the rail bit really, and you only have to reload after every shot if you're dumb and were using that stupid gun instead of the one that gets like 13 shots before each loading. The FOV is something I agree with, but i didnt feel any floatyness at all.

For a first real game with people straight out of school, they did wonderfully well and they have loads of potential to make great games as they get more experience, so I'll support them.

Hmmm, up to that point the game had done everything it could to hold your hand, so having another weapon didn't occur to me as I didn't get any indication I had one, it's not a case of the player being dumb but an inconsistency in the games hints.

Fair play to them for having a crack, but I will not support a game I have this many issues with. I wish them luck though.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm pretty sure the tutorial had you change weapons.

 

[stemot]

I'm pretty sure the tutorial had you change weapons.

It did, but after so much in that opening scene was automated, even down to the fact that I wasn't able to move the character and was only allowed to aim, was was a little unclear what was and was not permitted at that point.
Maybe I should have tried to change weapon, but by that point the game had failed to remotely interest me or hold my attention, so finding myself stood in a field rooted to the spot was the uninstall point for me.

 

[Krynn72]

Anyone else play the full game? I just beat it and man, that demo sucked in comparison. Probably the worst level in the game, and not very representative of the whole game. Its a very good game, and worth the 40 bucks.

Being such an ambitious indie game, it doesnt have that level of AAA polish on it, but they didnt have millions of dollars to spend on it. A lot of people seem to give it a lot of undue flak for it too. I've seen on other forums people just totally ripping on it because of its dated looking graphics, engine limitations and even ragdolls of all things. Sure, these are noticeable things in the game, but it does not at all detract from the game itself. Two years ago people would have loved the game, but now that the AAA title developers are using all sorts of really expensive third party extensions to help facilitate animations, lighting etc, people judge every game on that incredibly difficult to reach bar. So unless a game has 80-100 million dollars spent on it people will hate on it because the developers couldnt afford all the fancy tech.

So with that little rant out of the way, god damn that was a fun game. Theres 3 basic time periods you play in, and each one is an experience you really wont have in any other game. Seeing and participating in skirmishes with lines of confederate and union soldiers shooting at each other in the battle of Antietam was exhilarating. And no, you are not stuck and controlled like you were in the demo level, you have free movement, and generally its a bad idea to stand in the lines, obviously.

WWI is pretty cool, since you never get to play in that war in most games. Theres some really awesome experiences to be had in that war, like:

Spoiler

Hijacking a mother****ing zeppelin, and busting out of a concentration camp, and then going back in time again to help yourself break out of the concentration camp.

And playing in Pompeii while the volcano is errupting made me jizz myself.

The gameplay is pretty standard fps fare, but the pacing is well done. You play with period weapons most of the time, and the future weapons are given to you just at the right time when the fighting gets tough. The shooting is broken up well with parts where you have to fire artillery, use stealth, do some long range sniping, or defend yourself on short but intense on-rails sequences that reminded me of COD2.

Anyways, I'd recommend it to anyone who can come at the game with the idea that its an indie game build on quasi last-gen technology. Its not hard to do, because the game is fun enough to overlook any flaws. Is it worth 40 bucks? To me it is, and it supports a very talented indie developer in a industry that is quickly becoming monopolized. But at the very least, pick it up when it goes on sale or has a price drop, because its definitely worth 20-20 bucks and its a game you really shouldnt miss because most of the stuff in it you will never get a chance to play in another game.

 

[Lucid]

The WW1 level managed to put me off of ever finishing the game really.
The mouse getting all sluggish and unresponsive while you're moving and looking around for one, was incredibly annoying... as was the gigantic iron sights that didn't really help you aim at all since you couldn't even see through them.

 

[Krynn72]

I dont see what you mean by sluggish controls. It was very responsive for me, like any source game really. Maybe your mouse sensitivity was set really low in the settings? And the iron sights are much less obtrusive than in games like Call of Duty I thought.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

So glad to hear its good. To be honest the graphics aren't even that dated imo.

 

[Lucid]

My mouse sensitivity was all the way up.
I described it exactly, when you're moving and you try moving the mouse left or right or anywhere it feels like it's moving through tar.
If I stand still and look around, it's perfectly fine.

I believe it's because of the garbage mouse emulation software they used since it's a console port.

I know I'm not the only one with this problem because it's a pretty common complaint on their forums.

 

[Warped]

i think its the weapon your carrying in hand which depends of the firing rate. try switching weapons and you'll see. the chasers fire fine so far

 

[Lucid]

Weapons fire had nothing to do with it.
I'm talking about mouse movement.

 

[Krynn72]

I believe it's because of the garbage mouse emulation software they used since it's a console port.

Uh, what? Thats absolutely not true. The PC was their main platform. What kind of mouse do you have? I have no issues with my logitech MX Revolution.

Looking at their forums, it seems like PhysX may be the problem if you have an ATI card. Did you try turning PhysX off?

Also, how can you stand it with the sensitivity that high? I set it up to that and I was all over the place and couldnt aim accurately.

 

[Warped]

do the benchmark test. i turned PhysX to low and the game ran fine

 

[Lucid]

Uh, what? Thats absolutely not true. The PC was their main platform. What kind of mouse do you have? I have no issues with my logitech MX Revolution.

Looking at their forums, it seems like PhysX may be the problem if you have an ATI card. Did you try turning PhysX off?

Also, how can you stand it with the sensitivity that high? I set it up to that and I was all over the place and couldnt aim accurately.

It's a Logitech mouse, not sure what kind... just went to the store and bought a $40 mouse one day.
Works fine with every other FPS I own.

I don't have an ATI card or anything capable of using PhysX properly, so yes, it's turned off, it isn't performance lag... I know that for a fact since the game runs really smoothly, and I only cranked the mouse sensitivity to the max to see if it would help the lag at all and it didn't.

 

[Krynn72]

Well, that sucks. It looks like the devs are working on it though because they've replied in a couple threads about it. They've already gotten one patch out, and im sure the next one isnt far down the road, so hopefully that will be fixed soon.

 

[Warped]

theres an update out, i was just on steam and it updated the game