Print
We have a feeling that someone sarcastically uttered the phrase “What could possibly go wrong?” before pressing Dead Island's big, red “launch on Steam” button, because how else could things have gone this wrong? Dead Island released in a fittingly festering state, ridden with wriggly, sometimes game-breaking bugs. After a bit of digging, intrepid Steam forum-goers discovered the culprit: a bit of game code that read “Xbox Live Submission Project Version.” Whoops.
“We deeply regret that an incorrect version of Dead Island was inadvertently made available to players on Steam launch in North America. We are very sorry for any issues you may have experienced while playing the game - the correct, patched version will be made available to North American players ASAP,” Techland wrote on the official Dead Island Facebook page.
Happily, the developer engaged whatever magical time shenanigans powered its trailer to set things right in the blink of an eye. For a full list of changes and fixes, go here.
Unfortunately, that big sandy beach of good news comes with one particularly large grain of bad: your previous saves might just sort of, you know, not work with the game's new version. To make up for all this, though, publisher Deep Silver is planning a, well, “make up” for North American day one buyers. Details haven't solidified just yet, but we've been advised to “stay tuned.”
Until then, though, did any of you get caught up in this tidal wave of totally avoidable nonsense? Because we're not sure whose fault this was, but we imagine there are better places to make this kind of slip up than a studio that just spent the past couple years dreaming up incredibly elaborate melee weapons assembled from common household items.
Comments are closed on this article
someuid
September 07, 2011 at 8:11am
Well, this is rather interesting in that (1) the company jumped on the issue FAST (2) issued an apology and (3) has already offered to make it up affected customers.
Don't see that very much these days.
Hats off to Techland.
So, now for the fun stuff. What's this game like? Good graphics for a DX9 engine? Solid game play? Any interface issues? And consolization issues? Did Techland do a good job at making a PC game that is also on consoles? How does the multiplayer work?
sh0gun
September 07, 2011 at 12:29pm
So far the game is fun. I played for maybe 3 or 4 hours yesterday during the disaster, including multiplayer
To me, the game plays very much like Fallout 3. You travel from place to place on the island meeting NPCs who give you quests for money, loot, and experience. There are main story quests, but there are a ton of side quests which are optional. You choose 1 of 4 characters, they have different strengths and weaknesses. As your character levels up, you spend points on new skills from 3 different skill trees. I have only played one character, so I am not sure if the skill trees are the same for every character.
The graphics are good, but I always had the feeling it was things weren't polished. Maybe this had to do with the buggy version I played. I really noticed the beauty of the game when you get to the top of a hill and look down. Seeing where you came from, all the distance you traveled with the ocean in the background makes for a terrific view. The zombies are varied. You don't get the feeling that you are fighting the same zombie over and over. They have different clothes, accessories, etc. The coolest (and goriest) thing though is how they tear apart as you beat them. Smash them in the chest with a spiked bat and the flesh tears away revealing ribs. Beat them while they are on the ground, the whole head is smashed and the skull revealed. It's grusome and detailed.
Game play so far seems pretty straight forward. Basically, you scavenge for weapons, find a zombie and smash it the face, then complete a story objective. I really like how the weapons wear down and you need to find new ones. Beating 5 or 6 zombies in the face will eventually wear down the bat to the point where it's useless. Then you have to find a pipe or broken boat oar in order to continue the face smashing. You can also upgrade weapons to increase strength and durability. You can also combine weapons with items once you find plans for a new weapon. For example, you can take some nails and hammer them into the bat and have a spiked bat to slay with. Most of the quests are the typical, go get this and bring it back here stuff, or travel over here and flip this switch.
I haven't see any console port issues. There are some funny default keymappings that are easy enough to correct. Stuff like, the use/action button defaults to F but flashlight is something else. Something that might be a console port thing is how you throw melee weapons. You have to aim first and then click the mouse button to throw it. It's not typical of a PC game, but it's not cumbersome.
I think multiplayer has been done in a pretty unique way. It's mutliplayer by default. If you don't go poking around in the settings and you start a game right away, you are playing multiplayer. It starts like any game would, a little intro movie, a little tutorial and then chapter one begins. When the chapter begins, other players can join your game any time, I think up to four. So you may have people popping in an out as you play. They can do thier own things or follow you around on your quests. You can adjust multiplayer slots from public to private or any combination of the two. You can also turn off multiplayer and just play single player mode. Since there is no PvP or friendly fire for that matter, I didn't get any griefers, just people who wanted to join and smash. Eventually I was playing with some Steam friends and some strangers. It is more fun with people I think, esp with people you know.
All in all, the game was fun, despite all the bugs. It seems they have fixed the issues, but I won't know until this evening.
I didn't actually intend this to be a review, but I just kind of ran with it once I started writing. Hope this helps.
someuid
September 07, 2011 at 5:47pm
sh0gun, that was a great review. Thank you. I have several friends who's expressed interest. This might be a purchase we all do the same weekend and play together online until we drop of exhaustion.
Thanks for taking the time to write that up.
sh0gun
September 07, 2011 at 7:12am
I got caught up in the nonsense. It was frustrating. That said, the game is fun and that kept me playing. Felt like left 4 dead crossed with fallout.
Holly Golightly
September 06, 2011 at 11:38pm
Why couldn't they just release the game with Games For Windows Live... That way the achievements go onto my gamer score card. Sigh... I want to be able to play this game without being forced to launch the Steam Client...
US_Ranger
September 07, 2011 at 10:44am
Games for Windows Live? Wow. Well, I have to admit, I've now heard someone actually say they like GFWL. You're the first person I've ever come across. GFWL is the most awful, terrible, useless, good for nothing system that I've ever seen on a PC in my 29 years on this planet.
Holly Golightly
September 07, 2011 at 6:06pm
In the end, Steam is the equivalent to Games For Windows Live. You have to log onto the client in order to play... Making Steam feel more like OnLive. Atleast Games For Windows Live closes when you quit the game...
LatiosXT
September 07, 2011 at 9:40am
Games for Windows Live is much worse than Steam beyond the issue you spoke of (which... honestly if you really care about your gamer score, you should really evaluate yourself as a gamer).
- Any GFWL game still needs the service to run (just like Steam!). So in essence, you're forced to laucnh GFWL when you run the game.
- If the game for some reason is tied to your login, and the client needs to update, it won't tell you until you actually start the game. And even then, it won't let you defer the update so you can, you know, just play the game. I've had this happen on occasion with Dawn of War. Great, now I have to wait about 5 more minutes to play the game. On the flipside, Steam allows you to defer updating the client at a more convenient time, and hey, it's still allow you to do all the other features and functions!
- Steam takes care of maintenance for you without intervention. GFWL does it, well, when you run the game.
Holly Golightly
September 08, 2011 at 10:33pm
I proudly support GFWL because they are the lesser of 2 evils. I am a competive gamer, and I like having a higher score than all my friends. Steam does not give me this advantage.
When I close the game, so does GFWL, and best part is, they do not try to sell me more stuff to lock me in further onto their client. This is allowing me a choice to use other clients... Better for competition.
Slurpy
September 07, 2011 at 12:24am
And a lot more people are glad they don't have to launch GfWL to play it.
Not like achievements or gamer scores matter anyway, it's just a matter of pride. And since both Steam and Xbox achievements both track which achievements you have and haven't gotten, it doesn't really matter which community you are gaming in.
Holly Golightly
September 07, 2011 at 12:50am
Yes, but the achievement points on Xbox Live and Games For Windows Live are much more organized because you get a score card. Unlike Steam, which you have to click onto someone else's profile, and view their games, and then you can see the achievements. Does not seem as more fun as the Games For Windows Live version in my opinion.
ferariman
September 07, 2011 at 7:29am
on all of your comments i see your pride of gfwl and your hatred of steam. why? steam has more games, auto updates your games when your not playing, allows you to play online for free, allows you to change your name for free, you get free dlc, and it supports indie devs!!! what does gfwl have on steam? tell me, because i cant find anything. they both run in your tray. if you are able to play games with out gfwl client running in tray, please tell me how. they use the same amount of resources. so again, please tell me why your fanboism for microsofts extension of consoles to the pc market persists through all of gfwl's fails?
EDIT: and does not seem as more fun? are you as a pre schooler(er)?
Holly Golightly
September 07, 2011 at 6:03pm
I do not exclusively support Games For Windows Live. I support Origins, Game Comrade, and just about any other competitor out there. Nothing wrong with a little competition. However, it seems that Steam is anti-competitive, and looks like they are practicing predator-pricing.
What really makes me dislike steam over the competition is because Steam is forced to be launched just to play the game. So each and every single time, there is a 3 second delay, then Steam logs onto the mandatory client, and then your game will run. PC Gaming should be more simple. Not requiring everybody to run clients.
methuselah
September 08, 2011 at 9:54am
I'm sorry but I've just got to disagree w/ you. To add you seem to be contradicting yourself. You don't like how Steam does business (anti competitive, preadator pricing etc.) and yet you support Origins by EA, everyone knows, EA is the Corporate devil of the gaming industry and guilty of the same. Now frankly I don't know enough yet about Origins to make a comparison to Steam however, let's try it with GFWL.
Compare GFWL to Steam:
1. GFWL Overlay is fast and accessible like steam (shift+tab)
(That's where the similarities differ)
2. GFWL has a clunky interface
3. GFWL has poor friends menu
4. GFWL player rating system is terrible
5. Trying to communicate in GFWL w/ fiends or recent/other players is just a terrible implementation.
6. If you play a Valve game in Steam, the integration is seamless, I've yet to play an MS game that interfaces as well with GFWL
7. GFWL has a horrible download and purchase system.It's clear that Steam "gets it" where as MS does not. Perhaps they are just late to the game, remember how pissed the community was when Steam came out? Will we fell better about GFWL 8 years from now? I doubt it.
Holly Golightly
September 08, 2011 at 10:49pm
But Origins IS the competition. I am not forced to launch Origins when I want to play Alice Madness Returns. However, when I launch Metro 2033 (Retail) I am forced to launch steam. Retail copies should never mix with digital download store fronts... I am sorry. Steam is forceful onto other gamers and that is simply unfair, wouldn't you agree?
When I play my single player adventure games, I do not care about connecting with friends. There are no online benefits for single player adventure games, I am sorry. I just don't see the real advantage of being forced to use steam on 1 player games. Seems kind of silly. But I do like the idea of having a cross platform gamer score card that counts all of my achievements. Making GFWL a much better option in comparison to Steam which does not centralize your points.
Because of predator pricing, they are able to get many more gamers addicted onto their forceful DRM client that most gamers did not choose to originally. Think during the time of Half Life and Counter Strike... Way back in 2003. No PC Gamer in their right mind would want to run a client. But eventually they accept defeat and side with the enemy. Steam is not the native choice for PC Gamers because the advantage to game on a PC is the total freedom that consoles strictly forbid. You take away that freedom, and you have a consolized PC. As more and more people use Steam to game with their Xbox 360 controllers, the more the REAL pc gaming dies. This is a tragic day that will be forgotten.
