DayZ Breaks Out of ArmA II

| 7 Aug 2012 15:23
image

The standalone version of DayZ will follow a "Minecraft development model."

As a relatively new add-on for military simulation game ArmA II, the DayZ mod has gained a lot of steam since its alpha release a few months ago. The open nature of the zombie-infested world, combined with a focus on survival, has made it a hit with over a million players so far. Now on the heels of that milestone, announced recently over Twitter, the development team has more good news for its fans; DayZ is officially going to be turned into a standalone game. The mod's creator, Dean "Rocket" Hall, called the news a "fairy-tale outcome" for the mod.

The game's developer and publisher is none other than ArmA II developer Bohemia Interactive, with Hall leading the project. It will be released using a "Minecraft development model," according to Hall, who specifically cited releasing frequent updates and making an alpha version of the game available for a discounted price. Hall had contemplated this pricing structure earlier, when he first discussed turning the mod into a standalone game.

This game's development doesn't mean instant abandonment of the mod itself, though - the DayZ mod will still be updated "in parallel with the development of the game," according to Hall. Whether the mod will keep up with the game after it comes out, or whether the limitations of the ArmA II engine will hold it back, still remains to be seen. Other information, like the release date and price, should be revealed over the next few weeks.

Source: DayZ Dev via Eurogamer

Post Comment

You must be logged in to post. Log In

rembrandtqeinstein:
If only they could do DayZ gameplay with the STALKER engine....

Im throwing money at my screen and nothing is happening. Give me this game.

My friend and I have so far spent 6 hours playing DayZ, 3 hours spent on the loading screens, trying to get on a working server, 3 hours have been spent trying to navigate our way to each other based on our relation to the southern sea.

Maybe I'm "old school" but I thought "hardcore" meant "challenging but fair", not "insufferable and excruciating".

If it worked like in my imagination it would be an awesome game, but the fact that you start and the first zombie you see will run after you like an Olympian for miles and miles, your basically screwed the moment you start playing.

Then theirs the most crap inventory system ever devised,

the zero team options,

spawning miles and miles away from people you only have a finite amount of time to game with in any one sitting.

The most laughable animation I've ever seen

LEss than poor hit detection with melee weapons.

Zombies that teleport around and through walls

It's a good idea, but not very well executed. I'll probably just wait for it's shameless knockoff, WarZ to come out.

Fr]anc[is:
True, but even then there is some sort of emotional catharsis at the end. What people are telling me is that you might as well just bang your head on the wall, since it's not supposed to be fun.

It isn't supposed to be fun in the traditional sense of the word perhaps. DayZ is a great example of the sort variation of experiences this medium can offer. It's a player-run survival horror game set in a perpetual environment so obviously it won't give you the same sort of fun as, say, Age of Empires or Battlefield does. But that speaks for itself, doesn't it?

The emotional catharsis in this case comes from succeeding, from surmounting challenges and obstacles like the situation I described before. The moment you finally let out your breath after sitting on the edge of your seat for the past few minutes.

But whatever, all I wanted to say was that I like the concept, but don't like pvp. I didn't want to poke any zombie beehives.

But in that case you don't like the idea because PvP is at the very core of the concept. Fear, paranoia, distrust and tension are what fuel this game. A really unique experience and one with a lot of potential to grow.

Irridium:
So... yeah.

Fair enough. Half of that is out the window now that he is working for the Arma guys and planning to sell this thing, but that's not the point. It's ultra hardcore and unforgiving, I get that. What I don't get is the assertion that 'it's not fun'. So you're telling me millions of bandwagon jumpers are getting zero entertainment value out of DayZ, bearing in mind that fun is subjective and comes in many forms, and spent their money simply to get angry. I guess I was wrong about the dev, but that just doesn't even make sense. It's like fun is a dirty word in this context.

Cowabungaa:
The point is what the game's creator sets it out to be. In this case, the point is to evoke a real kind of fear, desperation and danger. The constant threat of death and not being able to trust, well, basically anyone is a vital part of the game's atmosphere.

True, but even then there is some sort of emotional catharsis at the end. What people are telling me is that you might as well just bang your head on the wall, since it's not supposed to be fun.

But whatever, all I wanted to say was that I like the concept, but don't like pvp. I didn't want to poke any zombie beehives.

Fr]anc[is:
Still not going to even give it a chance until pvp only is off the table. I want to at least try it, but screw pvp. I can deal with broken unpolished games, I can't deal with the constant thought that some random asshat can snipe me for no reason. Don't tell me that's the point, the point is to have fun, and I don't find that fun.

The point is what the game's creator sets it out to be. In this case, the point is to evoke a real kind of fear, desperation and danger. The constant threat of death and not being able to trust, well, basically anyone is a vital part of the game's atmosphere.

Having to make a deal while a buddy of yours keeps a sniper rifle aimed at the other guy's chest and not knowing whether he has a buddy that's doing the same thing. Putting down the merchandise and slooowly walking backwards just hoping that it doesn't turn into a paranoid, frenzied shoot-out. That sort of situations and the tension that comes with them is what this game is all about.

Of course, constant griefing is another matter and that's indeed a hurdle this game needs to get over. What I think would really counter that is to give players proper opportunities to create a community and consolidate it. Groups could establish bases, claim territories, set up patrols and scavenge parties so that lone griefers don't get much a chance. After a while you'll get more and more communities, territorial boundaries will clash and you'll have to fight, negotiate or trade to keep yourself into the game.

And voila; a completely player-run endgame situation is born. Another thing the game currently lacks.

Fr]anc[is:

Lumber Barber:
No. The point is to provide a realistic, intense experience. Rocket doesn't care in the slightest about your fun.
Your complaint is like complaining about mining in Minecraft or about shooting other people in Call of Duty. Think about how ridiculous that is for a second.

Do you actually know Rocket? I bet you don't, so I am going to continue to assume that he did not spend his time making a mod for a video game for nobody to have fun. To think otherwise is stupid.

doggie015:
The point of the game is NOT to have fun; but to be the MOST REALISTIC zombie apocalypse simulation possible (Aside from the spawning on a beech and multiple lives!). In such a situation there would be a LOT of people that would happily snipe you down with the attitude of "One more person can't kill me now!"...

I'm going to ignore your assumption that everyone turns into a sociopath the instant the world ends and say that if you aren't having any sort of fun, then you are either a /k/ommando who thinks this is some sort of training, or you are literally wasting your time.

Well, according to Rocket himself, from a post he made, here's what he had to say:

This isn't really a game. Maybe a real game, from a studio, will come from the concept. For me, this is art. My intention was to generate real human emotions: high on the list was frustration, being pissed off, and a general distaste for some elements of society and what happens when the shit really goes down.

If you're fed up, frustrated, maybe even angry then I've done my job. I don't want money, fame, power from it. I've achieved precisely the effect I wanted even if you never play the game again, and hopefully made people think about a few things along the way.

And here's another little nugget:

Just because I did not script rules, doesn't stop anyone from making their own in game.

Are people so used to games shoving rules, tasks, stories down their throats that they can't handle it when something doesn't? Or would you like a world where the players actually get to do this? Not a structured and controlled environment that is "dressed up" as post-apocalyptic?

I hear what everyone is saying, and yes - its cruel and unsporting when you get killed 10 seconds into the game. But that's what this is, it is brutal, it is cruel. This is not fair. Maybe you will hate this game. Maybe you already do. It is an unforgiving environment with no structure. It is up to you to decide what to do next.

I would rather let the project die (and maybe it will, I accept that) than take over the role of establishing rules and punishments and structure. Instead I am going to work on the world's framework. It is up to the inhabitants of that world, you guys, to decide what kind of world you want it to be.

Is this actually possible? Fuck knows. But I really want to find out, and I've got nothing at all to loose. And to be honest, neither have you because you haven't paid me a cent and I haven't been paid a single cent for any of this.

So here's the challenge - just take a moment and think about what you are asking me for, with alot of these requests. Balancing, structure, rules, protection. These are what the game industry has shoved in your face for the last twenty years. Even the game industry itself can't escape it. EVE-Online tried briefly but caved in. Why? Money. They needed subscribers.

I don't.

This is going all the way, to whatever end that is.

And once more, with feeling.

DayZ was designed to be impossibly cruel, dark, and brutal. It was not designed as a game it was more of an experiment, I prefer the term "anti-game" - in other words the mechanics are not designed to be balanced, or offer a way out for different situations. These are things game designers normally take care with.

I discussed this with the our team members at great length of many arguments, the idea behind safe zones. The eventual consensus was that it went against the ethos of the project. This whole concept, and the reason it "works", is that there IS no safe zone (unless you make it). Your actions have real and brutal consequences. There are no game designed safety nets.

It is the kind of system/environment that will sometimes make you want to punch the computer screen. But with that kind of risk, comes great emotional reward when you carry something off. The sniper you describe - there are people like this in the world, and in the breakdown of order I can bet that there would be people who would sit on a roof and shoot people "just for the lulz".

The system makes no judgement on player actions, and this is one of the only real rules that was adopted for the development. While consequences may occur for a particular action (e.g. humanity loss), no judgement is implied or placed on that behavior. Beyond hacks, and misuse of exploits, regulating player behavior is not a scope of this project. If players, themselves, wish to group together and attempt to regulate the behavior. Well, that's entirely up to you.

This kind of activity is not for everyone. It really is more of a social experiment than a game. There is no intention to change that, if you dislike the PVP, then I would recommend playing Dynamic Zombie Sandbox or Celery's excellent Chernaus Apocalypse - there is no point in these being recreated through this mod.

Why make something that has already been done?

So... yeah.

I just have one question, and this is to DayZ players. Do the glitches seem more funny or are they outragously annoying, and should I wait for the full DayZ game to come out to get it, or is it worth buying Arma II right now with all the glitches included?

Lumber Barber:
You seem to be convinced that unless something has been made SPECIFICALLY to fun, it cannot possibly be fun.
And even if it was meant to have fun, why should Rocket cater to what's fun specifically to you?
There are over a million people enjoying DayZ right now, and PVP is an important part of that.

So people can have different opinions on what is fun? So it's ok for me not to like something you like? GASP! I realized I would get people disagreeing with me, which I tried to preface by saying I don't enjoy pvp, but what I didn't expect was multiple people telling me it's not fun. That's just perplexing and somewhat hilarious.

cerebus23:
when did he arma 2 engine look "bad"? max that engine out and it hangs out with crysis looks wise, it even looks more real than crysis sometimes, so i duuno what is wrong with the graphics of dayz exactly.

I don't think it looks bad either. The game world is incredibly drab and lifeless (badum) but that could be chalked up to art style more than anything.

However, it is completely and utterly unoptimized and unpolished. There's zero consistency in terms of framerate. If it does go standalone, some more tweaking and better coding would make me enjoy the game far more than I do. As for other things, if there was an option to turn PVP off that would certainly make sense. I don't see why it can't be a choice, especially when it's hugely divisive.

Fr]anc[is:

Lumber Barber:
No. The point is to provide a realistic, intense experience. Rocket doesn't care in the slightest about your fun.
Your complaint is like complaining about mining in Minecraft or about shooting other people in Call of Duty. Think about how ridiculous that is for a second.

Do you actually know Rocket? I bet you don't, so I am going to continue to assume that he did not spend his time making a mod for a video game for nobody to have fun. To think otherwise is stupid.

You seem to be convinced that unless something has been made SPECIFICALLY to fun, it cannot possibly be fun.
And even if it was meant to have fun, why should Rocket cater to what's fun specifically to you?
There are over a million people enjoying DayZ right now, and PVP is an important part of that.

Lumber Barber:
No. The point is to provide a realistic, intense experience. Rocket doesn't care in the slightest about your fun.
Your complaint is like complaining about mining in Minecraft or about shooting other people in Call of Duty. Think about how ridiculous that is for a second.

Do you actually know Rocket? I bet you don't, so I am going to continue to assume that he did not spend his time making a mod for a video game for nobody to have fun. To think otherwise is stupid.

doggie015:
The point of the game is NOT to have fun; but to be the MOST REALISTIC zombie apocalypse simulation possible (Aside from the spawning on a beech and multiple lives!). In such a situation there would be a LOT of people that would happily snipe you down with the attitude of "One more person can't kill me now!"...

I'm going to ignore your assumption that everyone turns into a sociopath the instant the world ends and say that if you aren't having any sort of fun, then you are either a /k/ommando who thinks this is some sort of training, or you are literally wasting your time.

the source engine would be amazing.....*dreams*

Fr]anc[is:
Don't tell me that's the point, the point is to have fun, and I don't find that fun.

No. The point is to provide a realistic, intense experience. Rocket doesn't care in the slightest about your fun.
Your complaint is like complaining about mining in Minecraft or about shooting other people in Call of Duty. Think about how ridiculous that is for a second.

Soviet Heavy:

Andy Shandy:
I know this is wishful thinking, but any chance we could have this on consoles as well. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease?!

I now await being struck down with screams of "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" by PC players.

Why would we want to deny people the chance to play the game based on our system preference? I didn't see many Minecraft players going "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" when the 360 version was released.

why are you blind?

Standalone for this is deserved, this is the only mod that i still play on ARMA and i dont play arma itself anymore (its a good game but so much to do so little time). Would definatelyl support the stnadalone version especially if its going to end up being cheaper than arma+mod.

doggie015:
The point of the game is NOT to have fun; but to be the MOST REALISTIC zombie apocalypse simulation possible

(emphasis mine)

Exactly. DayZ isn't an action title, it's not a shooter, it's not Left 4 Dead Island Rising 10. The focus isn't about mowing down legions of undead mooks.

That's its appeal, that's why it's a cult hit.

WhiteTigerShiro:

Andy Shandy:
I know this is wishful thinking, but any chance we could have this on consoles as well. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease?!

I now await being struck down with screams of "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" by PC players.

If you ever played Day Z, you'd know that a console release is impossible. This isn't even a matter of preferring the mouse to the analog stick (though the mouse IS superior ;P), this a matter of it being literally impossible to cram all the controls necessary for Day Z into a controller's limited button count.

Psssht... the major hurdle is that neither Real Virtuality 3 or Real Virtuality 4 (the ArmA II and ArmA III engines respectively) have console versions nor do they scale down particularly well (a result of the engines being optimised for server based network operation for it's military training sim applications).

I can't see BIStudios spending the cash on a massive engine rewrite to service a market (consoles) they have shown regularly to not give a rancid rat's rectum about, not when you combine it with the fact they don't licence out their engine AND the fact that their main money earner isn't games... so console sales would have to be projected to cover the time and cost of both developing the engine AND the game AND show more earning potential than any other project they could be working on... So short of some big publisher showering them with money for a console version and distro deal for that version, it's just not going to happen.

Fr]anc[is:
Still not going to even give it a chance until pvp only is off the table. I want to at least try it, but screw pvp. I can deal with broken unpolished games, I can't deal with the constant thought that some random asshat can snipe me for no reason. Don't tell me that's the point, the point is to have fun, and I don't find that fun.

The point of the game is NOT to have fun; but to be the MOST REALISTIC zombie apocalypse simulation possible (Aside from the spawning on a beech and multiple lives!). In such a situation there would be a LOT of people that would happily snipe you down with the attitude of "One more person can't kill me now!"...

Hmm. I was actually going to buy Arma 3 mostly to try out the next iteration of DayZ while the rumor was the mod would become an integrated mode of the third game after having a go on a buddy's copy of Arma 2 at college. Now I guess I can just buy DayZ direct. I'll still get Arma 3 though, both games look promising and I suppose I am kinda looking forward to seeing the project evolve.
So long as it has nothing to do with Steam.

Covarr:

They never said it was getting a new engine, just that it was going standalone. Typically, this means the same engine, just look at Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Killing Floor... Especially if it's being published by the same company, it's a safe bet it'll use the same engine, just without the requirement of having the original.

The obvious advantage of this is that installation and updates should be significantly easier if it's a standalone. I'm hoping that being standalone will also give them a bit more control over the engine and lead to more bugfixes, but I can't say for sure since I don't really know enough about the Arma II engine. If nothing else, monetizing it should have a positive impact since it means more incentive and budget to solve issues.

P.S. Thanks

Actually, they did. Several times. At least, it will be using a different engine then they are using now, it will be using the ARMA III Engine, just like ARMA III obviously. I don't say this will actually fix anything of course, but we could assume it will probably not be any worse either.

Continue reading 53 comments on the forums.
Recommended Games
Maplestory
categories: 2d, fantasy
Cloud Nine
categories: fantasy
ArcheAge
categories: 3d, fantasy
Dragon Oath
categories: fantasy