From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


If you didn't like the first Dying Light game, this title is probably
not of interest to you.

Some background: I did like Dying Light (enough to finish the SP
campaign) but didn't care much for Dying Light 2.

DL:TB is interesting in the sense that I tried it when it first came
out, then refunded it, which is something I often do just to demo a
game (and it's pretty rare that I decide to keep a full price single
player only title).

I can't even remember why I refunded, it may have been something like
a keybinding issue (this happens all too often with new releases).

Saw it was on sale and decided to give it another go, and it pulled me
in pretty quickly...strange how that works.

But as I'm playing it I think they did capture a lot of what I liked
about the first game while in a lot of ways, also taking it up a
notch.

They really did a nice job on this one, very immersive and
atmospheric. Kind of rare to see this level of effort in AAA games
these days.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

They really did a nice job on this one, very immersive and
atmospheric.

Good news. I did enjoy the first game quite a bit.

rms
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 3/28/2026 3:50 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

If you didn't like the first Dying Light game, this title is probably
not of interest to you.

I did enjoy it, but it just felt like Assassin's Creed: Zombies, with
online stuff chucked in. Also not enough to buy into another one unless
it's cheap.

Some background: I did like Dying Light (enough to finish the SP
campaign) but didn't care much for Dying Light 2.

DL:TB is interesting in the sense that I tried it when it first came
out, then refunded it, which is something I often do just to demo a
game (and it's pretty rare that I decide to keep a full price single
player only title).

I can't even remember why I refunded, it may have been something like
a keybinding issue (this happens all too often with new releases).

Saw it was on sale and decided to give it another go, and it pulled me
in pretty quickly...strange how that works.

$45 is out of my price range for this. I know everything's outrageous
now, but still. Also I have too much other stuff to (re)play to buy
anything except games I'm extremely excited about.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 11:44:02 -0700, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 3/28/2026 3:50 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

If you didn't like the first Dying Light game, this title is probably
not of interest to you.

I did enjoy it, but it just felt like Assassin's Creed: Zombies, with
online stuff chucked in. Also not enough to buy into another one unless >it's cheap.

Some background: I did like Dying Light (enough to finish the SP
campaign) but didn't care much for Dying Light 2.

DL:TB is interesting in the sense that I tried it when it first came
out, then refunded it, which is something I often do just to demo a
game (and it's pretty rare that I decide to keep a full price single
player only title).

I can't even remember why I refunded, it may have been something like
a keybinding issue (this happens all too often with new releases).

Saw it was on sale and decided to give it another go, and it pulled me
in pretty quickly...strange how that works.

$45 is out of my price range for this. I know everything's outrageous
now, but still. Also I have too much other stuff to (re)play to buy >anything except games I'm extremely excited about.

Understood about the price. I was ready to refund it but quickly
found I'm actually getting my money's worth at the current sale price.

I've only tried a few Assasins Creed games, can't tell you which ones.
Never stuck with any of them for long, and they certainly didn't have
the immersiveness of this game. They couldn't, being third person
instead of first, plus with all of the on-screen prompts and shit...
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Rin Stowleigh wrote:

On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 11:44:02 -0700, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 3/28/2026 3:50 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

If you didn't like the first Dying Light game, this title is probably
not of interest to you.

I did enjoy it, but it just felt like Assassin's Creed: Zombies, with
online stuff chucked in. Also not enough to buy into another one unless
it's cheap.

Some background: I did like Dying Light (enough to finish the SP
campaign) but didn't care much for Dying Light 2.

DL:TB is interesting in the sense that I tried it when it first came
out, then refunded it, which is something I often do just to demo a
game (and it's pretty rare that I decide to keep a full price single
player only title).

I can't even remember why I refunded, it may have been something like
a keybinding issue (this happens all too often with new releases).

Saw it was on sale and decided to give it another go, and it pulled me
in pretty quickly...strange how that works.

$45 is out of my price range for this. I know everything's outrageous
now, but still. Also I have too much other stuff to (re)play to buy
anything except games I'm extremely excited about.

Understood about the price. I was ready to refund it but quickly
found I'm actually getting my money's worth at the current sale price.

I've only tried a few Assasins Creed games, can't tell you which ones.
Never stuck with any of them for long, and they certainly didn't have
the immersiveness of this game. They couldn't, being third person
instead of first, plus with all of the on-screen prompts and shit...

Assassin's Creed II was very good but I found it bugged on the PC from
Steam. You could only progress a little ways until the screen froze up
during one of the cut scenes. I got really far in AC II on the PS3, a
long time ago because my neighbor was an AC fanatic and suggested I get it.

The latest offerings, Odyssey and such, I find them bloated and will
only run on Alienware X21 or the best you got.
--
Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a
sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage.
The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath,
whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There
Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 06:07:57 -0600, phoenix <[email protected]>
wrote:

Rin Stowleigh wrote:

On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 11:44:02 -0700, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 3/28/2026 3:50 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:

If you didn't like the first Dying Light game, this title is probably
not of interest to you.

I did enjoy it, but it just felt like Assassin's Creed: Zombies, with
online stuff chucked in. Also not enough to buy into another one unless >>> it's cheap.

Some background: I did like Dying Light (enough to finish the SP
campaign) but didn't care much for Dying Light 2.

DL:TB is interesting in the sense that I tried it when it first came
out, then refunded it, which is something I often do just to demo a
game (and it's pretty rare that I decide to keep a full price single
player only title).

I can't even remember why I refunded, it may have been something like
a keybinding issue (this happens all too often with new releases).

Saw it was on sale and decided to give it another go, and it pulled me >>>> in pretty quickly...strange how that works.

$45 is out of my price range for this. I know everything's outrageous
now, but still. Also I have too much other stuff to (re)play to buy
anything except games I'm extremely excited about.

Understood about the price. I was ready to refund it but quickly
found I'm actually getting my money's worth at the current sale price.

I've only tried a few Assasins Creed games, can't tell you which ones.
Never stuck with any of them for long, and they certainly didn't have
the immersiveness of this game. They couldn't, being third person
instead of first, plus with all of the on-screen prompts and shit...

Assassin's Creed II was very good but I found it bugged on the PC from >Steam. You could only progress a little ways until the screen froze up >during one of the cut scenes. I got really far in AC II on the PS3, a
long time ago because my neighbor was an AC fanatic and suggested I get it.

The latest offerings, Odyssey and such, I find them bloated and will
only run on Alienware X21 or the best you got.

Reviews I read said Dying Light : The Beast ran very well on Core
i9-9900k with RTX2080, which is about an 8 year old rig at this point
(which is a very long time in gaming hardware). That's the same specs
I was using in my prior rig.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


This will probably be the single-player GOTY for me.... my definition
of GOTY is dependent on the year I play it, not necessarily same as
year it was released.

I've found I don't care much for co-op in this game... when someone
joins on you it just takes away the feeling of immersion and
suspension of disbelief.

Like it can just be some guy wearing something goofylike a theme park
furry creature outfit... and co-op gamers like to show what big hearts
they have by giving you all kinds of shit (often times that is so much
higher than your current level because they play the game 24x7 that it
does no good anyway).

There have been a few times where I felt fortunate to have an extra
helping hand, but I think the world feels more brutal and immersive
just playing solo.

It seems like a game either needs to be competitive multiplayer
(regardless of team based or solo) against other players, or just not multiplayer at all to keep me coming back. I find very few co-op
modes that interest me.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


The 1.6.3 hotfix, which came out yesterday, adds fast travel
capability from safe zones and hubs, just in case anyone was put off
by the lack of it while researching this game.

I do think it's odd that a feature like that would go into a "hot fix"
point release like this... maybe that's because I am in the software development business, where colloquial use of the term "hot fix" means something specific......
....specifically, "oops we fucked that up here's a quick patch for
something that passed our QA somehow but was still broken". Having
fast travel or not is kind of a big thing in an open-world game. Ah
well... I guess the game is good enough that we can overlook such transgressions.

I've wondered why it was missing, although it seems they did a good
job of designing the map and missions such that a lack of it is not a
deal breaker even without it -- sometimes you see your next
destination and it looks far away, but the way your character moves
across the environment (not to mention vehicles, some of the
situations you'll encounter while along the way on foot) makes
traveling part of the fun, it's all very immersive.

For busy people [raises hand], fast travel is definitely a welcome
addition. As much as I do enjoy moving from one location to another,
the reality is that I prefer to finish the main campaign of a game
like this with less than or approximately 20 hours of total gameplay
when possible. This one I've already spent a bit more than that
simply because I enjoy it, but history has shown that there is always
a practical limit to how long I should spend before something else
takes me away from it and then I dread coming back because I don't
want to re-learn what function I have re-key-mapped to what, etc.

Main thing to know about fast travel is you don't just see it on the
regular map. You have to find the map on the wall of a safe zone or
hub.. video on the subject here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmoTqJS2iwQ

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


I should also probably mention, fast travel is not just available to
anywhere you've been before, like some games. It's more like curated
fast travel eligibility, which is probably a smart design decision.
The world in this game and navigating through it is one of the reasons
to play at all.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Rin Stowleigh <[email protected]> wrote at 23:16 this Thursday (GMT):

I should also probably mention, fast travel is not just available to
anywhere you've been before, like some games. It's more like curated
fast travel eligibility, which is probably a smart design decision.
The world in this game and navigating through it is one of the reasons
to play at all.

Fast travel in general should be a part of navigation, rather than just skipping it, IMO. My favorite kind of fast travel is when its limited to certain "stations" that you have to physically go to, since it feels
more tactile than just activating something from a menu. It also makes
it way easier to contextualize it in the world as a boat ride or tram
system or such. For larger worlds though, I think having an "escape
rope" type item that just teleports to the nearest town is a good
compromise.

I haven't played a lot of super open games, so my thoughts might be
completely wrong tho
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 4/23/2026 9:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

Rin Stowleigh <[email protected]> wrote at 23:16 this Thursday (GMT):

I should also probably mention, fast travel is not just available to
anywhere you've been before, like some games. It's more like curated
fast travel eligibility, which is probably a smart design decision.
The world in this game and navigating through it is one of the reasons
to play at all.

Fast travel in general should be a part of navigation, rather than just skipping it, IMO. My favorite kind of fast travel is when its limited to certain "stations" that you have to physically go to, since it feels
more tactile than just activating something from a menu. It also makes
it way easier to contextualize it in the world as a boat ride or tram
system or such. For larger worlds though, I think having an "escape
rope" type item that just teleports to the nearest town is a good
compromise.

I haven't played a lot of super open games, so my thoughts might be completely wrong tho

I still prefer fallout 1 & 2's way of handling travel. When you want to
go somewhere you go out to the world map, and you click somewhere, you
can click on any point, even empty points. You then travel at like an
hour a second on that map and if you encounter something you get dropped
into a local map. Or if you just end up at a point with nothing in it,
you can still drop to a local map with little to nothing where you can
camp etc.

I hate the 'open world' which makes everything both feel further away in
real time, but amazingly cramped otherwise.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2