The Dying Light condundrum

 

You know, I think that Zombie games get a bad wrap. I know, that's quite the left-field take coming from me- guy who has played so many Zombie games he pen the write up for a fresh cast in his sleep. A year ago I was sick to death of a genre I thought had absolutely nowhere to go which had totally dried up all goodwill across it's lifetime. And whilst I still don't know how I feel about the entirety of the genre given that a lot of it is very derivative and uninspired- since then I've played Dead Island 2 and was reminded what made this concept fun. Squashing zombies can be a blast when wrapped up in a game that allows you to get creative with it. That was what made the Dead Rising games such a hit back in the day, afterall. I suppose in that light, there's still something in these here games.

Of course if you ask genre aficionados they aren't going to mention 'Dead Island', at least not at first. (I'm actually not sure how they largely feel about 2- I suspect they like it, it was a decent enough game.) They're going to tell you the name of the cult hit that has an almost 'New Vegas' style reputation amidst their ranks. You know, the kind of "Yeah, those other games are great but you should really play 'X'"- you know the type. Dying Light is the 'Game X' of this example and through that title which combined free running with zombies in a largely non-comedic setting people found themselves totally enraptured with the zombie experience all over again. Largely because of how the game managed to recontextualise player's relationships with zombies.

Before zombies were kind of like playthings you'd find on a children's playground. Malleable, unthreatening and easily disposable. Even Dead Island and Left 4 Dead had to get creative to insist on taking these monsters serious once and a while- and in doing so created the exact same dozen architypes  that every Zombie game has copied for the rest of time. Dead Island brough a very new kind of creature with the Volatile- a monster that would hunt you- and built the entire reputation of the game around the dangerous threat they posed as agile nocturnal predators that would pull up off rooftops and rip you to shreds. And it worked- people found zombies scary again and credited Dying Light for that revelation which is where the undying love started.

But just as with New Vegas- when you hit that level which fans consider a 'Masterpiece' you better bet they're going to compare everything that follows with a fine-comb of critical analysis. See where I'm going with this? Dying Light 2 does not share the same glowing praise that the first game received. In fact- it's kind of seen as a disgrace to the name. Why? Lots of reasons both big and small. Some are annoyed about the teased gun that never made it the full game, (guns were introduced much later during the extended post-release support that Techland have become renowned for) some found the story and characters to be a pale shadow of the original game's, (Can't speak to that myself, I'm still trucking through the first game myself) and lastly- they took all the danger out of the zombies. Even the volatiles. (Yeah, I can see why that would piss some people off.)

So Dying Light is a franchise of two contradicting halves. One of rampant hero worship and rapid dogging from both sides of the series and I'm fascinated which beast will take hold in the upcoming title that seems to be a full follow-up game? Only they're calling it a 'stand alone' which makes it sound like spun-off DLC for Dying Light 2? I don't really know what they're driving at, it's a confusing conundrum. But at the very least a big piece of nostalgia bait was thrown the way of Dying Light by ensuring this new game would star non other than Roger Craig Smith himself- I mean 'Kyle Crane'. Same guy in my head.

As the story goes per Techland's Gameindustry.biz interview- all of this did exist in the past as a DLC that was coming to Dying Light 2. In fact this was going to be the second DLC pack for the game all the way up until a heavy leak basically spilled all the details about it out to the fans. (Just goes to show how many data breaches we've had in recent years- I didn't even hear about this one!) Techland decided to rework what they had and commit to something they consider to be not Dying Light 3 or a DLC- but a smaller standalone title. (I just wonder if the price will reflect that approach given that these games are typically years long support projects for Technland...)

Curiously Techland took this as a moment to talk about their philopshy for Game Design a little bit- and given how intimately in step with their fandom that company is- their thoughts are always actually worth listening to above typical corporate drivel. The franchise director verbalised genuine concerns about how the industry standard is mired in "inertia" with lusting after retention time and "play hours". To his mind, the future of the industry lies in smaller titles. And I... actually really do vibe with that sentiment. I mean don't get me wrong- the occasional blockbuster rocker is a must- but you can't make every studio a non-stop blockbuster producer and I think we're really starting to see why in recent years.

These big games that take the better part of a decade to make always end up rocking to the party after everyone has gone home, missing the point and the trend in their way. Sorry Fallout 76, Survival Games went out of fashion three years ago. Too bad, Suicide Squad- Live Services' are cringe now. Uh oh, Concord- we've seen enough hero shooters to last a life time. And those others were free-to-play. Dying Light is choosing the direction of quicker turn around shooter games that can easier stay at the pulse of the industry and I have to be honest- that makes a lot of sense. Maybe trendsetting should be left to the trendsetters?