Dead Island review

I've played this game. It is not a 3/10. It is not a perfect game, but it is a good game and it is no where near a 3/10. How long are you going to keep these crappy reviews up, Edge? You're a good publication but you have absolutely no credibility in your reviews. No one takes you seriously any longer because you never rate anything properly.

I hate to doom monger, but it looks like Edge is falling on hard times (again) and so is relying again on website hits in an attempt to boost their profile (and mag sales). You can't beat a bad Edge review if what you want and need is publicity.

ina game about an vacation with zombies, deillusion just sucks

of course, teh zombies have otter things to say about the review

*Selling 17 magnets in a row is a true survival horror.*
feed teh trolls

bams you friggin' idiot - you ever heard of an edit button? Stop with the multiple post tit-bits you twat.

i make them single post: complaints about not coherent. also, theyr indepentend thoughts, ewry one of them. naturality. but, i'll hear ur words. thx.
aslo: it's b-a-r-n-s , u illiterate :)

Terrible review. It reads like the reviewer actually has a personal grudge against Techland.

Come on Mister reviewer, show us on the dolly where Techland touched you...

How can I take this review seriously? It's far too funny.
Keep up the good work!

Oh noes, Edge has slated a game I was really excited about so I'm going to accuse them of having no credibility.
Raaaaage!

I don't know.....there have been other, scathing reviews of this title. The score seems very low but the complaints raised do make the game sound terrible.
Other reviews have highlighted the problems of having to endlessly replay missions (escort missions, at that!) you've failed, only the game forcing you to do so with all your weapons depleated - i.e. your punishment for failing a mission is being handicapped with the next attempt. What kind of design logic is that???
There are people out there who will enjoy this title because they love all things zombie related. I think the key thing is that they will enjoy the game despite its flaws, rather than because of any conscious design decisions.
In truth, despite enjoying a good zombie slaughter session as much as the next gamer, I'm not usually a fan of open-world titles, so this would've needed glowing scores/reviews across the board to get my money. Everyone's been disappointed with this release....

Maybe it's just me but I personally associate a 3 with "broken". Clearly this game, whilst buggy and unfinished, is very playable and some might argue... enjoyable.

Nah, I'm calling sensationalism on this one. Another nail in the stale coffin that is Edge. Such a shame - it was a good read back in the Snes days.

we have watched and enjoyed many zombie apocles. many of the game type. still, we feel the need to see this through. the zombie thingy is bringed to us with many suprises, most of them unpleasant to go through. will you zombie fans disregard this because the art of play is not to our standartds in this one? no. edge may have true on the going through this thing, but, an vacation on an island with zombies wasn't going to be an paradise.
would i buy it? would i play through a new resident evil if it meant id have to stay locked in an reality where things didn't really work out? yes, the storyverse where zombies lay does still keep mind interested. so, i would follow the foot step of g. romero, an b or c [or thiscase d] presentation will not matter. evermore, im more ready to fight the zombies the next time theyt appear.

The review seems fair, I had a feeling this game was going to stink despite the great trailer. The review tally's with metro (who i also trust) and I won't be buying it.

You guys do realise that you have most likely played an unfinished version of Dead Island? Or perhaps not; I have this game on my list of pre-orders as I love anything and everything zombie. Whilst I enjoy reading your publications I unfortunately feel as though you have completely looked past the positives and listed tons of things you think were wrong. This is barely balanced and simply another 'we don't like this game' article. All I know is that the producer (can't remember his name off the top of my head, I'm afraid) mentioned in an interview that - actually - zombies are mostly randomised but limited so that they appear to have simply wandered into the area they are in at the time. Yes, you may find zombies in the same place a few times over, but until I play for myself on Friday I'd much rather listen to what they have been telling us.

I wouldn't say that 'this is another version of [insert game title here]', especially since this was 'concieved in 2005' and slowly became what it is today. I don't believe that anyone has deliberately borrowed everything as every 'original' creation today has elements that have come from elsewhere - from other people. Nothing is actually original anymore, when you come to think of it.

The rating of 3 that you gave is certainly unfair. I'm not saying that the game will be flawless when first released, but I'm certainly not saying that it will be terrible as you seem to think it is. Please balance your articles a little better in future.

I wouldn't say that 'this is another version of [insert story notitle here]'
i think i wouldnt too

i rated it 3 too

....

unfortunately feel as though you have completely looked past the positives and listed tons of things you think were wrong

*goes to read the review*

Bams (I like it better than baRns), are you the resident tithead here then?

controll issues
wasn't stalker like this?
just got hl2e2 sry 4 troll :P

Bams, Bams, Bams... <sigh>
I think you've said quite enough.

After reading the review, the score of 3 sounds generous. From what i can gather elsewhere this review is pretty much on the money. I'd certainly trust Edge over most reviews so i'm not sure what the first post means by 'never rate anything properly'. I'm assuming they were expecting a high score, deserved or not.

I cannot express how bored I am of zombies. I have loved them since the 90's but my God have developers milked them. The source of my childhood nightmares reduced to "meh". How disappointing.

"I haven't actually played the game, but Edge's opinion doesn't reflect my expectations, so it must be incorrect."

Sorry Edge but your reviews are getting worse by the day, seems like your pandering to the extremes fishing for web site hits.

I shall buy this game on PC. I trust in the Mod community to add a ton of new content. Not to mention all those patches. I'll leave this game for a couple of months, then return to a patched up treat.
I remember when my enthusiasm for Vampire: Bloodlines was tempered by the initial reviews. But when patched months down the line it became a very different beast to the one on release.

Kudos to EDGE for not succumbing to the Kool-Aid and therefore not having to backtrack from the ridiculous hype train that started with that glorious-but-misleading trailer. After bigging up Dead Island over the last few months, most publications are probably reluctant to stick the deserved boot in to this unfinished, unfocused, bug-ridden mess.

Edge is one of the worst review sites there is. (I give Edge a 3/10) The game is not perfect, but really enjoyable. 7.5/10. Open world + RPG elements + long campaign + very good online 4 player coop = WIN. Please people don't listen to Edge, listen to other users.

I put this game in my CD32 and the motherfucker worked.

I don't what this means.

Hey mr review guy, a word of advice: If you happen to find yourself stranded somewhere dying of thirst and you come across a shipment of "energy drinks"...do yourself a favor and DON'T kill yourself quicker by drinking any. You will dehydrate FASTER -_-..."The more you know"

Is it not interesting that most of the complaints about this review are from people who have brought / ordered the game? Any chance these people may be attempting to justify their purchase / are not wishing to accept that their new game is a bit rubbish? I do not blame them - no one wants to sink monies into a game that stinks. Problem is, if someone does they will often enter a period of self-denial, a phenomena clearly evidenced within these comments. You guys are far too emotionally / financially invested in the game to provide a balanced viewpoint. This is opposition to a reviewer, who can calmly and dispassionately evaluate a game on its merits without such pesky problems perverting their perceptions.
And, please, can people stop with the whole "you've got a grudge! / You've been paid off" bullshit? EDGE is one of the last bastions of thoughtful, intelligent videogame journalism.

Oh, and as a P.S. The PC version of the game allows you to walk through walls by pressing the Y key. Obviously not an intended feature but clear evidence that EDGE may not be talking out of their arses.

P.S. (yeah, I tried to edit but the site got funky with me) The PC version of the game allows the player to walk through walls with a simple press of the Y key. Not an intended feature, obviously. So, maybe EDGE aren't talking such crap?

I came here to register just to post on this review. I might actually look into reading EDGE since their review is so on the money. I was one of the people who pre-ordered this junk and have been excited for it for months.
The F.O.V is TERRIBLE. It is actually unacceptable for pc players. I played with 3 friends last night and after 30 minutes or so we all were feeling queasy/headache from it (I had never experienced this before so I actually had to look into it to figure it out..)
The menus are horrible. Your mouse is on crack during game play and is so slow you have to move it off the mouse pad multiple times on any menu screen (which is incredibly annoying since you use the menu so often). If my mouse didn't have on-the-fly DPI switching, I don't know how I would have even made it 30 minutes.
The review is incredibly accurate on stating that the effective range of the limbs is never seemingly the same and something they didn't mention was the 'lag' in character response. It feels like your character is moving on ice so any input you give always has a bit of a delay before taking. Not to mention the actual fighting is pretty boring and super-console like so far. (Due to the input lag and lack of skill required) Oh yeah, searching all the items (which I like to do from playing other RPGs) is a real PITA in this game. There is a little delay for everything you search (for you to crouch down and search) which is okay for the 'realism' I suppose, but when you search 15 things in every room it gets real tedious. Most of this review is actually spot on, IMO.
As far as the visuals I would not rate this game as 'beautiful'--but it does look good (and I have it completely cranked--or as much as the settings allow).
Now, I still am holding out SOME hope that they can fix most of these issues and at LEAST make the game playable (currently, I would rate it as unplayable--not to mention how the latest steam patch deleted everyone's saves so we all had to start over from scratch) but who knows. The FOV issue is likely to never be changed (ala Call of Juarez) but we shall see...

In the meantime: don't be like me--save your money until they actually release a SEMI-finished game. Don't pay $50 to be a beta tester and pray they actually fix it. This screams of unpolished garbage, so much so that I actually felt the need to write about it. I can see a few issues here and there, but not like this. I hope the gaming community doesn't put up with this either, or else we continue to invite this kind of garbage upon ourselves.

welcome u.
but have u thoughts of that this game came from need to play things like this? in that verse, playing to improve that game by paying to access is more important than .. fun? wich is set to follow. todays economics follows futures. its a given of evo. zombierites arnt hypocritical. in a world like this, i will pay to gain access to an story of the ...well, the mastrey is beign the vawe of causality. and npw, theres an awful zombie thingy. romero fans rejoice!!!1!

game is good, edge are the only fucking retards to give the game a bad score, idk where the fucking edge gets all these problems from >.< they literally made sum of them up, i've played the game now, with literally a quarter of the problems they said, and they arent nearly anything like they describe, melee combat performs just right, as does throwing and kicking. i've had no items clip through and get lost yet, game is designed to only take on 3 or 4 zombies at a time anything over 6 gets rought pretty fast, and the game can do quite a few zombies if it wants to throw a serious challenge at you, yet they think its the tech that inhibits this yet its not, its the design, i have yet to see exact respawns on anything but little items and a few zombies that i have noticed, but nothing crazy consistent like they say. i wont deny i have experienced some reset though, the combat is a ton of fun might i add and i really dont see how you can muster up any complaints on it and then fucking either exagerrate or make up inconsistancies with it, idk where edge got all these problems from but they must have a baaaad copy. they dont even mention the fucking Work Bench, repair, upgrade and create custom weapons, side quests abound, endless looting, they didnt mention the fucking skill trees or how well done they are... its like they COMPLETELY ignored the best stuff in the game, created or exagerated problems and wanted to just thrash the fucking thing because they are all upset that they bought Call of Juarez The Cartel for full price. seriously someone said this roughly, and i mean roughly "maybe edge is the only mag company brave enough to give this game the bad review it deserves, and they were brave enough not to get caught up in the hype" that actual quote was they proceeded by a retarded sounding grunt that came from my computer oddly enough, and i have this to say, i've read gameinformer and still do for about 10 years solid now maybe longer, and i was shocked as i read threw the last 10 or 11 issues and almost NOTHING was mentioned of dead island, i mean not even a half page preview..... nothing. i started thinking i was gonna get ripped off and dissapointed in this game with the complete lack of coverage from GI thats usally a bad sign, so they didnt buy into the hype at all, and then the game hits shelves today and they give it a............ 8.5 OH MY GOD HOW CAN THAT BE IF THEY DIDNT BUY INTO THE HYPE!!!?!?!? HYYYYPPPPEE?!?!?!?! HHHHHHYYYYYPPPPEEEE?!?! same can be said about gametrailers as there was hardly any coverage on it at all from anyone and yet GT gave it a 8.5, so every good review isnt coming from hype its coming from people who know good video games. people who act like hype is this big fucking thing are so retarded. did metro 2033 get a ton of hype? no and it was a good game regaurdless. did starcraft 2 get a ton of hype? yes and it was a GREAT game regaurdless. hype doest mean jack shit. i payed $66 total for this game after tax, after gas money to go get it maybe more like $75, and it was worth every fucking penny baby.

Whoever wrote this ins't very good at what they do. The problem here is that they clearly set out to trash the game as much as they could. I preordered the game a day before it came out (for the DLC) knowing full well what I was buying. So far I like the game. Yes, the game has its faults like the creepy facial expressions of every NPC...but its a solid game with fun game mechanics. The combat mechanic itself makes up for all those things. It works pertty well...there is a reason attacks hit or miss. L2FP. Anyways yah its not the game of the year, I think Skyrim or BF3 will grab that lol but Dead Island is a solid game. But please don't expect a run and gun game, witha deep story and conversation mechanic, in which hundreds of zombies assault you while you are busy discussing politics in Old English with the gentlemen next door. The quest mechanic is simple for a reason...it says "Hey this isnt a "quest" game but since you are confused and need a red arrow to lead the way, go get me some water" T_T

Oh dear. It seems another game is going to take a bashing no matter what. Firstly let me cover something. If EDGE want to talk about broken things then maybe they should sort out the fucking registration issues their site has. Should you use a password less than 8 digits it then covers the box so that you have to do it blind. Then we move onto the date, if you don't input the year FIRST then it covers that and you have to start all over again on account of not being able to do it blind. So there you go, irony = got.
Now the game. The only issues I have had are using the keyboard and mouse (the inventory overlaps a couple of things) and the fact that there seems to be no VSYNC in the PC version causing the odd tear here and there.
Other than that I have no major issues, and the inventory bug can be gotten around using the 360 controller. Yes yes I know that purists will whine about this, but I always use a pad to play RPGs due to the prolonged time you play them.
The graphics are quite frankly stunning, the quests are OK but not fantastic, and this game is basically very similar to Far Cry 2 in mechanics and the driving parts, only FAR less vapid. And it got slagged off?.
When I read reviews of Duke Forever I was expecting a game that did not even work. Fact was I had an absolute blast with it and shoved up two fingers to the idiots who slagged it off.
As for pretending a game is great even though it's shit just because you forked over the cash for it? I got this game free from a friend (good olde steam gifte) and I love it.
So I guess it comes down to the old saying -
Opinions are like assholes. Only if you constantly try to force yours home you become an asshole.
Nuff said. I can't fucking believe I used to buy EDGE magazine !

I wish to reiterate that the vast majority of the complaints about this review are from people who have brought / ordered the game.You all sound so nerd-gasamingly angry at EDGE for shitting on your new and much anticipated game... little bit sad, really. RELAX....take a deep breath.

mmm...Edge is known to be very critical in their reviews, actually it's one of the few media outlets still alive from the days when reviews were supposed to be critical. Read / watch an average amount of popular media outlet reviews and you'll notice a pattern:
10 - only the one or two most exceptional games in a year
9.1 - 9.9 - The majority of big budget titles
7.5 - 9 The Majority of the releases in a year. As a minimum requirement for a 7.5 score: manage to squeeze in a little fun here and there.
1 - 7.4 - Crap
Edge actually manage to uphold the score mechanic in a critical and analytical way as none other.

In regard to this game..
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/09/07
I'm thinking Edge is on the money.

MONG LIEK ZOMBY GAME. EDGE RONG. MONG SMASH.

So yah, i own the game and receieved it as a steam gift cuz i'm awesome. This really means i couldn't give a shit if the game is good or bad. A score of 3/10 for this game is pretty well fucked in accuracy. I like the people posting "it's just cuz you spent money and dont want it to be terrible", seriously? Fuck you, stupid. As far as bugs go, i played for about 8 hours release night and i glitched out one time while i accidently hit the noclip button aiming for inventory. The coop portion of this game was impressive to say the least, minus having to hear random idiots lick their mics. Pretty certain this is not the intended release version for PC, so i'm confident all the shit you guys are bitching about will get fixed in a reasonable amount of time, leaving me with a nice murder some fuckin zombies game to play. The mechanics seem spot on, and my rig hasnt had any issues with graphics cuz I dont splooge on my monitor every night. Reviewer is a real douche for no reason, and people who support his opinion are wrong and blow dickhole. Game is good and will get better, F U.

this is one of the worste reviews i have read..... a 3/10?! as someone mentioned, he didnt even say anything about the skills ect.... he actually didnt say anything about the game except some minor issues.... npc expressions are bad, but its not worste than witcher 2, quests are the same as in any other game, go there, do something.... and they are not nearly as bad as in borderlands (which i loved).... all the other things he said, are pretty much wrong,....
do yourself a favour and just play the game....
and i promise you good times if your into coop, zombies or borlderlands....even if there are some serious bugs, they will be fixed

What logical reason would there be for deliberately trashing a game? It's not as though there is a fanboyism game rivalry, like a Zelda has with FFVII. It's multi-platformed so no console baiting. So why on earth would Edge set out to do this?
What I felt during this review was an intense frustration from someone that hoped the game would deliver more than it in fact did. Yes, had there been litle to no hype then it may have gotten a higher score, but if a game has this level of hype, originating from the astounding trailers, it deserves what it gets for failing to give the experience it so promised.
Patches will resolve issues and Mods will enhance the positives, so add another 3-4 points to the end bug fixed product.

To the person who said that drinking energy drinks when thursty would kill you faster is an idiot dispite the caffine content the liquid content is always beificial no matter what the other ingredients when dehydrated any fluid with the exception of sea water. So if you are going to have a go at a reviewer make sure you know the facts yourself.

Ok, I have been a subscriber to Edge since its inception. Gaming has been one of my major hobbies for over 2 decades on many platforms, hence I think I know what a good game is. I was so hoping that a publication who I have valued over the years hadn't sold out to 'shock reviews' for publicity or continued their well known grudge/feud with Deep Silver. How wrong I was. I was at least hoping for a review of the actual release code after the error had been determined (I do realise that Deep Silver were to blame for that mess). No, the review stands. Following the utterly pretentious re-formatting of the Edge magazine here in the UK, I was hoping the reviews would retain credibility. Fortunately, with sites like Metacritic showing what the general feel for the game is (one negative review out of thirty and only 7% of users giving a poor mark) I gave the game a punt. How glad I was that I didn't listen to Edge. Yes, I know it had some morally dubious trailers, and that the game takes ideas from games such as Borderlands and Far Cry 2. The game itself is fun, both in single player and co-op. Even if you don't like zombies, a gore fest, or the horror genre, to suggest this is 3 out of 10 of quite frankly obsurd and is a reflection of a publication that is, unfortunately, on the slide. I shall simply say, are the Edge the truly enlightened ones with the single only negative review of the game on Metacritic or is it more likely that the game is fun, visually impressive, sometimes immersive and fans of most genres will get some enjoyment out of it, hence the majority of mixed to positive reviews across the board? Decide for yourself, I have!!

Many moons ago I had nothing but respect for Edge..to me it was the gaming Bible of all things gaming...I no longer buy the magazine since they became game haters....on to the GAME..please anyone who reads this awful review..!!! DO NOT BELIEVE...I`m 39 now and have been gaming all my life not that that warrants any repespect for my opinion....but this game has a lot going for it...the setting is superb, the plot story and variey of quests and the pacing is also great with very well implemented RPG elements...THIS GAME IS NOT A 3/10 Edge have lost their fucking minds!! I could go into huge depth as to why this game is great. I implore you do not judge your purchase on this review serious guys if you love games you`ll love this...Edge, go sit in the van!!!
Xbox 360 Version ..with none of the above bugs mentioned...
Just a little reminder remember Edge gave GTA3 6/10 unreal!!!

I honestly feel that Edge give such harsh reviews not because they hate games (as some people seem to have concluded), but because they LOVE them.
They, like myself (and i'm sure many others), do not want to see gaming standards slowly slide; bug-ridden, sub-standard, lowest-common-denominator titles, with so much money thrown at them that they stick and become the norm. Look at hollywood.
We know games can be so so much more. New, exciting, truly poignant experiences. So I say why not bash nonsense games like this to the ground? - Keep developers on their toes - raise the standards for the medium - keep aiming for higher ground - better ( not nessesarily bigger.) - brighter. Good for you Edge.
Sidenote: Yes - I have played this game and it's naff.

its ridiculous that this review counts towards the metacritic cumulative, atleast HALF the consensus just on thy're website have said that this review is fucking outrageous. and everyone says, and this is so damn funny to me, becuase EVERYONE at edge seems to think hype is beloved evil monster that all the gaming publications know of and adore, but edge sees something evil in it and is trying to expose it, everyone says that edge just doesnt get caught up in the hype, i want to say that hype doesnt mean jack fucking shit in good or bad games, would bayonetta had been a bad game with or without hype? nope. which according to edge was the most amazing game of 2009, (i played it, and it was great, not a 10 tho) how about S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl, would that have been any better of a game with the mysterious beast that is hype? no, no it wouldnt have it still would be STALKER shadow of chernobyl, and starcraft 2 is still starcraft 2, even if no body even cared to know the release date, or if only 5 people ever bought torchlight, that still would have been the gem, that is torchlight. get over hype because its not real, its only real to those who want a game to fail, and use the exucse hype to justify the failure, and for me, I LOVE to see a little company succeed which is why i'm defending Techland, and Deep Silver's ambitious take on the zombie apoc, and quite frankly the game is worth the price of admission, and this review is the only one in red on Metacritic, and i know that atleast 2 of the reviewers that gave it an 8.5 had almost NO, ZERO coverage of the game and clearly had NO, ZERO, NONE, NOT ANY (mysterious animal monster beast) hype influencing they're reviews. w/e u wanna believe, the ONE AND ONLY company with a bad review on a good game, or the majority that love it.

The user scores on Metacritic are low as well so there goes half the arguments made by the people who signed up just to bash this review. A lot of the comments on here really do seem to personify post-purchase rationalisation. In fact the only other consistent gaming source with any sense/balls (Metro Game Central) gave the game a 5/10 so i'm inclined to think that it probably is rubbish.
Oh and F.Y.I. 'pretentious' has to be the laziest term to use to describe critical opinion that you disagree with.

Gun free opening? I did 3 quests and got a gun.
Unreliable aiming on consoles? Hardly. If I want a limb gone, I look at the limb, swing my axe. Bye bye limb.

Repeatable quests, XP mines? You get 50 XP from a repeatable quest, after level 3, you'd have to collect 382 waters (I did the math) to get the bar a quater of the way full.
I've only been one place that the enemies respawn in the same place, load after load, and it's a place you only need to go once.

The throwing class is superb for single player, he can get skills in all weapons, his items return to him ,and I've never once missed a throw due to "rushing" You see, there's this thing called "Dodging", you press the "Jump" button and a "Direction" and you... Move out of the way.
The online lobby automatically drops you in matches with people your level, or similar levels....

Every female zombie looks the same? All supermodel looks? Really? Then explain the overweight infected I just beheaded jogging her huskey ass over to me...Please, I want to hear your explaination for that.

I bought the game at release, I haven't had any quests I couldn't turn in, no disappearing items, anything.
I don't think the reviewer actually played the game, honestly.

EDIT: Oh, and my leg has never changed length.

I had to register just to comment on how god damn ridiculous this review is. Just shows up Edge for the pathetic snobs they really are.

I thought EDGE was meant to attract an audience that is not susceptible to this sort of rage-spitting fanboyism. If you don't like what EDGE does, then just don't come here. They're obviously are not going to validate your philosophical approach to games (GAMES ARE AWESOME! NO MATTER WHAT!). Go and look at some other website that appeases your sensibilities and stop darkening the door of a magazine / site that speaks to a certain gaming demographic - chiefly those who love games, aren't 15 years old and do not have all the intellectual capacity (judging from the spelling, grammatical errors and appalling sentence construction of the Dead Island fanboy comments here) of a drunk sloth. Snobbish? Damn right! There are enough low-brow, mass-appeal gaming related places out there. The idiots have enough control of our culture already. Let's have at least one bastion of thoughtful videogame journalism in the world and not try and burn it to the ground.

The score seems excessively low because Edge seem to use the whole 1-10 scale where as most other gaming sources stop at 5 when they really want to give a game a low score. There's inherent differences. When the majority of gaming sources award a game a 7 it is to imply an average game. If Edge award a game a 7 it is to imply a decent score. If the ragers on this comment section cannot understand that they may as well go back to IGN where they aren't afraid to give every slightly popular game atleast an 8.

I am obligated to disagree with the extremely low score. It deserves to be mentioned on the same level as Just Cause 2 or Fallout New Vegas, good but not amazing in all areas. I would give it a 7, a must play for fans of the genre and/or open world RPG games.

Overall though, Edge is usually spot-on with reviews.

Played and yeah... 3/10 is right. Anyone who disagrees is kidding themselves or are very good at suspending disbelief.

i signed up just to leave a comment >: P

yay... more junk mail...

after i watched the dead island teaser trailer that every one loved, i gave up on following the game. i figured they had given up on a fps and had gone for a 3rd peep knock off of sirenbloodcurse or worse, dead rising.

seriously, why are there so many "screen shots" in the third person? if its a fps, whos taking these pictures during these tense moments? the only picture on wikipedia is, bum bum buuum, in the third person...

but yeah, i will probably buy it now. cuz i love zombies, i love fps' and one more thing...

i think its funny as hell that people are reading a reveiw for a game they already own. but its a good thing, because there fanaticism offers a more truthfull review than any publisher can offer.

but i also think the edge review is print worthy. they or he didnt like it. not every one will like every game. i thought f3ar sucked but the mag's loved it. i thought dukenukem was fun but the mag's hated it. i guess its easy to find a flaw in a gem but hard to prove your gem is more then just a rock.

cheers

Edge sucks, once I heard they gave this game 3/10 I was like holy shit. I mean is this game GOTY material, well no but for any zombie fan who enjoys RPGs really should get this game. Ive had the game for 3 days now and its really friken fun. So edge im sorry but this review really sucks.

Well I have reached the heady old age of 40 recently and have been playing video games since the first original games were released, standing in smoke filled arcades playing space invaders and asteroids etc when I was very young and have been playing ever since.
Arcade games were replaced by consoles and then I discovered the best gaming platform -The PC!
The reason I gave a short history before posting is I feel that over my vast years of gaming I have seen 3/10 games and Dead Island is NOT one!
If we have to get grubby and give it a score I would say mid to early 80's.
Shame on Edge for giving that score, it's unfair to the developers, it's unfair to the gamers who are purchasing it and it's unfair to the gaming industry.
It's a self indulgent nasty little review.
After my first few hours playing the pc patched version I have to say Visually it looks fantastic, better than I expected due to it being a multi platform game.
The Combat is satisfying and the upgrade system makes it interesting and story is ok too.
It's not trying to be L4D it's doing something different with the genre and although it isn't a classic it definitely doesn't deserve the slagging it has taken off Edge.
IF YOU WAS GOING TO BUY THIS GAME - STILL GET IT, IT HAS A FAR MORE REALISTIC METASCORE OF 80 AND YOU WILL HAVE FUN!

Since everyone else commented so will I.
3/10
I never pre-order games.

The fact that Edge gave this game 3/10 didn't surprise me in the least, not because I've played the game (a fact I'll be coming back to later) and found the review to be accurate, but because it's Edge and they are guilty, far too often in my opinion, of releasing dubious game reviews that go against the consensus, be that from game mags/sites/reviewers or gamers themselves.
Whilst I applaud Edge for being one of the few publications to use the full 10 point range when reviewing games (Games TM being another) I can't help but feel as though they come across as the spoilt, intelligent child sitting in the corner trying to garner attention by being a bit outrageous in a supercillious, self-congratulatory way. If you are familiar with Anthony Quinn, The Independent's film reviewer, you'll know what I mean, as they are very much 2 peas from the same pod. Also, before you accuse me of the fallacy of argumentum ad populum I assure you that is not what I am implying when I say that they are going against the consensus. There may be times when they are the only sane voice amidst a sea of hype, but this time I'm afraid I don't think this is the case.
As promised, I'll come back to the question of having played the game. I have. I bought it yesterday for the PS3, and have played about 5 hours so far, so I feel I can at least add something to this 'debate' about how the game plays. I mention this as I have the impression that a lot of people who are agreeing with the review score actually haven't played the game. An earlier poster asked Nixt Black, one of the most vocal supporters of Edge's review, if he/she had played the game, and we await an answer. It will be interesting to see if this is the case or not.
I find it somewhat amusing that it is deemed to be a detriment to have actually played the game, with accusations ranging from fanboyism to feeling the need to defend the game based on the fact it has been highly anticipated, or the fact that people have to justify their purchase. When someone pointed out that they received the game for free as a Steam gift, it was then pointed out that it was the posters pride talking. Really, is that the best you could do? You'd make a great conspiracy theorist or contortionist. The only people guilty of fanboyism here are the Edge fanboys, the people who are defending the review despite having not played the game purely because it's Edge, and Edge can do no wrong, and I only trust Edge, and, and, etc etc...... That is fanboyism at it's finest. Maybe, just maybe, the people who have played the game actually like it and are having, and I really do hate to use the 'F' word here, fun. I certainly am, and whilst it does have it's faults, i can overlook these and see the game as being greater than the sum of it's parts.
I'm not going to go into detail how the review was incorrect. Others have done that already in this topic more than adequately. Nixt Black, I hope you find my post satisfactory (at least I would hope it doesn't come across as the ramblings of a "drunk sloth"), and that I haven't besmirched this "...bastion of thoughtful videogame journalism..." too much.

pathetic review - the game is mediocre at worst, anything but a 5 out of ten or more is just plain stupid.

The first few days with game I thought “Awesome, a FPS Dead Rising. Now I can really get into the thick of the battle, instead of observing it from an awkward angle.” I only wish I had read this review before wasting my money. The melee is utterly flawed and pathetic, which is the corner-stone to this whole game. And the way it saves the game...how much crack did these developers smoke? And why did they give the beta-testers so much weed? You can't go five minutes without hitting a head-scratching bug or glitch. Kudos to the Edge for writing the truth, unlike other reviews which were obviously written with payola dollar signs on their minds in an attempt to move units. I want to microwave this disk, instead of returning it, so that it cannot fall back into circulation. There is really nothing redeeming about this game.

Hell hath no fury like a teenage gamer scorned by proxy.

Reading through this review and the majority of comments i find people, the majority of people defending the review, to not really know what they are talking about (having not actually played the game) but more defending that Edge will give 3's as opposed to 7's the whole time. Yes the Regular 7 scores on most sites is a problem, but Dead Island is worth much more then a 3.
Yes it has it's problems, it has its glitches, but from playing it to completion,these visual glitches effected me about as much as games such as Oblivion, the review makes it seem like every two seconds you will be stopped in your tracks when 98% of the time, you wont notice or care.
Combat and auto-aim a problem? has two control set ups to make auto-aim non-existant and the feel of the game compleatly different, even an achievment for using it and playing the game in a different way. This wasn't even mentioned.
Save system is a double edged sword. On one hand it can be annoying and lead to awkward moments when you find yourself trapped, but build up of the "fury" bar will let you out of any situation, so not that much of a problem, just means if you were not prepared enough then you will loose money alot. On the other side of that sword, this game is a "Survival" game and the save system works to that perfectly, not allowing you to have various save files so every decision you make has a back up.

Yes every review will not reach everyones expectations and some games will not score as highly as some feel, but if you read the points the reviewer makes and actually spend some time playing the game (or even watching a few clips on youtube, it's free so knock yourself out) then it does feel like they spent 5 minutes on the game with their mind made up and ignored the majority of what makes the game great (enviroments, enemy AI, customisation, missions, lack of loading times and all sorts of fun little things)

Dont assume that because people have a problem with a "3/10" they are little kids who think all games should get a 7, sometimes reviewers can just be wrong.

I think this http://www.gamestm.co.uk/reviews/dead-island-review/ reviews sums up the game perfectly. It is fair and balanced, pointing out the games flaws whilst acknowledging that it's actually quite, and I'm going to use that 'F' word again, fun to play.
Edge needs to take a leaf out of Gamestm's book and realise that you can still use the full 10 point scale, still be harsh on games when they deserve it, but also realise that a game can be flawed but fun, and not disappear up your own backside quite as often as you do.

A very devisive review score indeed. Having never played the game (just seen it in videos) I couldn't comment.
However it has divided the gaming forums I frequest to such an extent that (unlike Duke Nukem - which basically was a rubbish game being defended through Buyers Remorse) people genuinely think this game deserves at least a 6 or 7. Five being a natural avaerage, obviously.
As for me? I'll rent it. AFTER the patches, as I'm not stupid. :P

I find it interesting that X-Box 360 users aren't experiencing the bugs mentioned in the review. I can only conclude that you have all installed the patch? And this patch wasn't available when this game was reviewed? If that's the case then you can't blame the reviewer, they can only review what is in front of them. I thought the days of buggy releases were mostly behind us, how a game that has been in development for so long can release with such massive bugs and glitches I don't understand.
I do want to play this game now, if only to see if it's as bad as the review would suggest. I suspect not.
And thanks everyone, I've just spent an entertaining half an hour reading all these comments and rants. Although some of the spelling and grammer would only score 3 out of 10 that's for sure.

My girlfriend has been telling me I should buy this game, because she:
A - saw the trailer
B - saw some gameplay on Youtube
I came to Edge to see what they thought of the game, because Edge is one of the few media outlets I appreciate for having a different approach to the art that is games - much like Jerry from Penny Arcade.
Not just that, as said before (by me and thankfully, many others here) they are one of few who still apply the ful 1 to 10 scale in reviewing games.
Coincidentally, Jerry of Penny Arcade has also seen it fit to "punish" the developer for releasing such an unfinished game in this tier of production, by saying..
"an unconscionably released piece of software, coupled with pious deprecations of those who felt, quite correctly, that they had been robbed."
"I’ve got about a hundred functional games to play. I’ll just come back later, or not at all."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2011/09/12
The two media I actually respect in regards to games and it's culture and artistry, are both giving me a clear signal this game does not deserve my precious time or money.
I get how experience and parameters for grading that experience can differ from person to person. In this case however, I can't ignore the fact that two opinions which more often than not coincide with mine, are not enjoying the particular experience in question.
I'm not buying the game. I'd rather get "Catherine" - also from Deepsilver:
http://www.deepsilver.com/en/game-view/view/game/access16/ps3-catherine/

http://www.edge-online.com/reviews/catherine-review

Did anyone stop for a second to think, and question whether the reviewer got review code that was pre-patch and therefore "unfinished?"
As is common today, it's possible some of the complaints of sloppiness were quickly tidied up shortly after release. If this is true a 3 out of 10, while not valid in real world comparison to the game today, could be seen as a positive attack against the practice of shipping unfinished games to deadline and essentially using early adopters as unpaid beta testers.
I will further add though, I have not played the game, therefore cannot conclusively comment on it's quality shortly after release or now, or the accuracy of the review.
Just raising questions.
So, time to take a swipe fanboys...(Edge and DI.) ;)

Edge your fucking crazy a dead island rating 3/10 out of all the other bif rating company they have it above a 5. This game had way less bugs than oblivion or other big rpg games and the save game data promblem is bad but why didint you just stoped the game and waited it for it to be fixed. But when the game gets fixed everybody will start to play and i dont see why people think this game have horrible graphics if they play on shityy tv no shit its going to have bad quality and seeing. A video of a agme doesint mean that you can just rate the game

If DI is rated 3/10 then Edge magazine shuld have -1/10. What a pathetic review

edge rule. end of.

This review is a joke, surely! I've been playing Dead Island for a couple of days and am really enjoying it. IMO this is better than Dead Rising 2, hands down. Sure, the engine isn't anything groundbreaking, but it serves the game very well.

The combat is visceral and tense, although it does take quite a while to get used to. I've had no issues with collision detection and can only assume the reviewer hasn't had much experience with these kinds of games in order to frequently miss targets as often as stated. The dodging system is a little wonky, but I haven't needed it too much, so it's easy to overlook.

The graphics are fine and look better than Fallout New Vegas, although the physics system is pretty basic. But the resort hub is gorgeous! Shame the later hubs are a little drab.

I felt that this review was unfair and a little nasty, like there's a grudge there or something.

In any case, I'd advise reading another review to get a clearer picture of what this little gem has to offer.

Based on 20+ hours of play, I'd give this a 8.

With 46 hours logged on Dead Island, I can't disagree with any of the flaws made in this review. They're all legitment, however, it seems that they are reviewing this game with regards to Fallout, Borderlands, and even popular FPS games. I am nearly maxed 50 in every halo game, 15 prestige in most call of duties, have 220 hours logged on fallout 3 and I still have respect for this game. Basically, I am an all around gamer. I have the skill to be the best in most FPS games, and the mindset to enjoy an open world game.
What techland has accomplished here is amazing. A small time company with little resources made a great game. Its mechanics don't live up to fallout or borderlands, but it is what it's supposed to be. In other words, people don't go to see Scary Movie hoping to see something serious.
I played this game with an open mind, and I found something else that is very critical when reviewing this game. That is, expecting a hardcore multiplayer FPS endless clip gamer to fully enjoy an open world, survival zombie slasher is the same as trying to make a Christian an Athiest, and an Athiest a Chrstian, chances are: It won't happen. Based on this review, the game seems to be judged in comparison to other games rather than by its own features.
I had doubts when I first purchased this game, but I am a gamer who has respect for all types of games, and I only play and defend games that I enjoy. Dead Island deserves its average rating of 7.5/10, and it should increase or stay the same.

"Stupid twats buying this game for $60, etc etc," -response
I mean come on, this isn't even a trollish remark. Atleast trolls can piss me off with something I can refute. This is just pathetic, although I do find it very intruiging that someone with this poor of a level of intelligence managed to turn on their computer and TYPE. If $60 is expensive to you then you obviously haven't stepped into the world outside your parent's doors, or you must live in the conditions that the Moresby slums portrayed in this game. Of course $60 isn't something to be thrown away, but this game is completely worth it. I work full time and paying $60 for a game once in a while is nothing in respect to my payments and salary. I mean, I spend $80 at the pump twice a week. If $60 is too much for you then stop living off of your birthday funds and get a damn job. If anyone here thinks buying an xbox game is immature or a waste of money then you probably have no source of income or aren't qualified to get hired at a McDonalds.

As a gamer of 30 years with over 100 PS3 games, I was surprised to find out how much I LOVE Dead Island. I'd give it an 8/10 purely because I've played it every night all week, and while there have been a few minor bugs (e.g. brief sound/graphic glitches) overall it's the most fun I've had with a game in months. I even stopped playing Deus Ex for this, and it's far more enjoyable. The flaws picked on by Edge have either not surfaced or have been so brief and minor that they have not spoiled my enjoyment of the game at all. I think it's a fantastic game. Sure, everyone has the right to an opinion but games are supposed to be about FUN, and Dead Island has given me hours and hours of fun this week. This guy at IGN has reviewed it and his experience is more like mine: http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/119/1192319p1.htmlIt seems to be a "marmite" game; some people will hate the minor flaws and jump on the zombie-bashing bandwagon; others will immerse themselves in the world the game creates - which is quite a beautiful world, despite what Edge says - and will enjoy every moment of it. I'm definitely in the latter camp. I'm so far enjoying it more than Bioshock, Fallout 3, Far Cry, and many of the games it has taken ideas from (apart from Borderlands, which was just amazing). I think this is a fine, fine game. Really, they need to release a trial/demo version so people can try it before they buy it, rather than taking Edge's reviews as gospel.
I love the melee combat in it too. I think it's a pretty good simulation of a zombie apocalypse, in all. Scrabbling for supplies; defending off zombies with whatever you can get your hands on; sometimes just running away and hiding... I love it. Absolutely love it. Shame some will miss out on a game they may end up loving based on a few idiotic snarky reviews.

I've played this game and it definitley isn't deserving of a 3 which would make it on the lines of Duke Nukem. if you guys enjoyed playing games like borderlands with friends then you should definitley give it a try, theres tons of quests, weapons, and locations to explore. The combat is actually pretty satisfying , but the graphics are kind of hit and miss. Sure its glitchy once in a while, but sometimes you can look past those things and enjoy in what is a fun extensive action rpg. fyi the australian voices done in this game are some of the worst ive ever heard.

Dead Island is awesome. Having played through once already, I can honestly say I loved every minute of it. The melee combat is brutal (you have to use the analog controls,) the story is schlocky, the co-op play is rewarding. Professional reviewers seem to be having a real good time picking at this games minor faults such as "The trade system doesn't work properly" or "Zombies spawn in the same place." Boo-hoo. For a die-hard zombie fan, these things are unimportant, a barely registered blip in the pure, unadulterated skull-smashing carnage. I don't care if items respawn every 5 minutes, thus rendering the "limited supplies in a survival situation" premise obsolete. I don't care if I have to trek 500m to get some food for a dude who is sitting next to some food. Just means I get to smash more zombies :) And that's what the game is all about. It's not about why you're doing these quests. It's not about the emotional development of the characters. It's certainly not about the "awkward shopping interface." It's about laughing at terrible characters and acting (as anyone who has watched a non-Romero zombie film circa 1979 will tell you,) it's about having fun and playing with your friends on Live, and most importantly, it's about chopping, bashing, slicing, burning and shooting your way through thousands of zombies in a way that no zombie game before has ever delivered. Never mind the little glitches, just play it for the mindless fun :)

I love Dead Island and I love this review. Don't ever change, Edge.

"I'm trying to run a fucking magazine here" ... "well guess what Sydney, you're at the party now. Grow the fuck up and do your job!..." -Clayton Harding
(Jeff Bridges character, How To Lose Friends and Alienate People, 2008)
I say this because to me it sounds like the journalist is just having fun picking apart this game and its developers. What the writer has missed is that we are in one of the fastest growing technological periods in human history. Developers are going to make some mistakes and it's obvious that they drew off of other, mediocre (in my opinion), games. Who cares? CoD:Black Ops had flaws. Halo: Reach had flaws. Even theOrange Box had some flaws and it is the highest rated game on the 360. Get over it. Also, as a drummer I know that I draw my learning and style from other ESTABISHED drummers. So just because a game feels like, or has elements from, another game is, in my mind, pointless to point out other than to give readers a base point and then to go from there. Also, why does every damn game need to portray precise realism when it fact the concept of the story is pure fiction. Unless there have been actual occurrences of zombie outbreaks throughout the course of history then I will completely shut up ... that's what I thought. So saying that, how can you presume to accurately simulate something that has never happened and, hopefully, will never happen. Everyone needs to chill the fuck out and realize that this is a GAME people. The only aspects that I would want to be super realistic would be the actual responsiveness of the controls. Techland did struggle with this but after playing Dead Island for awhile the responsiveness of the controls were not a detriment to the overall gameplay while having to sell items one at a time and unintuitive auto-save points were. To me, the only thing rotten about Techland's newest survival horror fps was EDGE magazine's review of the game. If could relate this writer as a game, then this he would definitely be Sniper: Ghost Warrior because we can't see him and he obviously poorly executed the mission at hand which was to give readers an honest conclusion of the game.
I would give this game a 7.5 because the developers seemingly put a lot of work into the game but fell short on some basic principles such as a deeper talent tree, item consoliditation, and auto-saving. Other than that I love blowing off the heads of zombies and watching them take a few steps before actually falling to the ground. (Still smiling inside)
Thanks for reading this,
mrJAMsantana
p.s. I am in agreement and found a bit of humor in ROGERM12's post!

Whoever wrote this article is a joke.

1) "NPCs bear Oblivion-esque side missions" I'm pretty sure EVERY rpg has side missions. How can you pin point ONE rpg and claim that Dead Island isn't original with quests.

2) "zombie types echo Left 4 Dead’s" I'm playing Dead Island currently and I've seen ONE zombie that is similar to L4D, which is essentially a Boomer. Alright, yeah, there's a zombie archetype seen in another zombie game. Just because an idea is re used doesn't make it bad.

3) "We spy Borderlands-shaped toothmarks on its loot-focused weapon customisation and fourplayer online co-op" O M G, you're totally right. Condemn all games that allow 4 person co op. Gears of War? Psh.. Obviously a rip off of Borderlands.

4) "while weapons need never go blunt thanks to endless trading funds" I have all my inventory spaces equipped with uncommon weapons and good common weapons and I always find myself having to switch because they're breaking. Having your weapons degrade and go blunt is always an issue.

There are so many flaws I can pick out of this "review". Don't make a decision whether you want to buy the game or not from this article. It doesn't properly portray the game.

I'm pretty sure if it deserved a 3/10, no one would have bought it.

It's pretty clear you people at Edge DON'T like to play videogame. Do you mind to change work ?

this game is awesome in my opinion, i could care less about minor glitches that dont affect the play of the game, this game is a gory, slashing, survival game about a zombie apocolyose with a ton of fun violence. if you dont like these types of things dont buy the game, but if you do, in my opinion its the best zombie game of all time, better than resident evil, left for dead and dead rising put together, it's just plain fun. if i were to rate it i would give it an 8 just for the fact that it is smooth, and the multiplayer is awesome for the fact that it is four people doing quests for survival and trying to find a way off the island. it should be made into a movie if you ask me, i think it would be one of the best or the best zombie movie of all time!!!!!

this review is a bit harsh.i thought this was one of the most enjoyable games in a while.i personally havent experienced any of the huge glitches other people have(i am on 360).i can appreciate that these problems may taint peoples opinion of the game.this review has some valid points,however i think from a studio that doesnt really have a massive back catalogue,should be applauded for creating not only a brand new ip,but a fairly ambitious game,i for one have great expectations for the sequel to this game.

This review seems like it was based off the beta build of the game that was released on steam and had a lot of issues associated with it. Of the problems they listed, and after beating the game with every character, they did not list one issue that I had with the game. In fact, for the reviewer to even imply that the level differences between the player and the enemies is largely irrellevant.

First off, if you jump kick anything short of a "advanced" enemy (floater, Ram, Thug, Butcher) it goes down. End of story, period, no need to question it. Once an enemy is on the ground, it is game over for them. I don't care what you are weilding. They will never stand up again unless you completely ignore them. When Sam B gains access to the tackle ability after 5 levels same deal, but you use far less stamina in the process.

Secondly, once you get the stomp ability, the game becomes stupidly easy. The game devolves into perform knock down attack (this works with any item you can pick up and throw FYI and that action requires no stamina)-> stomp the head. This leads me to beg the question, why even bother to include weapons other than guns? Yes I will concede that some of the 2 handed melee weapons are better at attacking groups of enemies (and obviously the "special enemies), but typically i've found that is something that a well thrown kerosine tank won't fix (or deo bomb, grenade, etc).

Third, there is no plot line within it that is believable. I honestly never cared about any of them given the acting involved and in the end helping people didn't matter in the first place.

Fourth, for the love that is anything perceived to be holy, why does the game glitch the weapons and items within the game so much? I've lost more weapons in the world geometry, due to throwing them or picking up alcohol, than i care to count. Also, the world clean up mechanism is overly hyper active and could stand to be toned back.

Fifth, please at some point with someone who has two brain cells in their head eliminate the floating objects and items within the game (the game should have never went live with this in it)? Sure, great, you mostly solved the invisible enemies just appearing on top of me by removing the "floating" enemies bit (note this is more common in the city and jungle than anywhere else). However, someone forgot about the multitude of bags, drinks, and weapons that will just hang in the middle of the air for no apparent reason.

Sixth, the hit detection on ranged combat is terrible for any target. The worst offender are the suiciders if you aim anywhere near their right shoulder with a firearm. Also note that you can hit enemies behind boxes with nearly zero line of sight and commonly score headshots as a byproduct of this (aim for the hand/shoulder that is partially visible). Also, the enemies can't aim for spit and quite commonly I have successfull been able to bum rush and tackle people who were weilding pistols or assault rifles. Yeah this is a game, but if they can shoot 5-6 times in the space it takes me to run at them and I don't get hit at all there is something fundamentally wrong.

------------------------

Now i realize that sounds like a lot of hate, but there is in fact no way i could play through the game 4 seperate times having characters above level 40 (1 above 50) and not like the game. There are parts that could be better for suspension of disbelief purposes, others are just bugs, while some are seeing the lack of a mechanic in the game that should be there or the existance of one that probably shouldn't.

Also, the reviewer is more or less an idiot for implying that Purna isn't viable prior to receiving a firearm or that Logan is at some kind of disadvantage without someone to hide behind.

Purna is the most overpowered character out of the entire group, period end of story. She has better physical attributes than Xian (yeah she has stamina out the butt, but who cares?) and logan, with only a disadvantage to being able to take a hit when compared to SamB. Her fury will heal her completely (in addition to any nearby team mates), strike any target in line of sight killing most of them in 1 shot, and doesn't have an awkward warm up period common with Logan and Xian. Her fury tree has the most friendly ways to get it to fill up faster allowing you to pimp it when you need it compared to the others and her survival tree passively increases the damage output of any weapon she chooses to use. What is she bad at you may ask? Two handed blunt weapons that use a lot of stamina. Other than that, you wouldn't care or notice the difference, seriously. Also note, she will earn more exp per kill than any other character in the game. Yes Xian and SamB get bonuses to severed libs/broken bones, but seriously folks with the amount of time you stomp the head off a zombie, this really doesn't come into play enough to make up the difference.

Logan being bad or vulnerable? Their attempt at humor is poor at best. In the early stages of the game, he carries and equips more than anyone else. This allows him to just toss everything including the kitchen sink at enemies before they ever get a chance to hit him. If they are still alive, then a kick or a couple punches seal the deal. Also, if you were paying attention earlier, i mentioned that throwing items does not use stamina. His fury is also the 2nd best in the game, since it will strike multiple targets within range at the same time and it will kill most of them within 1 hit. This will clear the moderately dense rooms of enemies that run at you (no where in the game, except the beach in the city near the dock, do you encounter very high quantities of zombies at the same time. Chain spawns do not count boys and girls.). Mid to late game, ignoring his fury, he becomes about even with SamB (sorry Xian, even though i pretend i am the flash while using your fury. +99% speed boost + sprint = road runner dust trail). It is also important to note that thrown weapons retain all their properties when thrown, cost no stamina (yep thats 3 times i mentioned this), and do not lose durability when thrown. So, throwing a sledgehammer with the tesla mod and watching it proc and basically explode the zombie it hit and sending the body parts spraying in basically all direction is made of win (fyi, electric weapon procs on blunt weapons knock down everything in the game similar to explosives). 2nd fun fact is that unarmed attacks (fists/feet/shoulder) do more damage than any worn out weapon and attack faster with more range than many of the 1 handed weapons do. Although I wouldn't recommend going tae kwon leap on a thug or a butcher unless you got a couple hours to kill (why rams are easier to kill than either of these two bozos is beyond me)...

Also of note, with the more recent patch to the game, guns are really effective against thugs now compared to what they did before. 4-5 bullets to the head will put one down and if you proc or they rush you, it can knock them down. Regular zombies are going down in 2-3 headshots (character dependant) and with a crit 1 shot kills with a pistol or assault rifle with Purna (did i mention she is the best character in the game?). 1 Shotgun blast in melee range to the head will drop anything sans Jason and the end boss now (jason is harder though...). Items loot a lot faster, quite often finishin the effect of a energy drink before the sound and animation is finished (which makes no sense). Energy drinks heal for twice as much as they used to, but snacks do the same as before and i swear extra snacks are bugged only healing what snacks heal for. Explosion radiuses seem bigger and tend to set things on fire more often too (more damage... why?).