Ready for your upcoming mission in the new parkour game? Meet you across the way of the game world in about… Ten minutes? Fifteen? Honestly, whatever the duration to get there walking or driving, since Dying Light: The Beast seems to despise convenience and aims for the protagonist to struggle more than he already has.
The lack of quick transport in the newest entry, the recent addition within a long-running series of action-packed survival titles, is clearly meant to promote discovery, but all it does in my experience is encourage frustration. Despite thoughtfully evaluating the arguments that explain this expansive undead adventure does not need to include quick transport, every one fails — similar to the hero, when I rush him off an edifice hurriedly.
To illustrate, it’s possible to suggest that the title’s free-running is fantastic, and I’d wholeheartedly agree, however, that is not to say I wish to run, jump, and climb all the time. Certainly, this adventure includes automobiles which I can drive, however, transport, road access, and energy stocks are scarce. And I concur that stumbling upon fresh areas is what defines an open-world game compelling, but when you have crossed a location repeatedly, there’s little left to discover.
Following my first visit to the metropolitan Old Town, I got the feeling that Dying Light: The Beast was purposely lengthening my journey duration by spreading out mission spots inside identical missions.
Once one of the side quests led me to a hazardous location in the historic zone, I viewed my map, searched for the closest vehicle, located it, drove toward the old area, used up my fuel, checked my map once more, sprinted the remaining distance, and, eventually, had a lovely time with the dark zone’s zombies — just to discover that the subsequent mission goal returned me to where I began, over there of the landscape.
I need to recognize that the title lacks the biggest world ever created in an open-world game, yet that is a stronger argument to support instant movement; if the lack of it annoys me on a reduced landscape, it would definitely irritate me on a larger one.
Naturally, it would help to arrange quest objectives in a certain order, but is it truly about about “encouraging exploration” if I am obliged to shorten my journey? It sounds more like I’d be “minimizing annoyance” as far as I can. Moreover, if I am absorbed in a plot and wish to discover what happens next (which is beneficial, creators!), I do not want to finish further task targets initially.
There’s only one reason I can imagine advocating for banning instant movement: You don’t get a straightforward way out. And I need to acknowledge, I wouldn’t want to miss out on the brief panic I experience each time darkness comes – but undoubtedly there are solutions for this. For example, fast travel from hazardous areas could be prohibited, or quick transport spots could be set away from protected zones, obliging you to do a quick dash through the dark before getting to a safe place. Maybe even more effectively, Dying Light: The Beast could allow quick transport between fast travel locations only, thus you reduce transit period without the possibility of sudden movement.
Certainly, it’s only sensible to activate new quick transport spots after investigating the nearby area.
Perhaps the strongest argument supporting instant movement, however, is freedom: Although with a quick transport mechanism implemented, gamers who like to move only on foot and by car would still have that choice, however, users with reduced availability to play, or with less desire for vehicles and free-running, could allocate that duration on other in-game activities. That, in my view, is the real sense of freedom players should anticipate in a sandbox title.
A forward-thinking business strategist with over a decade of experience in market analysis and digital transformation, passionate about empowering entrepreneurs.
