Briareos H on 2/2/2011 at 19:02
working for me. 'Heh.' indeed
EDIT: well that was an interesting way of forcing me to watch a bulletstorm trailer. Interesting as in 'pointless'
Koki on 2/2/2011 at 20:29
Bad.
june gloom on 2/2/2011 at 20:31
That's, uh, kind of the point, you simpleton.
Koki on 2/2/2011 at 20:33
^ also bad.
june gloom on 2/2/2011 at 20:35
Troll harder.
catbarf on 3/2/2011 at 17:27
Quote Posted by dethtoll
That's, uh, kind of the point, you simpleton.
so edgy
its supposed to be unfunny
june gloom on 3/2/2011 at 18:52
kinda like you
Bakerman on 12/2/2011 at 06:07
Quote Posted by henke
I think what's bothering me about BS so much is that it tries so hard to seem like a crazy wacky anything-can-happen game but in the end it all feels a bit forced.
I got that feeling from the QL on GiantBomb as well, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was until you mentioned it. I've been playing a lot of Halo 3 recently, and it is what I consider one of the true whacky anything-can-happen games. I've been wondering about what parts of a game's design lend it to this style of emergent gameplay.
I'm still not really sure, but I think it comes down to generalising the interactions that different systems have with each other. It's basically about reducing the number of times the code says 'is this the right sort of object?' For example, coding the energy whip so that it works on all movable objects (maybe below a certain mass), not just enemy classes. Or, to take another example from Halo, the way you can ride in enemy vehicles (though I don't think you can do it in single player - which is very disappointing!). It's a matter of deregulating gameplay - less veto power against the player.
Scott Weiland on 12/2/2011 at 07:05
Maybe they can fly but they don't know how to make good games.
june gloom on 12/2/2011 at 09:27
They did, once. It was called Painkiller.
Seriously, who the fuck are you again? Stop with the driveby posting and get the fuck out.
