Maybe I should get down in Montreal to see this first-hand. But surely there's at least one taffer that's already living in Montreal?
Midtown Madness 3
So what worked well in the second game?D'Astous explained: "We did our research to find out what worked well, what people enjoyed about it - especially the first game. The second was a success in the eyes of some, but had some ups and downs, so we've tried to identify what worked well in that game.
For me, it was extremely fun just dicking around.
The Eye Menu of course, it's what screamed "console port" the least.
might get flamed here, but i like the cataclysm idea that made all of the deus ex endings true in a way. It made it feels like you were playing further down the story of deus ex, instead of just tacking something els on after a finished story...
Last edited by twisty; 1st Dec 2007 at 21:44.
I've never even heard the term FPS 2.
I think it is Shooter 2.0, actually.
Oh. Irrational. That explains a fucking lot.
Seriously, as I go back and read some of their interviews, they have this very pretentious attitude for what the final product ended up being. Especially this whole "shooter 2.0" business- Bioshock isn't the "next generation" of shooters, it's basically a dumbed down System Shock 2 with way less stability or charm.
No, as far as I'm concerned, games like Stalker are the next generation of shooters. Sure, the story is a bit sparse and cliched, and sure the game wasn't what we all expected it to be, but at the end of the day it still manages to do something very different, very new compared to what we're all used to.
Isn't Stalker just The Elder Scrolls with guns? Additionally wasn't it one of those games that talked big during its bloated dev cycle and shipped with half of its features intact with bugs replacing the rest?
Not saying Stalker is a bad game but it seems to be an odd thing to compare with Bioshock seeing as they are both fraught with crippling issues.
As for emergent gameplay, nowadays that just seems to be fancy talk for "NPCs can now break the game without you". I don't think the industry possesses the genius it will take to intentionally make this kind of gameplay good.
Good point. We're more inclined to let poor Ukranians off the hook you see
But, no; there is a sense for me, rational or not, that Bioshock could have done the things it set out to do and lived up to its forebears at the same time. For one reason or another they chose not to do it; some of it was technical (free roaming little sisters for instance) but a lot of it I still blame on fear.
Stalker was proclaiming it wanted to do things that had never been done before. If you've been around a while you know that's not going to happen, but you want to see how close they can get.
Most everything Bioshock wanted to do had already been done before, except for a few things. And when those didn't work out they scaled it back even further. (I don't really want to turn this into an argument about Bioshock b...oh darn)
TES lacks a certain vague quality which may be good or may be bad, the true meaning of is locked away in that magical treasure vault you call a brainpan.
Furthermore Stalker and TES can be differentiated by a craptacular metaphor which you didn't even bother to explain because I'm supposed to ruminate and then decypher it like some Chinese riddle as if it had a meaning beyond "DUR HUR STALKER IS ARBITRARILY BETTAR"
So basically the only point you're trying to prove is that you're a pretentious imbecile who believes his approval is a major selling point of a game?
Well color me convinced!
wow, take a chill pill dude...
cry more emokid
...I'm sorry, did I do it right? I'm unused to using trite pop-culture phrases irrelevantly.