TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 55

Thread: First footage on this week's GametrailersTV

  1. #26
    PC Gamering Smartey Man
    I <3 consoles and gamepads

    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Papy View Post
    Anyway, I don't think "survival horor" is defined only with "try to scare you".
    It most certainly isn't. Survival Horror genre titles are Action-Adventure games that feature resource management, puzzle solving and historically tension achieved through frustration.

    Elaborating on the last point, games of the genre almost always had bad controls, a horrible camera or more often than not, both of those.

    I don't think that there's many first person games that can fall under genre, Penumbra is probably one of the few.

  2. #27
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    System Shock 2?

  3. #28
    PC Gamering Smartey Man
    I <3 consoles and gamepads

    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Subjective Effect View Post
    System Shock 2?
    I suppose, more so SS1 because of the garbage controls.

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Subjective Effect View Post
    System Shock 2?
    For the first half an hour after you wake up, maybe.

  5. #30
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    I'd imagine that if you didn't like Bioshock you probably wouldn't like the sequel, although you might want to follow the build up to the release just so you can break out the same 3 criticisms over and over again and/or bitch about how let down you feel post-release.
    Sequels are supposed to be *improvements over the original* - that's kind of the entire point. The criticisms of Bioshock were 100% accurate, why is so difficult to believe that maybe a new development team might actually pay attention to them?

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Silkworm View Post
    Sequels are supposed to be *improvements over the original* - that's kind of the entire point.
    It is? I tend to view sequels as attempts at recreating something that was already successful because it's less scary than trying to create something new and unknown. The improvement part rarely factors into the equation.

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: In His hands
    Quote Originally Posted by Silkworm View Post
    Sequels are supposed to be *improvements over the original* - that's kind of the entire point.
    I disagree. Often, a sequel will improve on the original, and it's always a good thing to strive for, but this is never the entire point. Improving on the original is the point of a remake (usually, and even then, maybe not entirely). A sequel can be made for several reasons: to tell a new story in a familiar universe, to expand on an existing story, to explore minor characters, to cash in on a franchise, etc.

  8. #33
    Moderator
    Registered: Jun 2001
    Location: The Doldrums

    http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126078

    Apparently there's some new footage up over at IGN.

  9. #34
    Looks like an expanded version of the footage they've been showing for the last month or two.

  10. #35
    Member
    Registered: Jun 1999
    Location: Houston, TX
    Pretty cool to hear Mr Shalebridge Cradle (Jordan Thomas) do the play by play

    But I have to admit - I don't think I will like playing as a Big Daddy much - as it was my least favorite part of Bioshock.

  11. #36
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2003
    Location: UK
    Bioshock 1.01

    Looks really quite dull. I also find minimal appeal in playing as a big daddy. You killed too many of the brain-dead lumbering oafs in 1.0 to really feel all that sunny about BEING ONE.

    I didn't think the core shooter gameplay was quite good enough for the arena type battles either, there was something about the guns (IMO) and many of the plasmids that just wasn't that satisfying.

    I'll still probably buy it though, depending on reviews.

  12. #37
    PC Gamering Smartey Man
    I <3 consoles and gamepads

    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Vraptor7 View Post
    Apparently there's some new footage up over at IGN.
    HD 1280x720 resolution download here.

    It looks like a glorified expansion pack, TBH.

  13. #38
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: In His hands
    Do you have to have an account there to download that? I keep getting a Forbidden error.

  14. #39
    Moderator
    Registered: Jun 2001
    Location: The Doldrums
    It's now up at the other sites too, anyway, so if that one doesn't work try another.

  15. #40
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: In His hands
    Ah, thanks.

  16. #41
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Enchantermon View Post
    I disagree. Often, a sequel will improve on the original, and it's always a good thing to strive for, but this is never the entire point. Improving on the original is the point of a remake (usually, and even then, maybe not entirely). A sequel can be made for several reasons: to tell a new story in a familiar universe, to expand on an existing story, to explore minor characters, to cash in on a franchise, etc.
    If we were talking about any other genre of entertainment besides video games you might have a point, but in the entire history of interactive entertainment sequels have traditionally been improvements in terms of gameplay, graphics, and technology. Telling a new story in a familiar universe, or just expanding on the existing story/setting without changing gameplay, technology or style is usually done in a an expansion pack - not a sequel.

    And that's the problem with BioShock 2, it looks so far more like an expansion pack than a new game.

    EDIT: Looks like I'm not alone, either
    Quote Originally Posted by Toxicfluff View Post
    Bioshock 1.01

    Looks really quite dull.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvaUnit02 View Post
    It looks like a glorified expansion pack, TBH.

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: In His hands
    Quote Originally Posted by Silkworm View Post
    If we were talking about any other genre of entertainment besides video games you might have a point, but in the entire history of interactive entertainment sequels have traditionally been improvements in terms of gameplay, graphics, and technology.
    Well of course, because usually by the time a sequel to a game is made, technology has improved. Look at the stark difference between SS1 and SS2. In just five years, technology had advanced so much that the two look like they were adopted from the separate ends of the earth.
    However, I still disagree with your statement, and this is why:
    Quote Originally Posted by Silkworm View Post
    Telling a new story in a familiar universe, or just expanding on the existing story/setting without changing gameplay, technology or style is usually done in a an expansion pack - not a sequel.
    I'm not arguing that sequels do not improve on gameplay, technology, or style. I'm simply saying that improving on those aspects is not the primary reason for creating a sequel. It usually comes about because of technological advancements and/or sometimes even fan input, but sequels are meant to continue stories.
    Check the definition.

  18. #43
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2005
    Until quite recently most videogames did not really have "stories" at all! Pac-Man, Doom, Quake, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. did not have stories so compelling they needed to be extended in any way whatsoever. People wanted more of the game, and so developers expanded upon the gameplay of the originals in their sequels.

    Stories in games have always been afterthoughts, backdrops to justify the actual game mechanics. The story is never the "primary reason" for anything the developer or the player wants.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    It is? I tend to view sequels as attempts at recreating something that was already successful because it's less scary than trying to create something new and unknown. The improvement part rarely factors into the equation.
    Just because the game setting and story is unoriginal doesn't give its developer an excuse not to innovate/improve. Virtually every sequel in the history of videogames is evidence for my argument. And the exceptions prove the rule: whenever a developer has released a sequel that doesn't improve upon the original, they have been trashed in reviews.
    Last edited by Silkworm; 27th May 2009 at 18:09.

  19. #44
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: In His hands
    Quote Originally Posted by Silkworm View Post
    Until quite recently most videogames did not really have "stories" at all! Pac-Man, Doom, Quake, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. did not have stories so compelling they needed to be extended in any way whatsoever.
    I will grant you that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silkworm View Post
    Stories in games have always been afterthoughts, backdrops to justify the actual game mechanics.
    So you're saying that the only reason that we saw Thief 2 and 3 (and will be seeing 4) and System Shock 2 and King's Quest II-VIII and Space Quest II-VI and Paganitzu 2-4 and Half-Life 2 are only because the devs wanted to improve the gameplay mechanics? I don't see how you justify this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silkworm View Post
    The story is never the "primary reason" for anything the developer or the player wants.
    If this was true, I highly doubt that a team of dedicated, freelance game developers would have spent the past nine years of their lives developing The Silver Lining. This collaborative effort was made in order to bring a more fitting close to the King's Quest series than King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity did. In other words, they wanted to give a fitting end to the story. Sounds like the story is pretty darn important to me. Saying that the players never want another game simply to continue the story is absurd. I would have been perfectly happy with The Silver Lining if it had been made in VGA with the traditional Sierra-style point-and-click interface. It's most certainly not a steo forward technologically, but it's bringing a fitting close to a wonderful story spanning 20 years.
    Look, I'm not saying that improving gameplay isn't important. I'm also not denying that some games were made simply to improve gameplay. But I am saying that your idea that gameplay improvement is always the most important motivation behind a sequel is simply not correct. There are plenty of references that prove otherwise.

  20. #45
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2001
    Location: Moscow
    Quote Originally Posted by Enchantermon View Post
    So you're saying that the only reason that we saw Thief 2 and 3 (and will be seeing 4) and System Shock 2 and King's Quest II-VIII and Space Quest II-VI and Paganitzu 2-4 and Half-Life 2 are only because the devs wanted to improve the gameplay mechanics? I don't see how you justify this.
    Well, actually, this is the primary reason. We're definitely not getting all these games just because of the story.

  21. #46
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: In His hands
    That can't be true. Paganitzu 2-4 played exactly the same as Paganitzu 1. There were different enemies and objects, sure, but the actual gameplay and graphics were the same. King's Quest II was also exactly like King's Quest I. Different setting and a continuation of the original story, but the graphics and gameplay were exactly the same.

  22. #47
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2001
    Location: Moscow
    Well, I never played Paganitzu, so I can say nithing about it. But I'm absolutely confident that we got all these seqels not just because of the story.

  23. #48
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Especially with adventure games, there usually isn't much change in the game mechanisms between a game and its sequel. Then again, the adventure genre is pretty fossilised.

  24. #49
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2003
    Location: In His hands
    Quote Originally Posted by d'Spair View Post
    Well, I never played Paganitzu, so I can say nithing about it. But I'm absolutely confident that we got all these seqels not just because of the story.
    I don't think they were made just because of the story, either. But I think that's a large part of it. Fans wanted more of the games for different reasons: some because the games were fun, some because they wanted to see how the game's story continued to develop, some because they wanted to see a game focused around one of the other characters, etc. I think the popularity of AGDI's King's Quest II VGA remake proves the importance of the story: the team could have just remade the original game and released it with better game mechanics in the point-and-click interface, but instead they looked and saw that the plot, characters, and depth of the game could be greatly improved, and improve them they did. It was a huge success.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    Especially with adventure games, there usually isn't much change in the game mechanisms between a game and its sequel.
    This is very true. Perhaps my theory is more applicable to the years of adventure gaming (which I caught the tail end of growing up).
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    Then again, the adventure genre is pretty fossilised.
    Which is a shame; I always enjoy a good adventure game.

  25. #50
    Moderator
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    I also didn't really care for the survival horror aspect of Deus Ex, if I have to be honest here.
    Deus Ex had survival horror aspects?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •