Uhmm, I bought it.
It's fun but it's kinda hard to describe.
You have to collect a few atom looking thingies (which can be seen in the video), then you get the bigger atom thingy that spawns and gain superpowers. Then you fly around the level and kill the baddies. And then you go on to the next level.

I'm not completely sure if it was worth the money, but it is fun. Dunno.

Well, that's not very reassuring. Guess I'll pass on this one.

the holocaust

I understand what everyone is saying. I didn't actually post it here because it was from Tom Sennett but more with the intention of showing people what I though looked like a cool game. I have now changed the name of the topic to the actual title of the game rather than who made it. No nepotism was intended. Also I agree that the lack of demo is annoying but if you want more information try reading the rps review as others have suggested.

It's just me, not everyone. Sorry. You didn't have to do that, although I still stand by the fact that there's no demo and not much to judge this game on other than screenshots and a video. The RPS link isn't really a review either, more like "hey, the guy who made Runman made a new game and it's 10 bucks!"

I'm pretty sure Call of Duty does all of that considering I just played it. But then again, it's hard for me to tell because the "screen jelly" makes it impossible to see, which itself leads to one of the following either way.

And yes, I stand by the fact that you are weaker. Once the screen turns red, you are fucked. The next hit (no matter what it is) will kill you, which is made worse by the fact that you can't see. 

Also they give you far less max health to balance out the health regen. It only takes one or two shots to put you at critical health, where you can die even if someone conks you on the head with an unexploded flashbang. Nevermind that you can't see shit due to the red crap on your screen.

I guess it fits for some games, but a lot of games misuse it and go overboard with obstructing your view to the point where you can't even tell what the hell you're doing.

I guess it works for some games, but you gotta admit they're doing it for everything now. Maybe it works for CoD but when even Duke Nukem Forever has it, that's a problem.

Plus I don't see how it could work with Syndicate or X-Com considering the whole point of the game is the fact that soldiers are cannon fodder. They're expected to die brutally in each mission, and the challenge was somehow getting some of them to survive. But then to see them tragically shot down due to a slight misstep. The game did a good job of making you feel an attachment to these randomly generated characters, and it really hurt when a wrong move killed off one of your most proficient agents.

I fail to see how they can replicate that with you playing a single character in first person. There is no way they'd make you die from one hit, that would be inexcusiable for an FPS. They're really scaling down the whole scope of the game. I also hear that the game is about saving the US now, not the entire world.

I remember once in X-Com when the aliens attacked my home town, I really felt like kicking their asses and avenging my best agent that they killed on the previous mission. That's not going to happen now. Instead I'll most likely be saving Washington (or wherever the creators want you to go) as a predefined character in a 50's B-Movie scenario with a predefined (and maybe even linear) story like Bioshock.

John Romero was once the guy who designed the levels in Doom, rather than the "Daikatana guy." A name isn't enough to judge the quality of a game. Just sayin'.

Plus the TIGSource front page at one point used to be full of nepotism and games hyped up based on name alone. I remember seeing things like this one game that a forum member here made overnight just to test out Construct (I think?) and one of the front page editors hyped it to be his next big thing. The guy unfortunately had a lot of explaining to do when a bunch of people complained about it not living up to their expectations. No offense guys, but you aren't exactly the best at recommending games.

Though to be fair, the front page is doing a much better job these days.

Anyway, give me a demo and I'll make up my own mind. But right now all we have is some screenshots and a video both of which make it really hard to see what the game is about.

I know a lot of people are on a first name basis here. But I've never really been a big fan of any of this nepotism. Buying a game based on a person's name alone doesn't work out for me.

I agree with Paul, I have to see how the game plays first, which is hard due to the lack of a demo.

Thus I can only judge based on screenshots and the trailer, both of which really hurt my eyes and make it hard to focus on what's even going on.

If they do try to make it like Steam (or compete with it), I don't see how they'd succeed.

Who the hell would want a "Steam" just for one publisher? I'd really hope they wouldn't try do something stupid like pull all their games off of Steam and then make them Origin only.

Imagine if every publisher started doing something like that. Who the hell would want to run 10 different programs just to play different games?

You're right, Dragonmaw. I was mistaken. However, my idea still would work much better I think. Though your idea of regenerating health is also very idealized, and never works like you're saying either.

I just played Doom and Duke Nukem right now and I noticed what they actually did.

Health kits were always conveniently placed in the next area after fighting a group of enemies. You never needed to stock up on health, because it was always there for you.

Plus, being low on health didn't mean game over. However, I notice in most modern shooters, when you are low on health, the game does the following:

• Covers the screen in red "jelly" or blood, tints the screen to really bright red, or blurs your vision making you unable to see
• Character becomes more prone to damage.
• Slows you down to a crawl
• And in rare instances, even limits your look speed.

Every game from Call of Duty Black Ops to even Bulletstorm (ironic, since the devs made fun of it in Duty Calls) does at least the first thing and one of above.

However, in older FPS games with health kits the following happens when you are low on health:

• A meter on screen shows that you are low on health.

Big difference. And your character instantly gains all the health back without having to wait, without any difference in his fighting ability.

My problem isn't with regenerating health. It's just how it's implemented. It encourages the whole "whack a mole" camping style of game where you take cover and snipe away at enemies. You have no choice, getting hit once or twice blinds you and turns your character into a walking pile of glass.

In fact, to my surprise I went and played the first Halo (on PC, I don't have an original XBOX) and the regenerating health system doesn't do these things. If you are low on health, your health meter starts beeping and that's it. I guess somewhere after the release of Halo, things went very very wrong. I hardly see games do regenerating health like that anymore.

And I don't see why not. Is it a stylistic choice? Does splattering blood over the screen make the game feel more "real" or what? What about limiting movement speed? It's irrirating to me because not every game needs this "realism," (especially not Duke Nukem) and not every game has to be a goddamn cover shooter. If they turn X-Com or Syndicate to one, you bet I'm going to be pissed.

Except that there's a number of situations (such as saving when you have too low of a health to continue) that things such as regenerating health fix. As the AI has gotten better (and it really has), design has had to accommodate that enemies are far smarter than they were in the early days. That isn't to say that goofy killfest splatterzone games aren't still being made. Serious Sam and Bulletstorm, for example.

Why not make it so the enemies drop health? That's what Doom era shooters did and you never ran low on health because you always picked more up. Not only is this faster as the health is an instant pick up, but it encourages you to actually fight rather than camp and play whack a mole with enemies.

Better yet, put respawning health kit points (why is TF2 the only game that still does this?) in addition to getting health from killing enemies.

Also it's really debatable that enemy AI has gotten much better. FPS AI (unless the game involves stealth elements) is still pretty much "walk up and shoot" and in many games heavily reliant on scripting.

HL2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WqAmuSXEQ (most glaring example)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtxupYmU46s

Black Ops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9d2ZG4rzjI&feature=player_detailpage#t=89s

Crysis 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaPAm31bISw

Not only that, but FPS games were definitely less varied until the turn of the millennium. Games like Counter-Strike, Team Fortress Classic (and by extension any game associated with Team Fortress), System Shock 2 (and Deus Ex), Thief, and other such games provided a much greater variety than the classic run-and-gun style of the mid 90s.

Now they are even lass varied with the games like you mentioned dropping any originality they had taking up the typical CoD style gameplay of now.

Regenerating health actually allows you to be more balls-to-the-wall, as you need not worry so much about your health after the fight. It removes the tedious health micromanagement and allows the player to be more focused on the action. Yes, you have to duck into cover for a few seconds in order to regenerate your health. This is more preferential, in regards to shooters primarily focused on fast-paced gunplay, than having to repeatedly pop out of cover briefly, fire one shot, duck back into cover.

There is no micromanagement, unless you're talking about a game with an inventory system like Deus Ex. Besides, why do you need to be at full health at all times?

I would rather have a large health bar that I can replenish at will rather than a small health bar that needs to regenerate after being hit once or twice.

For example, one thing that struck me about the DNF demo was how fragile Duke is. He used to be a tank who kept getting more health and ammo as he struck down more enemies. Now he takes one shot and has to wait for his puny health bar to recover so he can fight again. That's anything but balls to the wall.

The gist of what I am saying is that you don't understand FPS games. Your history is flawed at best, you clearly don't understand certain design decisions, and you seem to be ruled by nostalgia factor.

Nostalgia of games I bought off of Steam for less than a few bucks and played for the first time that ended up being better than any game I've played in recent history. Is that how nostalgia works? I'm pretty sure my knowledge of games is pretty recent, thanks anyway for examining my gaming history.

I agree that not everything needs to be turned into an FPS. But, all things considered, as long as the developers are respectful of the franchises they are contributing to (which seems to be the case with XCOM and Syndicate), I'm fine with developers using settings from non-FPS games to make an FPS game. I think both of those games have immense potential, especially given the pedigree of the developers working on them. Both also focus on gunplay, albeit in a more strategic sense. There's no reason why they can't be expanded upon.

That was the point I was making all along before we went off topic. Not everything needs to be turned into an FPS.

And from what I've seen, they aren't being respectful of the franchises they are contributing to. The leaked script for the new Syndicate shows it having nothing to do with the series, and has a lot of questionable design choices (like describing one character as a african american with a "hip hop edge," what?).

X-Com is set in the 50's and is being made by the division of 2K games that made Bioshock 2. That game (while decent) was pretty much a reskinned Bioshock 1. And now they're taking XCOM and giving it the same treatment.

We'll wait and see what happens with either of these games, but unlike you I'm not as hopeful from what I've seen so far.

i dunno why the hell i started posting here again all of a sudden

thanks though

You must have missed it, RPS did a write up earlier in the week. John Walker mentioned that it was inspired by Bubble Bobble but I'd say that it's also inspired by Rainbow Islands due to the retina-searing colour so it should be right up my alley.

This is also inaccurate. Bubble Bobble had really dark graphics. The game used pitch black backgrounds and a very simple tileset.



Rainbow Islands substituted the black with a dark shade of blue.




Compare that to this:

http://deepaksave.us/ss1.png

Iron sight and regen health are actually two of the things I like most about modern shooters. So I don't really understand the negativity you are associating with them. Is it because "purely linear, poorly paced" is too long?

I'm fine with companies converting old franchises into shooters as long as they retain what makes the franchise unique. XCOM is up for debate, and there's no info on Syndicate yet, so it's just a matter of "wait and see".

Oh, and the FPS is hardly the "genre of the day." It's been consistently popular and record-breaking since Doom.

Except back then other genres co-existed with it. The creators of X-Com could have easily made it a Doom clone to make a quick buck but instead they made something different. People had the balls to do that back then, but now everyone just wants to play it safe. Gaming has been conquered by bean counters.

Also back then FPS games were all varied. There were different types of FPS games, from arcadey blast em ups to more tactical shooters. There is no either or anymore, everything is a hybrid of those two borrowing heavily from Halo or CoD.

Now even twitch shooters like Duke Nukem (Forever) are coming out with CoD mechanics, like having to wait several minutes behind cover after getting hit rather than going Rambo and blasting away at enemies. I simply don't see an excuse for this other than profit motives.

Come on the graphics are not that flashy, you don't know what flashy is, also the art standard is higher than you may thought.

I still think he could have done with a little less seizure inducing colors. It hurts my eyes. Is it just me? Maybe I'm sensitive to this kinda thing.



(Edit: Also no, I'm not epileptic)

If something this funky hurts you eyes, I feel sorry for ye who couldn't handle Toejam & Earl because it hurts his eyes.

Nope, that's hyperbole. The Genesis color palette can't even generate the full bright colors he's using.

And Toejam & Earl had pretty decent graphics anyway, good contrast, seperation of foreground and background, all that stuff. These on the other hand are just really hard to look at.

Runman on the other hand was fine. It didn't have full bright flashing rainbow colors. It just had simple one shade backdrops and the simple colors and thick outlines were enough to provide visual contrast.

Agh, I think he went overboard this time with the "colorful" graphics. The site hurts my eyes. Then I watch the trailer for the game, and it also hurts my eyes.

Runman didn't abuse colors as much as this. I don't think I could play this game without massive eye strain.