StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stark wrote:You're everything that's wrong with the world. I hear some juvenile stupidity totally makes up for the laughable level design, uninspired game, absurd bossfights and all that, right? BECAUSE IT HAS GORE LOLOLOL.

Uhm. No. See Stark, some of us enjoy a brainless shooter from time to time, and SoF1+2 filled that description to a tee. Shit I guess I better go install them both again to blow the backs of peoples skulls open with Magnums.

The difference between SoF and HALO is that one doesn't take itself seriously, while the other does, and has legions of fanboys.

no shep don't you get it all games must be fresh and innovative and inspired

Stark wrote:And very difficult to control the player. Did you ignore my post? Shooters are corridor strollers: you basically go in a straight line. There will always be limits and you'll always be pushed in the right direction (games like Halo take this to an insane degree). In Red Faction, the prevalance of non-destroyable stuff was crazy, and later in the game it became a gimmick that was useful SOMETIMES in the standard 'weak part of wall' way. Something that lets the player go anywhere or get lost or fuck themselves up isn't a great feature for these games.

The need to babysit the player by giving him only one possible path is what makes most FPS:es a near-complete waste of time. Besides, it's not all or nothing. Destructible terrain simply means that things break when you hit them hard enough. If the devs decide to place apocalyptic weaponry capable of excavating the British Channel, well, that's less due to the engine and more due to sheer fucking stupidity. The power to figure out one's own path is what made games like Hitman Blood Money and Morrowind awesome.

Yeah, but the point is increasing development time costs money, and features that need time to get working but add little to the game's marketability aren't worth it. Tits and gore and pretentious storylines are almost free, and add much more saleability. Don't compare a) an RPG and b) a closed-level FPS to standard corridor strollers though: they're not comparable from a level design perspective. I believe Crysis has significant structure damage, and I look forward to seeing what kind of chain-link fence or 5' cliff or 'special' wall they use that can't be destroyed.

Shep, back when anyone cared about SoF it *also* had legions of screaming fans, and SoF took itself pretty damn seriously. Do you remember the hilarious plot? Licensed by trendy magazine? And then suddenly 'ps microwave gun'?

A bad game is a bad game, regardless of game-irrelevant things like gore. Read a Halo3 review, and laugh at the part where they all say 'Gears of War looks better, but Halo3 has bigger areas. Also, FIREFLIES and TINY INSIGNIFICANT GRAPHICAL FLOURISHES'.

Enigma wrote:Toned down? I found that in fact it had more gore than the original. There were more areas on the body that you can hit that would result in a gory explosion. Are you sure you don't have the european version?

The gore in SoF 2 was intended to be a little more...realistic (wow, I said SoF and realistic in the same sentance! ): yes, there is more detail to the gore and damage modelling, but in SoF 2 it's a little more difficult to dismember and gib enemies, in that you can't blow someone's arm off with one hit from a light machine gun, or gib them with a single frag grenade.