Even the director admits to the game resorting to hand-holding because you need to make sure all the none 'hardcore' players can get on with the game. In most examples, the game are worse because of that and Bulletstorm is one of the games where it's the most noticable - especially because the way it handles the combat.
I appreciated the lack of bullshit the game made me go through - like attempting to enter doors, etc, that may have led me astray. Pacing is important, and this game did pacing very well. That sequence where Trishka will do the leash for you to progress if you can't find it quick enough? I appreciate that shit. And I am a dumbass that didn't find it in 15 seconds. I wouldn't want to spend 3+ minutes looking around for the goddamn thing. Let's just keep shit rolling.
Maybe I'm not hardcore - I don't care anymore. My time is limited and I frustrate easier now than I used to because I don't have forever to dick around in an area to 'explore' - I want the game, I want to see what the director wants me to, and I want to move shit along instead of waste time. Is that so bad?
Hell, I wish they DIDN'T have the electro-flies and the bottles of whatever that shit was. I found myself exploring too much instead of enjoying the trip in the game. Kane and Lynch 2 got it right with 0 collectables or bonus weapons - breakneck pace, and it was appreciated.
Alright, I think I'm going to give in and buy this game. Last game I bought was God of War 3, but the Gears 3 beta has pushed me over the edge. I already loved the demo so I figure I should pick this up.
That's not 'serving the purpose'; that's being jarring and in the complete opposite of what the game tries to sell itself on. Did anyone read my lenghty mini-review post? If those examples don't count as hand-holding and extremely limiting the player, then i don't know what is.
Of course the game takes gameplay away of the player: everything you need to do is spelled out for you and highlighted - your role diminished only to the guy that needs to press that button.
The game has the most horrible QTE's sequences i think i ever got to play. You don't call that taking away control of the player? Some of the best would-be moments of the game are relegated to QTE, cutscenes and minimum input of consideration of the player.
The game doesn't need to base itself on 'exploartion' in order for it not to leave any room for judgment by the player; for me not to able to do almost any action without the game specifically telling me when and where; for god-damned shooting in FPS to be done in QTE because some incompetent person might blow it otherwise; for not dearing to let the player ease on the trigger and spend the minimum time in figuring out a way around an obstacle without giving you 15 seconds to do so, and if not, the games does it by itself.
Even the director admits to the game resorting to hand-holding because you need to make sure all the none 'hardcore' players can get on with the game. In most examples, the game are worse because of that and Bulletstorm is one of the games where it's the most noticable - especially because the way it handles the combat.
I read your examples Saty. The qtes you're talking about where you press fire to shoot; theres like three of them in the entire game. Would it really have improved them if you could aim during them? They were simply variations on the press aim to focus on something mechanic. Did you have a problem with those? And the most horrible qtes ever? You're exaggerating surely. There really aren't very many, they're basic and easy and they never occur in actual gameplay.
If we're talking linear, sure the levels are linear (and i think thats what the developer was talking about) but the freedom comes in the form of experimenting with the weapons and trying to going for the skillshots. The actual combat is more freeform than many other fps due to all the tools at your disposal and thats the most important and enjoyable part of the game. Anyway linearity isn't always bad depending on the type of game. Just sounds to me like you're criticising the game for not being something it was never meant to be.
Even the director admits to the game resorting to hand-holding because you need to make sure all the none 'hardcore' players can get on with the game. In most examples, the game are worse because of that and Bulletstorm is one of the games where it's the most noticable - especially because the way it handles the combat.
Ah, so you three-starred all the Echoes, then? No problems?
There's a mode that requires you to be quick, creative, and varied with your kills to do well, and it sounds suspiciously like you're ignoring its existence because it doesn't serve your arguments.
While it'd be nice if the story mode was as demanding as those throughout, I can see where they weren't able to design that way. Forcing players to replay a section because they didn't meet the score threshhold wouldn't have worked, it would have seemed arbitrary and forced and would have turned many people right off the game. Withholding more of the weapon inventory from players if they didn't fight well is another option, but then half the people tho played through the game would moan about lack of weapon variety.
I mean, look how many people said the demo sucked but loved the main game. Some people just don't "get" playing for high scores, sadly. But there is a mode there that spites them and says "play awesome or fail," and it's great.
So i see no one's is really addressing the examples i gave. It's much easier to say i was expecting something akin to 'Fallout' and ignore all these basic questionable design that alot of you are quick to mention when its featured in other games. Lets not turn a blind eye just because the game has a distinctive,refreshing combat system.
"appreciated the lack of bullshit the game made me go through - like attempting to enter doors, etc, that may have led me astray".
Well, the game is super-linear so that was never much of an issue. The door example is given by the crative director to explain hand-holding. A glowing arrow telling you where to go would suck, though.
"And I am a dumbass that didn't find it in 15 seconds. I wouldn't want to spend 3+ minutes looking around for the goddamn thing. Let's just keep shit rolling."
I didn't find it in time either but i wanted to find it by my own. I would appriciate the game thinking a bit more highly of the player than to think that i wouldn't want to figure it myself. Or that they actually think it's better to impose the solution on you because god forbid you'll have to use anything than your trigger finger for more than 5 seconds.
Games are made worse by such design process. You may appriciate it, but fact is it's making the game worse.
This also goes back to my lack of variety or real pacing in the game because they just hurry you to another firefights and won't let you spend more than 15 second doing something else. And lets not go overboard by saying that you needed to 'explore' or go beside yourself to find what to do. You just had to shoot something that was behind you.
I didn't find it in time either but i wanted to find it by my own. I would appriciate the game thinking a bit more highly of the player than to think that i wouldn't want to figure it myself. Or that they actually think it's better to impose the solution on you because god forbid you'll have to use anything than your trigger finger for more than 5 seconds.
Games are made worse by such design process. You may appriciate it, but fact is it's making the game worse.
This in particular makes the game better - for me. I can't really agree that it made the game worse for me, but I can totally see how someone else wouldn't enjoy the same kind of pacing and handholding with regards to progression. Just different opinions. It isn't your thing - that's cool, that's fine. Just sayin' that for at least one person (myself) it babied me just enough to keep me from getting stuffed, even for a short amount of time, at a place I didn't want to be stuck at.
I read your examples Saty. The qtes you're talking about where you press fire to shoot; theres like three of them in the entire game. Would it really have improved them if you could aim during them? They were simply variations on the press aim to focus on something mechanic. Did you have a problem with those? And the most horrible qtes ever? You're exaggerating surely. There really aren't very many, they're basic and easy and they never occur in actual gameplay.
.
Of course the QTE's never occur in actual gameplay. That's what QTE is about. Yes, the game would have improved without them because they: 1) needlessly take the control from you. Why have me shoot in QTE instead of, you know, just letting me shoot like i'm doing in 99% of the game? Why couldn't i do the same thing while being in full control? It would have been different case if my character was actually doing something else in them.
2) some of the coolest parts happen in those QTE. I never like when the best moments of game happen outside of the player control or with minimal participation from him.
3) those QTE give the feeling (that the creative director pretty much confirms) that they don't trust the player to be able to spot what needed to be done and then perform what needed to be done without it being wrapped as QTE.
There's a reason why QTE's are one of the most hated mechanics in games and Bulletstorm shows exactly why.
Ah, so you three-starred all the Echoes, then? No problems?
There's a mode that requires you to be quick, creative, and varied with your kills to do well, and it sounds suspiciously like you're ignoring its existence because it doesn't serve your arguments.
While it'd be nice if the story mode was as demanding as those throughout, I can see where they weren't able to design that way. Forcing players to replay a section because they didn't meet the score threshhold wouldn't have worked, it would have seemed arbitrary and forced and would have turned many people right off the game. Withholding more of the game's inventory from people if they didn't fight well is another option, but then people would moan about lack of weapon variety.
I mean, look how many people said the demo sucked but loved the main game. Some people just don't "get" playing for high scores, sadly. But there is a mode there that spites those people and says "play awesome or fail," and it's great.
Umm..I'm struggling to see how this connects to what i was actually voicing against in the game. I never said that the combat isn't all what you listed. In fact, i did agree that it's, unfortunately, the one and only enojoyable and worthwhile element of the game.
I didn't see the game should be more demanding (i did say the later enemies are easier than expected), and i certainly didn't suggest the SP campaign forcing you to replay segements because of low-scoring. My complaints were pretty much on anything but the combat. My issues are unrelated to the score-based nature of the game.
Maybe part of what sets the game apart from other games is its quick, never-a-dull-moment, always-pushing-forward pace, Saty. Many people who liked it have said as much.
Maybe adding the ability for the player to lollygag around and make their own dull moments didn't help that design philosophy, Saty.
Of course the QTE's never occur in actual gameplay. That's what QTE is about. Yes, the game would have improved without them because they: 1) needlessly take the control from you. Why have me shoot in QTE instead of, you know, just letting me shoot like i'm doing in 99% of the game? Why couldn't i do the same thing while being in full control? It would have been different case if my character was actually doing something else in them.
2) some of the coolest parts happen in those QTE. I never like when the best moments of game happen outside of the player control or with minimal participation from him.
3) those QTE give the feeling (that the creative director pretty much confirms) that they don't trust the player to be able to spot what needed to be done and then perform what needed to be done without it being wrapped as QTE.
There's a reason why QTE's are one of the most hated mechanics in games and Bulletstorm shows exactly why.
When I meant in actual gameplay I was talking about something like God of War where you beat up on someone then do a qte to finish them. The few qtes in bulletstorm are during cinematic sequences when you aren't in control of the game. Even if you detested them they take up probably a minute of the game in total. It just seems like a small criticism to me and it seems to be one of your main complaints. And I totally disagree that the coolest stuff happened in the qtes, to me it was the other way round.
Also I wished you would have addressed my other points, can't really make my argument any clearer than the bit you cut out of my post.
This in particular makes the game better - for me. I can't really agree that it made the game worse for me, but I can totally see how someone else wouldn't enjoy the same kind of pacing and handholding with regards to progression. Just different opinions. It isn't your thing - that's cool, that's fine. Just sayin' that for at least one person (myself) it babied me just enough to keep me from getting stuffed, even for a short amount of time, at a place I didn't want to be stuck at.
I get what you're saying but i think there's a better way to ease the player in than that Bulletstrom chooses. It's so blatant that it impedes my enjoyment of the game. Like i said in my original post, Bulletstrom isn't intended to be any more than what it offers but the issue for me is more general and its reflected by the director's comments.
The notion that any game must be made so that any kind of person that picks the game, has to go through it without a hitch is worrying and undesirable. This notion seems to be on the top of the developers' list and it creeps into any facet of the game - they will strive to simplify and guide the player as much as they can in order to achieve that notion. Where do you draw the line? Bulletstorm is the latest game to cross it, and by quite a margin. In my consideration of what makes better games or better approach to design, that line should be pushed back.
Saty you just didn't like the game. It's OK, it happens. You're coming up with a million rationalizations as to why and that's fine, your opinions are valid, but it's not like you're somehow going to convince anyone here that it's a shitty game.
I agree that it is a bit hand-holdey at times, but no more so than most games these days, and the actually gameplay definitely allows for about 100x as much creativity and improvisation than most shooters.
When I meant in actual gameplay I was talking about something like God of War where you beat up on someone then do a qte to finish them. The few qtes in bulletstorm are during cinematic sequences when you aren't in control of the game. Even if you detested them they take up probably a minute of the game in total. It just seems like a small criticism to me and it seems to be one of your main complaints. And I totally disagree that the coolest stuff happened in the qtes, to me it was the other way round.
Also I wished you would have addressed my other points, can't really make my argument any clearer than the bit you cut out of my post.
My main complaint is that Bulletstorm is much too restrictive and hodling the hand of the player. The QTE's are one the reasons that highligh that. They may take up a minute but they symbolize the design philosophy that i'm criticizing.
The point is, there was no reason NOT to be in full control instead of having a QTE whenever it appeared. It would have been cooler to actually line up the shot yourself, to know that you need to make the shot by your own, that you might die if you fail to. Like i said, its as if the player isn't thought to be capable to do so. QTE's of shooting in a First Person Shooter is just absurd.
I didn't address your other points simply because i don't disagree with them. The combat does give you freedom that few other FPS give. The battles are indeed up to you in how to fight them. That's precisely why when the game keeps you in a short leash in all the aspects outside combat, it's all the more glaring.
Saty you just didn't like the game. It's OK, it happens. You're coming up with a million rationalizations as to why and that's fine, your opinions are valid, but it's not like you're somehow going to convince anyone here that it's a shitty game.
I agree that it is a bit hand-holdey at times, but no more so than most games these days, and the actually gameplay definitely allows for about 100x as much creativity and improvisation than most shooters.
I'm not really saying it's a 'shitty' game. It is enjoyable and i did recommend on playing it under certain circumstances. But yes, the game does employ some of the worst design practices that became a ridicule throughout this gen. If we were to judge via Bulletstorm, these practices are only getting more prevalent and unabating; such practices ultimately work to the detriment of the games.
I see what you're saying. I love the game to death, but I agree the player movement when it comes to obstacles can be more fluid.
The vaults need to be more responsive, and the ability to "jump down" should be like it is in Anarchy, where you just fall off a ledge.
As for QTE's in cutscenes I don't mind them. It's like interactive cut scenes kind of. But I will say that (Act 7 Spoiler)
fighting Sarrano
shouldn't have been a QTE.
But did it really detract from the gameplay? Not really. All those jumping down things, or the monkey bars didn't get in the combats way so whatever.
An open world would have diluted the games focus. Linearity groups enemies closer and allows the devs to strategically design each environment.
As for hand holding, yeah it does that. But the game was never meant to make it hard to navigate, or to solve puzzles, or to fight challenging enemies. It's meant to throw enemies and environments at you and have you be able to maximize the points you can get. I think you realize that, but you still want a challenge in pathfinding and to do everything yourself.
My main complaint is that Bulletstorm is much too restrictive and hodling the hand of the player. The QTE's are one the reasons that highligh that. They may take up a minute but they symbolize the design philosophy that i'm criticizing.
The point is, there was no reason NOT to be in full control instead of having a QTE whenever it appeared. It would have been cooler to actually line up the shot yourself, to know that you need to make the shot by your own, that you might die if you fail to. Like i said, its as if the player isn't thought to be capable to do so. QTE's of shooting in a First Person Shooter is just absurd.
I didn't address your other points simply because i don't disagree with them. The combat does give you freedom that few other FPS give. The battles are indeed up to you in how to fight them. That's precisely why when the game keeps you in a short leash in all the aspects outside combat, it's all the more glaring.
Okay, well I guess it just boils down to if the linearity hurt your enjoyment of the game. For most people it seems it didn't but for you it did. Thats cool, different strokes and all that. I went into it expecting it to be linear and it didn't bother me as I actually did want to rush from one fight to the next. I still don't understand the hang up over the qtes when they're some of the least offensive ones ever although I did think
finishing Sarrano with a qte was disappointing
but I get the point you were making and agree that doing them in gameplay is always preferable.
A27 Tawpgun said:
As for QTE's in cutscenes I don't mind them. It's like interactive cut scenes kind of. But I will say that (Act 7 Spoiler)
I'm astonished the game is getting so much love. I didn't really care for it as much. True to its name, Bulletstorm is predominately about shooting the enemy in plenty of manners but there's nothing more to it, and prolly was not intended to have anything more to it. Nevertheless, Bulletstorm is a 'one-trick pony' of a game (in spite of its 100+ Skillshots) and therefore it isn't the type of game that i would really like or have it in my favorite games of the year.
However good one thinks the Skillshot mechanic is, it's pretty much the only thing to note in the game. And however newly freedom or creativeness one thinks the combat brings to the FPS genre, in all its other elements Bulletstorm is as restrictive and limited as any other scripted\linear\corridor that the game supposed to stand against, if not even more so.
What other examples of recent first person shooters is this complaint being aimed from, exactly? The fact that bulletstorm gave you so much variety in the core combat is exactly why it's such a refreshing and worthwhile experience.
The combat and gunplay were indeed fun and refreshing but the more i played the less i was taken by it. It lacks the 'staying power' and the motiviation to set-up another Skillshot - You upgrade your weapons quickly enough and your points are get stacked without any of real use. I was happy enough to use the environtmental skillshots that included kicking the enemy to exposed electric wires, spikes, plants and so on. Those skills provide more than enough points and they are as satisfying and gory as any other killing. Sometimes i couldn't, or needn't, bother with going out of my way to get a specific Skillshot. (I also wasn't good enough to get the killings that involved the back side of enemies; coudln't really get into a position where i facing their backs).
I only missed 6 skillshots when I completed the game, the fact that the combat was enjoyable to me set up my own motivation for self experimentation. You seemed to look at the actual upgrading being the only motivation, but this only is really a factor on Very Hard where everything costs a shitload of points. At its heart Bulletstorm is simply meant to be a score based shooter like Echo mode shows, but they didn't want to force that upon a structured campaign. It pains me to think about it but I'm sure there's people who played the entire game just doing leash > kick > shoot, or slide > shoot with little variation. I guess that's the problem with a game like this, there's no real way to prevent this from happening. They can't just stop you from progressing, slap you in the face and say "be more creative", it's something you have to want to do naturally.
But really, my issue isn't about the combat mechanic as much at it is about the game hand-holding the player 'till his hand is crushed; bear-hugging him out of breath. The first 2-3 chapters are highlighted by how frequently the game insists on seizing the control out of the player hands by strings of cutscenes, QTE's and 'only my way' design. The cutscenes' tendency lessens later on but the other stuff continue to reign supreme.
I can only jump when the game allows me and only in a speific place of the barrier that i'm supposed to skip-over. So yeah, not really 'jumping'. I do have sliding which is nice but the ability to jump freely around could have added another dimension to the Skillshots.
I can't even drop off a hole in the ground to a lower level but only when i press the action button that sets forth the so complicate animation of descending down that the game just had to yank the control from me. Every barrier and obstacle are vividly and overtly marked lest the player need to do any contemplation. Every kick or leash perfectly pave your way on. This 'philosophy' reached absurd proportions when reaching a supposed dead-end without the game highlighting what needed to be done,
Trish stricts ~15 seconds for you to figure out a way forward. When time runs out, she does the bit for you
. Are we really that desperate and intimidated by the player not doing anything other than pull the trigger? For him to be, god forbid, 'stuck'? To have anything other than straightforward shooting?
This treatment of the player as unaware or 'untrustable' (to not use harsher terms like 'dumb') is best seen in the game's Quick-Time Events. The QTE's in Bulletstorm are horrible, not because QTE in general are so, but because the ones in Bulletstorm are pointless. Normally, QTE's are used for more delicate and unconventional situations that aren't as easily achieved otherwise. However, in Bulletstorm, what you do in the QTE is the same as what you do in the whole gameplay: shoot. Why do i need a QTE in order to do so? Why can't i shoot it myself in 'live' gameplay? Why am i stripped-away of the need to even aim where i shoot in a FPS? Of course, this games subscribes to the 'Coolest Stuff Happen in QTE' design, but also, for lack of any other reason, the gamer is thought to be dim not
to shoot the explosive tank exactly when that dino passes under it
by his own. Not
to spot the mechanical dino is controlled by someone and proceed to kill him to end the attack
by his own and so forth.
Will you stop taking my control over the action? To have all the cool bits happen with little to none regard for the player? To make those sequences less entertaining because of your underestimating people?
I was worried about Bulletstorm not having a jump when I first heard about it, but I can honestly say I never once wanted a jump action for the combat. I'm still not sure why you had such an issue with the QTE stuff, it's just there to get more points if you react fast, if you don't you get +0 and the game does it for you anyway.
Would it really add that much to the game if you aimed and shot the giant tank while you flew away, and if you missed you died and simply restarted right before that point to try again? If you didn't shoot the guy with the remote for the dinosaur, he makes it step on you and you just go for take 2? I just don't get it. And saying the coolest stuff if done in this instances, that's completely false. It's actually the most tame basic shooting that's done a handful of times in the entire game, it's even more ridiculous to say that given the insanity you can perform in actual gameplay.
It is this approach that made the 'boss' fights weak and unfulfilling. They don't really ask of the player much, or anything other that constant firing. The fight against
the giant rolling wheel
was disappointing because you
get attacked by waves of other enemies who divert you attention from the visual of that big structure chasing you
. I would have liked it better if
there were fewer enemies and that the player would have needed to do more elaborate actions to try and sway the wheel to have it lose balance and slam down.
I actually agree with that, but I'd consider that a setpiece anyway that was just spectacle and not obstacle. There's only one boss fight but I thought it was done well, and I think everyone is in agreement on them dropping the ball on the ending.
Back to the gunplay, i see no reason why the game is limiting you to 3 weapons at a time. It doesn't aid anything. I want to have all the possibilities of Skillshots open to me anytime. It's not like Bulletstorm prides itself on challenge or balance. You always find yourself wishing that you had X weapon in that section because it suits better to use it then. There's also couple of weapons with small amount of ammo so they arent used often , and not being able to take ammo of the once-in-a-while enemies that use those weapons because you don't equip them adds to the discouragement.
They have dropkits extremely often, this seems more like a concious design choice for the skillshots designed as a 1-2 punch, it's a lot easier to use the screamer's flare shot, thump, then switch to the shotgun and shoot them with the acid charge instead of going through a weapon wheel of the whole game's worth. I actually think this was one of bulletstorm's strongest points, the weapons aside from the sniper don't fill any role. You can use any of them at any point and excel, aside from a few instances where you need the sniper and the game puts a dropkit there for that purpose.
Other than that, there's the usual lack of variety and there's a werid thing about the enemies that the latest enemy type, the one that is billed as the most dangerous and powerful,
the Burnouts
, turn out to be the easiest ones -
quickly dispatched by shooting their glowing parts
.
The sections of them attacking in waves proved to be quite a breeze when you can just stand in place and kick every one of them into an environmental hazard.
I find it very odd you get on the game for the few QTE segments not allowing the player to "have all the cool bits" happen, and then basically say right here you are playing the game in a very boring fashion. You can just kick burnouts into hazards the whole time, but is that fun? I didn't think so. So I used a charged exploding ball bouncing around at the packs, kicking it into even more enemies and filling the screen with points. I lined up a peacemaker carmine shot for a 4x x-ray. I would thump a group into the air, lob a flail around an enemy on the ground, then slide into them and juggle them into the aerial group with the boneduster and watch him explode the cluster of enemies up there. The list goes on and on. This might remedy your point above about certain weapons not having much ammo, you don't need a lot of ammo with weapons that potentially kill 3-5 enemies in one shot.
The game is linear and handholdy, but that's just so it can maintain structure for a campaign. Anarchy mode and echo mode let you go loose without any of that, it's those modes where the game's core can truly shine.
I'll just chime in and say you're not the only one who didn't really feel the game. Full disclosure, I rented the game and just did the campaign, and came off kind of actively disliking it. I ended up with maybe 10 skillshots unfound, but even after all that, I never felt like there was any real experimentation with the combat, at least the way I played it. I stuck with the weapons that felt good with me after getting the skillshots for the new ones, and the ultralinear levels basically made me think that I would never want to play the campaign again, especially with the number of enemies that just rushed at the player. Halo is my go to shooter, and the sandboxy nature of the levels and arsenal, combined with some of the only AI that feels completely dynamic in a given firefight (IMO, of course), gives the feeling of experimentation that I was hoping Bulletstorm would have for me, but it was a something different entirely. Maybe it's that I'm not comparing it to other very linear games like the Call of Duty series or whatever, but a game that prides itself on having an open nature. I'll just say that while I don't think it's a bad game, it is pretty much all the way not for me.
fuuuuck. just got my copy from amazon and i just installed it. i open the game, and gfwl says "HEY WE GOTTA CHECK THE DATE FOR THIS GAME JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT PLAYING IT BEFORE RELEASE DATE!" or something like that.
so i say MKAYS. now i can't connect to the live services and it tells me to check if i'm on the internets.
i'm gonna try to update gfwl. asdklbnmadfgnm;l
edit: shit, does it make you do this every time you wanna play?
I'm about 5-6 hours in just hit Act 4 Chapter 3 (Normal difficulty). All in all it looks all right I like the depth of field effect a lot, but it isn't one of those "woooahh polished games". I would describe the game as "mindless fun" it's just awesome kicking some assholes on the cactus and whatsoever. It's refreshing playing a shooter like this. New gameplay idea with some gears of war taste to it. I dislike the fact that I only like 3 weapons up to this point. And I dislike the fact that there aren't even more possibility getting some badass combos with even more fatality style XD. The mechanics are very generic and common. Oh yeah and I like the characters.
My verdict up to this point B+, because I like the idea behind it and I like the funny conversations ^^. Some really crazy ideas, too (keyword: remote control). But ultimately for my personal taste this is a rent because it will be about 10-12 hours and I am not interested in multiplayer...but really really great work on this game. Soo refreshing compared to Call of Duty...
Really wish one of my real life buddies got Bulletstorm so I had someone to play Anarchy with. I 3-starred all the Echoes with pretty much no trouble. First try on most all of them. I'll have to start a second play through sometime soon.
Really wish one of my real life buddies got Bulletstorm so I had someone to play Anarchy with. I 3-starred all the Echoes with pretty much no trouble. First try on most all of them. I'll have to start a second play through sometime soon.
Picked up the game last week on 360. Have to say, I hated it for the first couple of chapters. Felt clunky and just all around awkward. But, finally, got the controls down, and the game just took off. Now I'm pulling off skillshots w/o even thinking. Crazy how some things just click.
Papercuts, I disagree about the weapon selection. This game suits having all weapons at your disposal so you can go for different skillshots bases on the environment or situation. Limiting it to two and only switching at pods felt restrictive, like I was having to second guess what the next section will involve. Often I'd be playing thinking 'i wish I had the flare here'
What other examples of recent first person shooters is this complaint being aimed from, exactly? The fact that bulletstorm gave you so much variety in the core combat is exactly why it's such a refreshing and worthwhile experience.
It is refreshing in its combat, but the other elemets share the same hand-holding\'dumbing down' of the experience with other shooters.
Papercuts said:
I only missed 6 skillshots when I completed the game, the fact that the combat was enjoyable to me set up my own motivation for self experimentation. You seemed to look at the actual upgrading being the only motivation, but this only is really a factor on Very Hard where everything costs a shitload of points. At its heart Bulletstorm is simply meant to be a score based shooter like Echo mode shows, but they didn't want to force that upon a structured campaign. It pains me to think about it but I'm sure there's people who played the entire game just doing leash > kick > shoot, or slide > shoot with little variation. I guess that's the problem with a game like this, there's no real way to prevent this from happening. They can't just stop you from progressing, slap you in the face and say "be more creative", it's something you have to want to do naturally.
Oh, i did enjoy the shooting and i was trying to be creative as much as i could but i still think there needed to be something more to encourage you further on, be it with more upgrade options or enemy types.
Papercuts said:
I was worried about Bulletstorm not having a jump when I first heard about it, but I can honestly say I never once wanted a jump action for the combat. I'm still not sure why you had such an issue with the QTE stuff, it's just there to get more points if you react fast, if you don't you get +0 and the game does it for you anyway.
Would it really add that much to the game if you aimed and shot the giant tank while you flew away, and if you missed you died and simply restarted right before that point to try again? If you didn't shoot the guy with the remote for the dinosaur, he makes it step on you and you just go for take 2? I just don't get it. And saying the coolest stuff if done in this instances, that's completely false. It's actually the most tame basic shooting that's done a handful of times in the entire game, it's even more ridiculous to say that given the insanity you can perform in actual gameplay.
Yes, it would have added. That i know it's up to me, that i'm at the helm of the experience rather than reduced to button-pusher. In the example of the tank, i guess they wanted it to be a short bit. Ideally, it you missed the first shot then the chase will continue.
The fight against the
remote dino
wouldn't have ended until you shoot the guy. It's not like the miss would lead to a scripted death and starting over. The player will need to figure that this actually
a mechanical dino which will be disabled by shooting the guy operating it
.
Exactly, you do insane stuff in the actual gameplay so what reason is there to make a QTE for shooting a guy? Other than not keeping the 'rookie' player in the loop?
Papercuts said:
They have dropkits extremely often, this seems more like a concious design choice for the skillshots designed as a 1-2 punch, it's a lot easier to use the screamer's flare shot, thump, then switch to the shotgun and shoot them with the acid charge instead of going through a weapon wheel of the whole game's worth. I actually think this was one of bulletstorm's strongest points, the weapons aside from the sniper don't fill any role. You can use any of them at any point and excel, aside from a few instances where you need the sniper and the game puts a dropkit there for that purpose.
Yeah, i thought the weapon limit is due to console constarints of having the player cycle through 7 weapons which doesn't exist on the PC. I do think that the game would have been undoubtedly better if you carried all of them at the same time.
Papercuts said:
I find it very odd you get on the game for the few QTE segments not allowing the player to "have all the cool bits" happen, and then basically say right here you are playing the game in a very boring fashion. You can just kick burnouts into hazards the whole time, but is that fun? I didn't think so. So I used a charged exploding ball bouncing around at the packs, kicking it into even more enemies and filling the screen with points. I lined up a peacemaker carmine shot for a 4x x-ray. I would thump a group into the air, lob a flail around an enemy on the ground, then slide into them and juggle them into the aerial group with the boneduster and watch him explode the cluster of enemies up there. The list goes on and on. This might remedy your point above about certain weapons not having much ammo, you don't need a lot of ammo with weapons that potentially kill 3-5 enemies in one shot.
I wasn't playing it in a boring way nor was i that bored with the game. I was enjoying it and i had no problem with the fact that it was up to me to make it fun. I do think the game could have done a better job at soliciting you to keep up with it rather than fall to a pattern.
The problem with the
Burnouts
is that they don't require you to handle them in any different way. The eariler, 'weaker' enemies were actually better at that. You have enemies with melee weapons that rush you, you have enemies with weapons that shot at you from afar making you close the distance and slide at them and pull those wacky shots, you the flare and quick enemies that can't be leashed so again you have to bring the fight to them - you can only grab them with the leash after sliding at them. You have armor enemies where you have to attack their backs.
The
Burnouts
however don't have weapons, they just rush at you, they are leashable instantly so they were quickly and easily dispatched. I just had to kick them one-by-one and see them fly to their deaths. They also have the glowing weak spots which cause them to die in couple of shots - if i'm not mistaken, they take the least ammount of damage before the die when the spot is shot compared to every other enemy in the game.
Papercuts said:
The game is linear and handholdy, but that's just so it can maintain structure for a campaign. Anarchy mode and echo mode let you go loose without any of that, it's those modes where the game's core can truly shine.
I need to stress again that it's not the linearity that i'm going against. If i were to name my favorite games, you would see i prefer linear games. However, there's a difference between a linear game that masks itself well enough and between a game like Bulletstorm that is shouting it from the rooftops.
Bulletstorm wouldn't have been any less of a linear game if the objects i needed to manipulate weren't so overtly marked; if what the player needed to do next wasn't spelled-out for him; if i wouldn't been hurried away just because i failed to find the exit in 15 seconds. But it would have a better game, where the role of the player isn't diminished to doing what you are specifically and unavoidably told, but to actually be in the instigator of the actions that you do - from thought to action.
Lets suppose Bulletstorm 2 is to be more varied and better paced; meaning it shall include sections where you have to use your leash solving puzzles or for platforming\creating a way forward. If these sections will be as inconsiderate to the role of the player as the interactive figure that contemplates on the course of action and continues to execute it as Bulletstorm is outside of its combat, then those segments will be of no good.
The name of the game is kills with skills. This hand-holding crap you speak of is good game design. The faster they can get you from one killing room to another, the better. Best shooter released in a long long time.
Holy shit this guy still going on about this game being too handholdy? I'd rather know where to go either through a waypoint or by just letting me know, hey man, you gotta go this way. I don't want to wander around for 15 minutes in one area.
Just wanted to mention something I see coming up a lot. I'm not really understanding all the people who claim the demo was terrible compared to the full game. It's a typical section from the game with three of the games seven weapons and all the basic gameplay intact. Could someone explain to me why they hated the demo but loved the game? I really don't get it.
Just wanted to mention something I see coming up a lot. I'm not really understanding all the people who claim the demo was terrible compared to the full game. It's a typical section from the game with three of the games seven weapons and all the basic gameplay intact. Could someone explain to me why they hated the demo but loved the game? I really don't get it.
I would like to know this too. Granted the full game has more 'flavor' to it on account of the story and some of the cooler setpieces, but the actual gameplay in the demo is pretty much exactly what you get in the main game. I loved the demo, played it probably 10 times.
Wow, you guys are taking it to the extremes. Either the game force-feeds you every little thing or you will be wandering around 15 minutes to see where to go. I don't think anyone gets lost in Half-Life and still that game doesn't mark the game world.
Hand-holding is almost never good game design, espeicially not in the degree it's found in Bulletstorm. It may have not bothered you with Bulletstorm because it's as much straighforward you're going to get with or without guidance but that's why i was talking about these design choices at a whole. For me, games aren't made better by minimizing the participation of the player in the gameplay.
So I threw together a little montage of some of the highlights from the game, its pretty cool. It's not my footage, I just edited the parts together. Spoilers in the video.
I still haven't finished the game. But there are 2 things I hate about the game. The upgrade system and buying ammo and the checkpoints.
Also I remeber the developers saying back in the GI unveiling that the game isn't going to be linear instead it will be more like Painkiller when it comes to level design. Apparently they decided to go the COD route
Just wanted to mention something I see coming up a lot. I'm not really understanding all the people who claim the demo was terrible compared to the full game. It's a typical section from the game with three of the games seven weapons and all the basic gameplay intact. Could someone explain to me why they hated the demo but loved the game? I really don't get it.
I still haven't finished the game. But there are 2 things I hate about the game. The upgrade system and buying ammo and the checkpoints.
Also I remeber the developers saying back in the GI unveiling that the game isn't going to be linear instead it will be more like Painkiller when it comes to level design. Apparently they decided to go the COD route
Buying ammo and upgrades at drop kits is pure genius because it forces you to think out of the box and play the game the way its supposed to be played. The thumper, and secondary shots on the guns are the best part of the game. Doing cool shit makes you actually earn them.
I would like to know this too. Granted the full game has more 'flavor' to it on account of the story and some of the cooler setpieces, but the actual gameplay in the demo is pretty much exactly what you get in the main game. I loved the demo, played it probably 10 times.
Right, but thats the case with all demos. There was also a video showing that things like that were indeed a part of the game. I do admit that those things turned out to be stronger than I expected them to be in the full game though. Bulletstorm surprised me in how much of a complete package it is.
The thing is that the gameplay that is a huge part of what makes it special is all there in the demo and I have a hard time understanding how someone can hate it there but do a complete 180 and love it in the actual game. Unless they skipped the tutorial video and just blew through it once in a matter of minutes without exploring the game mechanics. Thats fair enough, I'm sure I've done the same with other demos but I just can't agree that it was a bad demo. Misunderstood would be more accurate.
The thing is that the gameplay that is a huge part of what makes it special is all there in the demo and I have a hard time understanding how someone can hate it there but do a complete 180 and love it in the actual game. Unless they skipped the tutorial video and just blew through it once in a matter of minutes without exploring the game mechanics. Thats fair enough, I'm sure I've done the same with other demos but I just can't agree that it was a bad demo.
I don't know, but I hated playing the demo with a controller. I'm not hating a controller in FPS games, but Bulletstorm just rubbed me in a wrong way with it. Also the introduction video had awful voice over.
I still haven't finished the game. But there are 2 things I hate about the game. The upgrade system and buying ammo and the checkpoints.
Also I remeber the developers saying back in the GI unveiling that the game isn't going to be linear instead it will be more like Painkiller when it comes to level design. Apparently they decided to go the COD route
Playting this on PC, the lighting of the character models in cutscenes was all weird, I wasnt sure if it was supposed to be like that. It looked like a character was walking under a pillar i.e. there is a bar of shadow going across them, except it kept happening constantly, even if they were standing still.
I was on Low shadows, switched to medium and it didnt make it any better
