Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans

Former Epic designer Cliff Bleszinski tells the Pointless podcast he's planning a return to PC games, and apparently hates his hyper-scripted Gears of War third-person shooter series, saying he is making a first-person shooter because "it's in my DNA," and that he doesn't "ever want to make a game that has a cutscene or a scripted sequence in it ever again." Here's his take on the game: "I have a slide deck, I have a pitch, I have concept art, I know pretty much what I want to do," Bleszinski said. "It will be a PC experience that will hearken back to a certain type of game that we cut our teeth on." So there it is, Jazz Jackrabbit 3! Thanks Eurogamer.

View
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >

108. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 14, 2013, 21:45 Prez
 
Unless you get killed in one shot, regenerating health does effectively ruin tension.

Tension is sort of a personal thing to my mind though, so what may ruin tension for you may not for someone else, kind of like that movie someone said was scary as shit but made you go "meh, not scary at all". I have a character in Borderlands that has an artifact that gives regenerating health AND a shield that recharges super rapidly yet I get into tense firefights all the time. In the same situation you may not find them tense at all, perhaps because you play games differently than I do or are just flat out better at shooters but in such a case, neither of us is "wrong" per se. Which to me brings the whole issue back to the point I've been making for years now - it isn't a matter of which is better, it's a matter of which you prefer. Good game and level design can make either work excellently in my opinion, though I will concede that regenerating health is more conducive to lazy level design, which I suspect might be the biggest reason it is reviled by many more hardcore gamers like yourself.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
107. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 14, 2013, 07:28 Jerykk
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 12, 2013, 14:41:
descender wrote on Dec 12, 2013, 14:22:
Health packs are a reward, both for surviving up to that point, and for exploration.

Regenerating health not only removes risk and tension from the game, but reward as well.

This has all been said better here.

I don't understand how having different tactical responses to a situation (which allows these situations to be created to challenge the player) is "dumber" than only having 2 responses to a situation (shoot this gun or... that gun).

Both are equally valid (what I found less valid was Fear letting you carry 10 health packs around at any given time.)

The downsides of health pickups is that you often backtrack for health, or you spend time creeping forward because you have 20 health, or you become addicting to quicksaving and quickloading. Two of those downsides are the exact opposite of fun, and one of those downsides kind of depends. I remember in one game, I think HL, I ended up getting to a boss with next to no health. Impossible to beat him like that. I had to go back to a prior load, which was a good ways back.

The upsides of regenerating health is that you can make characters more fragile, meaning you become less of a bullet sponge. Let's be honest here - in most FPS games your character is some invincible superhuman who is never really in much danger and who can take nearly infinitely more damage than anything you fight. With regenerating health, concepts like cover fire begin to make more sense, as it only takes a few bullets to kill you. It actually makes things more realistic, and to say it removes risk and tension from the game is idiotic. Risk and tension come from many areas. Regenerating health typically comes with vulnerability, and vulnerability adds tension.

Both have their place, and both can easily be argued as stupid and/or dumb. People just like arguing with what they are most familiar with.

Unless you get killed in one shot, regenerating health does effectively ruin tension. You take cover, you pop out, you shoot. If you get hit, you return to cover, wait until you finish healing, then rinse and repeat. You can literally get hit an infinite number of times as long as there's a sufficient delay between hits.

The reason why games like Operation Flashpoint and the original R6 were so intense was because they had high lethality AND no regenerating health. A single bullet could and likely would kill you. You can make characters as fragile as you want with a finite health system and unlike regenerating health, it will actually matter.

Also, there's nothing that requires save-scumming with a finite health system. The game could use a checkpoint system and finite health. If you choose to save-scum, that's your fault. The means through which you replenish health is a matter of implementation. Health pack placement is a level design issue and if you ever find yourself starting a boss fight with very little health, that's a level design issue. The vast majority of games place health packs and ammo right before boss fights anyway. Finite health sytems can also encourage aggressive play. If you take note of the locations of health packs, you can intelligently maneuver through a combat scenario while healing yourself. It promotes planning and tactics whereas regenerating health promotes turtling. Finally, most shooters with finite health do not make you basically invincible (at least, not if you play on the highest difficulty). For example, Bioshock Infinite on Normal difficulty is a joke but in 1999 Mode, it's a whole other ballgame. Same with Dead Space or pretty much any other modern shooter with finite health.

Regenerating health exists because it's easier for players and easier for designers. It's that simple.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
106. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 14, 2013, 00:22 Prez
 
No I can't understand it because your point is based on wrong assumptions and dumb logic. You really stepped in it and now you're just deflecting.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
105. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 22:37 descender
 
You can play your games however you want. You can also understand that any health system you want to talk about is completely nullified by quick saving/loading all the time. Is this really that hard to follow?

The two of you can go hug it out in the corner somewhere with your regnerating health and your quick saving... I really don't care.

This comment was edited on Dec 13, 2013, 22:46.
 
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
104. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 21:16 Prez
 
No because you're still wrong and still acting like your personal opinions are facts.

Yep, but he isn't special. One of a billion know-it-all internet elitists, easily ignored. I play the games the way I like to play them, and to be blunt, you can fuck off if you don't like it. I don't take kindly to snobbish idiots who think they can tell me how I am supposed to play my games. Middlefinger

All I've ever been focused on is the stupid thing you said.
You've been trying to play it off like it wasn't stupid.

Another internet elitist trademark. Say something mind-numbingly retarded then play it off like he didn't really say it. Sad, pathetic little people. Puppyeyes

This comment was edited on Dec 13, 2013, 21:21.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
103. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 17:01 Sepharo
 
descender wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 16:57:
You are entirely too focused on my "watch it on youtube" jab.

At least you finally seem to understand what I said.

All I've ever been focused on is the stupid thing you said.
You've been trying to play it off like it wasn't stupid.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
102. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 16:57 descender
 
You are entirely too focused on my "watch it on youtube" jab.

At least you finally seem to understand what I said.
 
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
101. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 16:28 Sepharo
 
Sense of accomplishment is subjective.
There's not really anything more to be said beyond that.
Your opinion is that quick saving ruins the sense of accomplishment.
But you state that opinion as fact over and over and suggest that people using quick saves might as well not be playing the game at all.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
100. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 16:23 descender
 
It's really not an opinion. Quick saving to make the game easier makes the game easier.

We were talking about why regenerating health is stupid... not your inability to understand what the word "accomplishment" means.

Debating the merits of using health packs as a risk/reward system based on the fact that you could quick save yourself into a "bad spot" is where the stupidity lies. The health system does not matter in the slightest if you are quick loading every time you decide you took too much damage, and quick saving every time you flawlessly move through a room.

 
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
99. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 15:53 Sepharo
 
descender wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 15:37:
That's because there can be no accomplishment when you cheese your way around challenges.

If you bypass the challenge of a game by saving your progress every 3 minutes, then what are you doing? Walking through the game essentially... which could easily be done on youtube.

This is like, a life lesson.

If I said "less of an accomplishment", instead of "no accomplishment" would you have even said anything?

No because you're still wrong and still acting like your personal opinions are facts.
Also do you imagine quick save teleports you past challenges? You realize that if you quick save in front of a challenge that when you quick load the challenge is still there right?
The game still has to be played... that's why your notion that you might as well watch it on youtube is so asinine.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
98. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 15:37 descender
 
That's because there can be no accomplishment when you cheese your way around challenges.

If you bypass the challenge of a game by saving your progress every 3 minutes, then what are you doing? Walking through the game essentially... which could easily be done on youtube.

This is like, a life lesson.

If I said "less of an accomplishment", instead of "no accomplishment" would you have even said anything?
 
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
97. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 15:28 Sepharo
 
You implied that there wasn't a sense of accomplishment if you beat a game using quick saves. That's idiotic. That's why I responded the way I did.

That may be how you feel about quick saves but that's not how your post was worded. You suggested that people using quick save should just watch the game on youtube. That's stupid.

Then you made a bunch of assumptions about me based on a parody post and a second post that consisted only of your own quotes.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
96. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 14:55 descender
 
You are right, no one was claiming that... which is why I corrected Sepharo for implying that was my premise.

You just didn't step back far enough Beamer, this was all in response to the notion that health packs were a bad mechanic because of "bad quick saving".

If you are bypassing the effects of limited health in a game (stretches of games which are difficult to get through by design) by "quick saving" than the type of health system is already inconsequential to the way you are playing the game. It may as well just have regenerating health at that point and save you the hassle.

There is obviously more than one way to design a game, and more than one way to enjoy a game... but there is generally only one way to play the game "as it was designed".
 
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
95. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 14:34 Beamer
 
descender wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 14:29:
That is just slightly different than claiming there is only one way to enjoy a game. Thanks for jumping in to the end of the conversation and contributing nothing though.

If you are going to cheapen the experience for yourself, that's your problem. Claiming that other game systems (health/ammo/etc) should be balanced around your impatience/inability/frustration is just silly.

Wait, wait. Let's step back. "Claiming there is only one way to enjoy a game?" No one is claiming that. You're claiming that there's only one way to make a game (e.g., no regenerating health, infinite weapons in your backpack.) Others are arguing that it isn't black and white, and some variety is better than every single game using the same mechanics.

In other words, there are multiple ways to make, and therefore enjoy, games.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
94. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 14:29 descender
 
If you are going to cheapen the experience for yourself, that's your problem. Claiming that other game systems (health/ammo/etc) should be balanced around your impatience/inability/frustration is just dumb... hence "dumbed down".  
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
93. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 14:14 Sepharo
 
descender wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 13:39:
I didn't say anything like that, but hey...

...

descender wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 11:26:
Where's the sense of accomplishment if you quick save/load your way through a game? You might as well just watch someone play through it on youtube.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
92. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 13:39 descender
 
I didn't say anything like that, but hey... "if I put this thing in quotes, it looks like he said it!".

He cited a "bad quick save" as a reason to not use health packs as a risk/reward mechanic in a video game.

What possible purpose for "health" (or ammo, or any other reward in a game) could you have if you are just going to reload every time you complete a room in a less than optimal fashion?

I suppose you both come from the new generation of "participation awards" that feels completing a game is your right, and requires no effort on your part.

This comment was edited on Dec 13, 2013, 13:49.
 
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
91. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 12:59 Sepharo
 
"Yeah guys. Using quick save is like watching someone else play!"
"A real sense of accomplishment can only possibly come by playing the game with 0 saves. If you die start over at the beginning. Doing it any other way is invalid and you can't possibly enjoy it. Facts."
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
90. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 11:26 descender
 
What was the purpose of putting those 4 fights together as you described? Challenge. AS designed by the game developer.

Thank god they put that crutch in there for you to get through it all. Where's the sense of accomplishment if you quick save/load your way through a game? You might as well just watch someone play through it on youtube.

 
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
89. Re: Cliff Bleszinski's PC Shooter Plans Dec 13, 2013, 03:45 Sepharo
 
Orogogus wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 02:23:
Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 12, 2013, 20:39:
Ok I can understand the confusion then.

Half Life is packed with "non-linear exploration". Most of the areas in "On A Rail" exist only to find extra health and ammo, which you can skip over entirely. You can miss 75% of that section of the game if you stick to the main path.

Most modern games like the last dozen Call of Duties have nothing like that. The Shadow Warrior reboot did a good job in trying to go back in the right direction.

I feel like this particular kind of non-linear exploration still shows up a lot. It's the "figure out where the game wants you to go, and then go the other way to pick up sweet, sweet loot" thing that makes up like 60% of the Dead Space games, rather than the "map is so damn big it's easy to get lost and have to stop and figure out where you're supposed to be going" in, say, Duke Nukem 3D, DOOM, System Shock or Dark Forces.

It's a valid way to do things, but in Dead Space it got especially ridiculous, and I don't think a game that expects players to pretend to actually worry about their objectives is automatically dumber.

Yeah that's why it was neat that Bioshock: Infinite (and I think a few others) add that "don't go this way yet" arrow effect at a button press.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo