Postal 2 Movie

There's a Postal 2 Movie on the game's website showing off gameplay from Running with Scissors' upcoming Unreal-engine Postal sequel (thanks HomeLan Fed), available in either QuickTime or Windows Media Player formats.
View : : :
156 Replies. 8 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Older
156.
 
Re: WOW .... its been a while!
Oct 19, 2002, 21:22
Re: WOW .... its been a while! Oct 19, 2002, 21:22
Oct 19, 2002, 21:22
 
I still don't understand the moral diatribe. IMO it's a game period. The target audience are gamers 17+ and the title is more about humor than anything. Simple as that to me.

There is no morality in games unless a game like this is targeted at a young audience - which it is not.

I subscribe to the Running With Scissors philosophy.

"Violence belongs in games and entertainment, not in the streets."

155.
 
Re: WOW .... its been a while!
Oct 17, 2002, 16:15
Re: WOW .... its been a while! Oct 17, 2002, 16:15
Oct 17, 2002, 16:15
 
In Postal 2, the killings are a lot more personal because the people look a lot more realistic.

Hmm... And to think, this whole thread started with everyone raving on about how shitty the graphics were. Now the people look realistic? My, how the argument changes on a whim...

The other thing about GTA3 is this: how long did it take you to get bored with running around and shooting people over and over and over again? I know I got bored of it after about half an hour, and after that I just loved driving around in cars and getting into car chases. This is not possible in Postal 2. Postal 2's gameplay consists only of the thing I got bored of in GTA3 in just half an hour so I don't see a lot of lasting interest in P2.

You also need to keep in mind that running around and shooting people was not the focal point of GTA3's gameplay. An analogy -- lots of FPSs let you fly planes (the Tribes series, BF1942, etc), but the actual experience of flying the plane obviously isn't going to be up to par with a real flight sim game (MS Flight Sim, any of the Jane's series games, etc). In the same way, GTA3 let you run around and shoot people, but it was not the focus of the game, so it would stand to reason that GTA3 wouldn't be as good in that respect as a game whose focal point is running around and shooting people -- Postal 2. Postal 2 will have much better AI, among other things, that should keep the gameplay interesting longer than it was in a game like GTA3; the gameplay dynamics are designed around the fact that all you can do is "run around and shoot people".

Though I am looking forward to Postal 2, I'm not trying to come off as a Postal 2 fanboy here; I just enjoy playing devil's advocate, and I think a lot of people are dismissing Postal 2 way to early. Just wait till it's done, folks, then make your decision; it's still way too early to tell whether it will be any good or not.


This comment was edited on Oct 17, 16:27.
154.
 
Re: WOW .... its been a while!
Oct 17, 2002, 06:24
Re: WOW .... its been a while! Oct 17, 2002, 06:24
Oct 17, 2002, 06:24
 
The thing about GTA3 is that it's not nearly as violent as it's been made out to be. Yes, you can run over and shoot pedestrians, but it's done in such a cartoony and unrealistic way that you don't think of them as 'people'. They all looked the same so you quickly thought of them as fodder. In Postal 2, the killings are a lot more personal because the people look a lot more realistic. Sure, it could be that after a while you stop thinking of the people as 'people' just like you did with GTA3, but the fact remains that Postal 2 is far more violent and disturbing than GTA3.

The other thing about GTA3 is this: how long did it take you to get bored with running around and shooting people over and over and over again? I know I got bored of it after about half an hour, and after that I just loved driving around in cars and getting into car chases. This is not possible in Postal 2. Postal 2's gameplay consists only of the thing I got bored of in GTA3 in just half an hour so I don't see a lot of lasting interest in P2.

153.
 
WOW .... its been a while!
Oct 17, 2002, 04:02
WOW .... its been a while! Oct 17, 2002, 04:02
Oct 17, 2002, 04:02
 
i havent posted on this topic in say 3 days and now its at 152!! fuck....anyways... i think some of you have your views slightly skewed! i can guarentee most of you have that whole "DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO!" mindset, and i guarentee you all played GTA3, and have preordered it!! yes some of the plot points have you killing other mobsters and what not but im sure you went around and killed like a lil bandit!! its whats fun, yes the missions are also fun, but being able to take out your aggression on a digital character is how us Y2k kids get it out!! sort of like the pet rock of the old times!! some people beat up a pillow, some punch the wall, others actually go kill!! well fuck that, my pillow is for sleeping, my wall is for keeping out the rain, and well to kill is just moronic! but thats why i have video games, it gives me a way to take out my aggression without doing anything illegal!! and id bet most of you love violent movies!! and you wouldnt post how Ahnold Schvazzzeniiger is corrupting our youth!! hell i saw t2 when i was young and i didnt go kill people! I dont know why you read video game news if you cant take violence in the media!! SHEEESH! you silly silly boys!

152.
 
Re: promise
Oct 16, 2002, 23:28
Re: promise Oct 16, 2002, 23:28
Oct 16, 2002, 23:28
 
I must apologise for the double post - I've tried to delete it - but it won't die. Sorry again.

151.
 
Re: promise
Oct 16, 2002, 23:25
Re: promise Oct 16, 2002, 23:25
Oct 16, 2002, 23:25
 
Fuck that - viewpoints vary, and frankly I enjoy hearing the differentiating versions. I both hope this thread continues and that viewpoints other than mine are heard and voiced.

I of course am pro-Postal 2. However I do understand the opponents of P2 and enjoy hearing their viewpoints as well!

150.
 
Re: promise
Oct 16, 2002, 23:24
Re: promise Oct 16, 2002, 23:24
Oct 16, 2002, 23:24
 
Fuck that - viewpoints vary, and frankly I enjoy hearing the differentiating version. I both hope this thread continues and that viewpoints other than mine are heard and voiced.

I of course am pro-Postal 2. However I do understand the opponents of P2 and enjoy hearing their viewpoints as well!

149.
 
promise
Oct 16, 2002, 22:40
promise Oct 16, 2002, 22:40
Oct 16, 2002, 22:40
 
Ok every1 promise me that this forum ends at 200 posts where people go this is a game for people who wants to buy it and if you don't like it or whatever just go well I won't buy it because I chose not to... No reason... That is all there is to say... It's not my type of game, not because it sux... That is neither true or false... So to 200 it is... You are welcome BluesNews

148.
 
heh
Oct 16, 2002, 20:27
heh Oct 16, 2002, 20:27
Oct 16, 2002, 20:27
 
just watched the movie again... creamed my shorts again...

hope someone makes a 'Rape' mod for this thing...

147.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 19:47
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 19:47
Oct 16, 2002, 19:47
 
I'm not going to argue with that.

My opinions on the game itself haven't entirely changed, though this whole shebang has given me a chance to think through why I actually get annoyed by it.

Anyway.

I'm going to bed.

146.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 19:44
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 19:44
Oct 16, 2002, 19:44
 
But anyway, the point is salespeople should be more responsible and should be more heavily punished for selling games/videos/etc to underage kids".

Wow. That's a pretty far fling from "this game will bomb and be rubbish and is sick and deprived and if you like it you like stepping on puppies and there's no point to this game and no good can come of it" ramblings that you started off with.

I'm glad you're finally starting to look at this in a more-logical-less-knee-jerk kinda way.

145.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 19:38
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 19:38
Oct 16, 2002, 19:38
 
I've not changed the subject. Lest you forget, conversations evolve from one subject to another. And in this case I've kinda gotten round to the core of my argument against this game. But never mind...

I agree - it should be down to parents to responsibly look after their children. However, a lot of them seem incapable of doing so i.e. they allow their kids access to 18 rated films (M rated? Similar I presume, I'm from the UK) so unfortunately the government has to step in. I too dislike the idea of the government running families. But anyway, the point is salespeople should be more responsible and should be more heavily punished for selling games/videos/etc to underage kids.

So... yes, can we just agree that parents should parent their kids properly and I can go to bed? I'm kinda tired.

144.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 19:34
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 19:34
Oct 16, 2002, 19:34
 
Ohhhh, so you're talking about all M rated games now, not just Postal 2? The topic here is Postal 2 Movie, not "Enforcing Ratings on EVERYTHING", so it was of course assumed that you were limiting your statements to Postal 2. Oh, well, thanks for letting everyone know you decided to change the subject in the middle of a debate!

Anyway, I don't want the government raising my kids, thanks, so I don't expect them to. Somehow I feel like I could do a better job. So it wouldn't matter to me if it was illegal for a child to purchase an M rated game, because my decision is the deciding factor for my kids. If all parents were so proactively involved with their children's lives, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Hey Von Helmet, why don't you change the subject again to "Parents should actually parent their kids!", at least then I would be in agreement with you and this could end.

143.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 19:24
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 19:24
Oct 16, 2002, 19:24
 
NO!

For fuck's sake, read what I said. Sorry to bite your head off, but I did not say that all.

No, we should not ban everything that could be a risk. I vehemently disagree with that kind of censorship. However... Restrictions should be made, kept and stuck to. Same goes for TV, films, whatever. If it's a possible risk it should be restricted to those to whom it's not a risk. The best way of doing that at present is the age restrictions. But they need enforcing. Yes, parents need to do their jobs, but so do store clerks and such.

Man, I don't mean to mouth off but I wrote exactly that in my last post and you've just ignored it and read what you wanted to bitch about.

[Edit in response to yours...]

What, so I express an opinion that does not agree with the masses, in a clear and polite fashion and I deserve to flamed? Um, OK.
Secondly, I'm not close-minded. I have strong opinions, but I'm not close-minded. The stronger they are the harder they are to bend round, but the same goes for everyone. I just happen to have very strong views on this matter, for whatever reason.
I never assumed everyone else would have a problem with this game. If I did I wouldn't be arguing the case now, would I?
And no, my opinion does not equal fact. I've argued enough in my time to know that opinions are not facts. I never went so far as to say or act like my opinion was God's Holy Word. Just because I express my opinions in a forthright manner doesn't mean I think they are the absolute truth. As I already said, opinions are not truth or fact.

As for my original comments... it may well not bomb, though *in my opinion* it will suck and be rubbish. Man, do you have to prefix every statement you make with *in my opinion* round here just in case someone assumes you think what you say is gospel truth? Apparently so.
This comment was edited on Oct 16, 19:34.
142.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 19:13
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 19:13
Oct 16, 2002, 19:13
 
#141:

So overly-violent games might negatively influence some minute percentage of the population (besides kids, which I don't consider an issue; ratings are there for a reason, parents, do your fucking jobs! Laws or no laws, parents are the main factor, in my opinion, as far as kids go. Postal 2 is rated M, enough said). This same argument has been made about TV, movies, music, and so on, yet has never been substantiated with real proof. Once you can prove to me that it is the games that are the problem, then your opinion might have some weight. But, because of the possibility that games have a negative impact on some extremely small percentage of the population, we should ban them? Uh.. huh... So should we continue down this overly-conservative, right-wing line of thought, and ban each and everything that could harm someone somewhere?

I think I've had enough of this "debate", it's becoming juvenile now.

And, as an aside, anyone as rediculously close-minded as you deserves to be flamed. You have a problem with the game, and you assume everyone else does too, and thus your opinion must equal fact. Have you noticed that out of 142 posts in this thread, no one has agreed with you? Some other people don't like the game, but they're not being so arrogant as to assume their opinion is God's Holy Word, like you. Meanwhile, plenty of people have agreed with anon@216.23 and myself. Take a hint. Lots of people want Postal 2. To return to the original point, the game will not "bomb", will not be "rubbish", will not "suck" for that very reason.


This comment was edited on Oct 16, 19:23.
141.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 18:54
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 18:54
Oct 16, 2002, 18:54
 
I think people should be protected from games that could induce negative behaviour i.e. kids shouldn't be able to acquire a game like this. I realise there are already laws in place but they need to be tightened and people need to be punished for breaking them. So yes - I agree that the few should be protected in favour of the masses, rather than the other way around.

That's not me changing me argument, just coming to one conclusion of it.

In terms of this game, it could be seen as irresponsible to produce such a game in the light of such poor restrictions and laws.

And as for how we determine what is negatively influential... I'll tell you what you want to hear by saying that the judge of that should be me.

Not that it's what I believe, just giving you another moment to feel better than me

To be honest, that's a big problem. The people capable of handling a game like this know they can handle it and that it won't do them any harm. This is OK.
Those who aren't capable of handling it without it inducing negative behaviour may think they can handle it, or they don't care anyway.
So it gets very hard to judge who should or shouldn't be allowed access to violent games. The age restriction thing is the easiest guide so far, but it should be more rigorously enforced. Besides that, there's not a lot that can be done. Well, not without doing psychometric tests on every game buyer, but that may be a little bit too much trouble...

So yeah. I guess the real axe I have to grind is about overtly violent games and the bad influence they can have on the few who are susceptible to such an influence.

Maybe I am changing the point I'm arguing, but I'm not changing my stance.

Oh, and I wouldn't say I was deserving of flames. My arguments have been polite and structured. Not always well researched or to your liking, but since when did a difference of opinion warrant flaming? Oh yeah... this is the internet, I remember now.

140.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 18:23
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 18:23
Oct 16, 2002, 18:23
 
#138:

"I realise you aren't killing people in the physical sense, and that they are merely characters in a game, but I think it makes a whole lot more sense if there is a reason to kill such characters".

Won't somebody think of the children?!

There is a reason. Remember? People have spent the last 3 pages explaining to you this concept. Over. And over. And over. Different tastes, different preferrences, etc. I think it's great that you don't support a game you don't like, but there IS a reason for what goes on in the game. Don't act like there isn't, that just makes you look dumb. Again. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. And just because you can't see a point to something, it doesn't make it meaningless.

"Especially as there are people who do in fact seem unable to make the distinction. Those are the people who seemingly need protection".

I'm curious -- how do you define protection? By restricting the access of something harmful to a few, while allowing the rest who can handle it access? Or by restricting the access of something harmful to a few, for all?

If you agree with the first part, then I don't really see what your point is, and it's just another example of you saying one thing one moment, then turning around and saying something completely different the next.

If you agree with the second part, then by that logic, we ought to ban all things that might be negatively influential to someone, somewhere.

Of course, then we run into the problem of who determines what is negatively influential, and what isn't. I bet I can guess who you're thinking would be the judge of that.
This comment was edited on Oct 16, 18:28.
139.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 18:23
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 18:23
Oct 16, 2002, 18:23
 
#138:

I realise you aren't killing people in the physical sense, and that they are merely characters in a game, but I think it makes a whole lot more sense if there is a reason to kill such characters.

I can't disagree with this statement. But having a reason to do so, and doing so going against one's moral code/ethics/whatever or being offensive (which is what you have stated previously) are two different things. Changing your argument yet again... Not being interested in a game that doesn't give you a good reason to kill people I can understand; being offended by one is simply asinine.

Especially as there are people who do in fact seem unable to make the distinction. Those are the people who seemingly need protection. I've read more than a few news articles about morons shooting people after playing games. I don't think games directly influence behaviour - in right minded people - but weak minded or young kids can get the wrong idea. That coupled with free access to weapons a la the good old U.S. of A is a bad idea.

Again, I can't disagree with this statement. Regarding kids, that's what ratings are for; parents, do your jobs. Regarding weak-minded people, I don't think they are going to make a distinction on whether or not there was a good reason for killing people in a game, especially seeing as most games that do have a reason are still "kill everyone you see" games; the only distinction between those games and Postal 2 is that in those games, the people you kill are deemed "the enemy" by the plot. By and large, I don't think Postal 2 will be much more dangerous to weak-minded people than, say, SoF2 or Half-Life. If a violent game is going to set someone off, it will set them off regardless of plot.

But anyway. I await flames.

Well, if anyone deserves them, it's you.


This comment was edited on Oct 16, 18:25.
138.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 17:42
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 17:42
Oct 16, 2002, 17:42
 
I realise you aren't killing people in the physical sense, and that they are merely characters in a game, but I think it makes a whole lot more sense if there is a reason to kill such characters.

Especially as there are people who do in fact seem unable to make the distinction. Those are the people who seemingly need protection. I've read more than a few news articles about morons shooting people after playing games. I don't think games directly influence behaviour - in right minded people - but weak minded or young kids can get the wrong idea. That coupled with free access to weapons a la the good old U.S. of A is a bad idea.

But anyway. I await flames.

137.
 
Re: Intriguing
Oct 16, 2002, 17:20
Re: Intriguing Oct 16, 2002, 17:20
Oct 16, 2002, 17:20
 
#135:

I'd just rather there was a good reason within games to be killing the people in question.

For the last time, you aren't killing people, it's a fucking game!

Amazing, in two adjecent sentences, you directly contradict yourself. In one, you say you understand the difference, in the next, you call computer characters people and beg a reason to kill them. You aren't killing them (in the literal sense), and they sure as hell aren't people.

And for those of you who have been saying that the use of profanity only weakens an argument, I have two words for you: Blow me.


This comment was edited on Oct 16, 17:24.
156 Replies. 8 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Older