Bulletstorm

[TheGunheart]

I'm loving the demo thus far. This is more my kind of FPS: cover is merely a suggestion, you have to constantly move forward to beat the clock, and repeating the same trick over and over isn't going to get you points.

I'm also liking the level structure a bit more than Painkiller's arena setup. It keeps the momentum going.

[Feynman]

I'm interested in the game, but I'll have to wait until probably April or May at the soonest before buying it becomes feasible. Way too much good stuff coming out this month and next for me to get everything I want right away, and Bulletstorm is the kind of game that will be readily available for quite some time.

[justjustin]

Posting some screens to get people pumped up... although the console versions don't look quite this good. Maybe it's possible on the PC.




This is an awesome game. I tried the demo on the PS3 a few weeks ago and more recently on the 360. If you're a stickler for visual quality I recommend the 360 version based on the demo. There's less screen tearing and the 360's hardware scaling makes for a slightly sharper looking game compared to the PS3 version.

It's refreshing to play an FPS that really does something new in the genre. It doesn't feel like any other FPS or third person shooter I've played in the last decade. If I had to place it somewhere on the shooter spectrum I would put it somewhere closer to Doom. If Bulletstorm doesn't leave a good impression the first time around, try it again. Try sliding everywhere, switching your weapons a lot, using more melee moves, using less caution. It's a loud, frenetic game and if I had one complaint it's that you're a bit too strong compared to your enemies. It's tough to really determine how the final game will be, though, as this just demonstrates a small segment of a level in a score-based mode. I have high hopes for Bulletstorm.

[kal]

So based on the fact that in Necrovision I basically knifed everyone to death, after shooting them in the face, I'm guessing Bulletstorm is a must buy.

[roushimsx]

Feb 7, 2011 20:22:36 GMT -5 kal said:

So based on the fact that in Necrovision I basically knifed everyone to death, after shooting them in the face, I'm guessing Bulletstorm is a must buy.

You gotta boot them in the air and then shoot them with the shotgun! I'm also a fan of blowing their legs off and kicking them in the head.

NecroVisioN is so horribly underrated.

[retr0gamer]

If you all liked the demo you're going to love the 4 player co-op even more, it's amazing!

[muteKi]

Feb 7, 2011 18:26:20 GMT -5 justjustin said:

It's refreshing to play an FPS that really does something new in the genre. It doesn't feel like any other FPS or third person shooter I've played in the last decade. If I had to place it somewhere on the shooter spectrum I would put it somewhere closer to Doom. If Bulletstorm doesn't leave a good impression the first time around, try it again. Try sliding everywhere, switching your weapons a lot, using more melee moves, using less caution. It's a loud, frenetic game and if I had one complaint it's that you're a bit too strong compared to your enemies. It's tough to really determine how the final game will be, though, as this just demonstrates a small segment of a level in a score-based mode. I have high hopes for Bulletstorm.

Hm, this sounds like it might be something I'm actually interested in, then.

[justjustin]

For some reason, in my first post I failed to say how it actually does something different in the genre. Like Doom it puts the focus back on intense violence and speed, but replaces the mazes and keys with more modern FPS level design. So, it's more like you're following one path but what's new is the scoring system and how elaborate killing techniques contribute to better score. And the score isn't just shoehorned in and ultimately superfluous, which is a trap so many modern games fall into when trying to bring back "old school" scoring. Score is deeply ingrained in everything you do, constantly affecting the decisions you make. It feels well-balanced to fit with all the different weapons and moves you have. At least, this is my impression from the "score attack" level in the demo.

I'm left wondering how the main "story mode" of the game will be paced, and what further incentive there will be for getting good score. Just from the demo, it seems like getting a big number is the best incentive and feeling cool for coming up with the best ways to kill enemies. I have a feeling the motivation for doing well will run deeper in the main game, though.

[loempiavreter]

I have not been fond of much of modern days FPS'es. This one looks slghtly more in my direction of likes, onyl thing I'm wondering about is if it features (a lot of) boss battles?

[Snarboo]

Bumping for release day.

So who's going to buy this game? I preordered it from Amazon a few days ago but it won't get here for about a week because I chose super saver shipping. I'm kinda pissed they announced a demo for PC after release. Oh well, this game looks like something I'd enjoy so I'm not worried.

[pkt]

Going to wait for the demo first, to see if the PC version has been consolized. But otherwise it's interesting, always liked classic Doom-style shooters, and Painkiller was great fun.

[kitten]

I tried the demo and didn't even finish it. I found the game very boring. There's far too much of an emphasis on getting higher score (which, even when not in score attack, is what I hear effects your currency). Enemies are made laughably weak in comparison to your character, and the only way to impose a challenge is by playing the game as ridiculously as possible. I mean, I'm sure the higher difficulties make the game "harder," but it's highly unlikely they're going to make the enemy AI stop standing out in the open waiting for you to grab them and then fire your gun up their anus. What's more likely to happen is a scaling of damage to your character's health, which will only serve to make the game more insipid to play (I also hear the higher difficulty forces you to get more stylish kills, as upgrades are more expensive).

The game's method of scoring basically kills trying to play the game for survival and forces you to cycle through all the available stylish kills you know until you've milked as many points out of them as possible. This is absurdly tedious to me and makes the game overly methodical to play if you're aiming to play it the way the developers intended you to. For the same reasons, I find a lot of vertical shooters, particularly danmaku like Ikaruga, to basically put me to sleep when I'm playing. If I'm playing the game for survival, it's just not very fun, as it's clear the game was designed around score. If I play it for score, it becomes so overtly methodical that I just dislike it.

Considering these same guys did the "Duty Calls" trailer, I was expecting the game to be a lot less... "BORING" than this. At least AI in the games Duty Calls was making fun of would move around, hide behind cover and provide a challenge. In BulletStorm, they just stand there so you can press a series of buttons on them to get points. If you're going to be making fun of something for being boring, partially in order to hype your new game and cause controversy, at least have your game be a slight bit more exciting than what you're making fun of. Anyway, uh, I guess it does something different! And CliffyB won't shut the fuck up about it, so you know it's good!

Edit: I guess it's worth mentioning that I really enjoyed Painkiller and consider Doom and Doom II two of my favorite games. I by no means went in wanting to think this game was incredibly boring, nor do I dislike "old school" FPS's.

[justjustin]

I almost couldn't finish it my first time through, and I was glad when it was over my first time. I played it again a week later and while it was a little better, there was simply no incentive to get high scores beyond seeing numbers appear on the screen. Overall, just like Kitten says, pretty boring. Still not sure how it will turn out in the context of a story/campaign mode, but I want to believe it will be a much better game.

[Deleted]

I used to hate playing for score, as well. Then I found the magic ingredient...Achievements. The pursuit of 1cc runs on Espgaluda II goes hand in hand with a high score, which in turn earns you an Achievement. Somehow, that helped it all make sense to me.

[justjustin]

That might be the only example I know of where an achievement helps teach someone how to play a game, by adding one more incentive. A player could be baffled at first when trying to 1cc a game but the achievement keeps them going. Then they learn the score is inextricably linked to survival. A good score means more lives and a better chance at survival.

And even though Bulletstorm seems to have something similar (get good score for unlockable weapons/upgrades to better survive) I have a feeling the game won't be difficult enough for those upgrades to really matter in the long run, and they might just make the game really easy (almost like an incentive not to get a good score). In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize score might be pointless-- or at least insanely hard to utilize in meaningful ways-- when a game is longer than an hour or two. And when considering the kinds of games score is in these days, it might as well just be virtual money you can grind for... which we've already seen in a billion games.

If People Can Fly are geniuses they'll actually make scoring not boring. They had better, since the weapons are based so closely around it. Scoring won't be something "optional." The violent (funny) death animations, and the weapons being balanced for creative combos is a start, but how long will that be fun when it might not matter long term? Not even Platinum Games-- people quite well versed in action game development-- could make score fun in Vanquish. And it was just as meaningless in Bayonetta.

All that to say, Bulletstorm could still be good. The score might hamper it a bit, but if the other aspects of the game are really exciting and enjoyable it could take my mind off any possible scoring issues.