@putaspongeon: Actually, the game was about investigating a conspiracy and getting to the real story behind the situation. It's not about collecting anything. That's why you have an extremely limited inventory. Also, not about free roaming. That's why you are usually stuck in a very small area, like a mall.
@putaspongeon: Firstly, the devs who are making this game did not make Dead Rising. Secondly, you don't know the devs made that decision. It could be made by a producer or a marketing exec.
Yes, you can enjoy a videogame however you like. You can enjoy it as a door stop if you want. However, to do so, may perhaps be wasting some of its potential. If we follow your argument to its inevitable, and slightly nihilistic, conclusion, game design matters little, so long as people subjectively enjoy the game.
If you didn't like the time limit, there is the distinct possibility that the game wasn't meant for you. That's fine. Being esoteric isn't a crime.
Dead Rising, more than anything else was about the time limit. The zombies were never more than a nuisance. They did, however, slow you down, which only really made sense when you were racing against the clock. If you think DR was about dressing up in zany clothes and using ridiculous weapons to kill zombies, then I'm sorry, you sort of missed the point. Those are the things that get you in the door. The game was about exploration, but it didn't artificially block parts of the map until you "finished the fire dungeon and got the bracelet of power to bypass a single obstruction". The game used the time limit to hinder your efforts to explore.
Without a time limit, I have a hunch this game will be much worse for the want of it.
@dzimm: First of all, I never said "story" in my post. I was talking about acting, and specifically, how being dramatic isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Second of all, your saying is garbage. We almost exclusively play games for the story, because without story, a game has little context or meaning, making it a series of abstract tasks with no real objective.
As for no games having a good story? Well, that's subjective, so I guess so. On the other hand, there are plenty of games which are acclaimed for their plots, characterisations and ideas, so you seem to be in the minority as far as your appreciation of narratives in videogames go.
Gameplay is hardly ever fun "in of itself" and you rarely try to find one to divorce itself from writing with the exception of the most abstract of puzzle games.
This is one of the best interviews I've seen on Gamespot in a long time. You asked real questions and you didn't pander to the interviewee. It was a pleasure to read, thank you.
I have no love for Oculus. I'm willing to pay the extra couple hundred dollars to send a colossal "F-you" to them by buying a Vive. This just makes me feel that my decision is correct. Lies and exclusives and asshole execs willing to give the most vapid, polished responses goes against everything Kickstarter was supposed to stand for: an open and honest dialogue with developers. I have no patience for this corporate marketing bullshit and have no respect for a company that relies on it, rather than the product, to try and move its merchandise.
Why did Gerstmann leave Gamespot *nervous laughter*. Oh it was, ah, controversial? We fired him for publishing a bad review for a game that was genuinely bad. Something like that.
Just to put emphasis on this: Napoleon himself demonstrated how well medieval cavalry holds up against 19th century formations: the Battle of the Pyramids. According to Napoleon, 25 French deaths versus 20,000 Mamluk deaths (Spoiler: He was probably lying to self-agrandise; however, no other records with statistics of the battle exist.)
You think a bunch of neo-lithic savages (Orks, had you forgot) with improvised weapons would have done better?
The district system is not multiple systems working together. It is a single system. Just because districts give different bonuses, doesn't mean that each district is its own system.
If Napoleon's armies were bigger, stronger and less disciplined, they would have lost worse. Napoleon lost Waterloo because his underlings wouldn't follow orders. He lost most of his cavalry because they thought it was a good idea to charge the Square formations of the British troops.
In a war of manoeuver, discipline was of the utmost importance. What are Orks going to do when they lose half a regiment to grapeshot? Concentrated volley fire would just do what it does to all disorganised forces: rout them. If the British could accomplish Rorke's Drift with 150 men (versus 4000-5000) (to their credit, the Zulu were just coming off the battle of Isandlwana where they massacred the British troops), what do you think Wellington would have done if Napoleon swapped out his crack Guard and his artillery (which was his primary strength) with a disorganised mob of primitives? He would have cut them to ribbons. The world's greatest general can do NOTHING if he troops do not listen to his commands!
Verenti's comments