Super.hype: Week 20, 2011

Super.hype is the closest thing to a preview that a guy like me can muster. It'll contain super obvious information, super obvious expectations, and super opinionated commentary preceded by news blurbs about what's up and coming in the hyped-up world of AAA games (and AAA gamesblogs).

The first game to have the honor of  Super.hype is Red Faction: Armageddon.

NEWS FOR THE WEEK of 5/23:
  • Kotaku thinks the new Deathspank game is gonna be great
  • Firingsquad (one of my favorite PC gaming blogs) posted a new video of MW3. No codpieces, though.
  • Gearbox is all revved up about Duke Nukem Forever. It's goooooooooooold baby!
  • Valve continues to push Steam onto its everloving public. And GDC of course.
 A wild super.hype appears! Prepare for battle...  

     When I hurt you, it means I care about you
    Title: Red Faction: Armageddon
    Developer: Volition
    Publisher: THQ
    Release: June 7, 2011
    Multiplatform (PC, PS3, X360)
    Price: $59.99 (USD)

    Destroy everything in sight. But this time, you're underground. Paradigm: shifted!



    the merits of pedigree

    Mother always said "honesty  is the best policy" as she fed me with marshmallows and breast milk, so for better or for worse I believed it to be the truth. So honestly, I'm only interested in this game because of Red Faction: Guerilla. Guerilla changed the way I played other games. Now, buildings in games mean missed opportunities. They mean broken promises and empty threats. Damn your flashy ways!

    now! with added danger

    The only foreseeable problem with this next game really is in the more ancillary elements like "look" and "feel". The gameplay, as long as it is as stable, substantial, and meaty as the Guerilla, will be successful enough. But that still leaves the question of whether or not the instrusive (extrusive) cutscenes are a delight or a bore. Now, there may be a few reasons why they'd be awesome, but I've already spotted one thing that miffs me a bit: bare chests.
    She's a lady, woah woah woah
    Don't get me wrong. I love the ladies. I love their ladylike features and their ladylike presence. I love the ladylike scent they bring into the room and the ladylike impressions they do of their ladylike friends. I also like boobs, man.

    believe me, you wouldn't want to

    The problem here, though, is that this kind of "look" makes no sense for a character to have in the proposed world of RF:A. I submit these next images for your perusal:
    They called this "staring contest" because if it was called "impaling contest" there would be NO CONTEST

    I only circled his upper ones but look at his FEET. What the hell is going on here
    Rolling from this guy is like trying to roll from a wood chipper. *CHIPPCHIPPCHIPP*
    Really? COME ON

    My mother also reinforced pattern recognition in me as a baby too. Look ma! Patterns!

    chests are from mars, breasts are from venus

    Seriously. I'm all for having beautiful people in games. In all media. I know there's this issue of body image and whatever with movies and role models, but I say hey, we NEED good-looking people to be role models because it means those of us who aren't (yours truly) can at least enjoy their existence (because there really is an objective measure of beauty, really). But this all needs to make some sense. To draw a line from fashion, which is filled with people who are often as beautiful as their are insensible, Coco Chanel changed that world by being practical and reasonable, not by being flamboyant or "avant-garde".

    I'm not saying Volition needs to pull a Coco Chanel. They just need to address this issue:
    That's right. Who said it? Me. That's right.
    It's a small issue maybe. But it makes no sense. It makes no sense!

    Please, make it make some sense.
    Alright so just cut out that red circle and put it on the model on top, ok? How hard is that?

    He gets TWO guns. So selfish!!

    Popular posts from this blog

    Xenogears: The Article

    Hating God is a very easy thing to do. He is big, he is vague, and he is probably kind of smelly. Maybe not smelly in the most traditional terms, but he probably does have some kind of strong and overpowering odor about him that acts like sort of an aura. He has an aura, too. That’s a thing, right? I’d go further to say that hating God is so easy that we probably do it sub-consciously, without real effort, because really, it takes no effort. It’s not that hating God is innate , because that would mean we somehow don’t have a choice to do so, like it’s some instinctual habitual need for us to hate God, which would in turn imply that God instinctually and innately exists in some way else this innate instinct would be pointless and unexplainable. What I am saying is that hating God is the path of least resistance when faced with the idea that God might possibly exist, and I am going to go further and say that eventually everyone must decide what to do with that idea . And
    Onward... >>

    Mass Effect 3: You're wrong, but that's ok

    Image
        I often find myself in conversations with people who seem to think that a particular game really ought to be played and enjoyed by everybody . These people are wrong, but that’s beside the point. In spite of being wrong though, they allow me to bring up a better point: some games just aren’t meant for some people.      Before we start, let’s all just agree that it’s okay to have different goals and different emphases and it’s okay to be someone who enjoys some parts of a game and not others. Still, what I’d eventually like to say is that it’s not okay to misinterpret that dislike for some kind of fundamental error in design logic and subsequently disregard the quality of the game as a whole, because what that does is shut your mind off to the possibility that you might actually enjoy something that doesn’t meet your expectations. Case in point: Mass Effect 3 .     It’s no coincidence that I’m using Mass Effect 3 as an example here. This article is a direct response to t
    Onward... >>