The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Killing. We all love it. I know how much you people like to murder things in cold blood. I know that you especially like to murder people. Violently. I like it too. I like to kill things. Who doesn’t? Weirdoes, that’s who, geeks, nerds, crazy mofos who don’t know what’s good for them. Killing is good for you. It alleviates mental strain and stress, and nobody likes mental strain or stress. So we should all kill more people. With as much mess as possible.
When you kill someone, especially someone who is pointing a gun at your face, it is good. And we all like to feel good. So why don’t we all kill people all the time? Because they don’t give us enough damn ammo. Those crazy developers. I can imagine their board meetings:
“Right, so we’re making a game about killing”
“But the testers say it’s too easy”
“I know how we can solve that, we could put taxing puzzles in or make the levels longer”
“No, the programmers are too lazy”
“Oh, well then just halve the ammo and release it, people will think it makes the game more challenging”
One particular offender comes to mind. Resident Evil. Especially the remake on the Gamecube. If you’re going to shoot things, you should shoot them properly. They should all be dead. There shouldn’t be any need to run away to ‘conserve your ammo’. Where’s the fun in that?
“I won’t kill this one, I’m saving ammo for the boss”
Great. Just why I’m playing the game, because I want to complete it quickly. Not because I want to enjoy it. That’s right. Actually no. If the game let’s you kill things, it should always let you kill them. A game shouldn’t be impossible to complete because you’ve ‘killed too many things already’. I want to kill things. That’s why I’m playing the game.
If ammo is scarce to encourage stealth, then that’s fine, I’m all for stealth. But it should never be so scarce that you can’t kill things. If you only have enough ammo for one headshot for each enemy, then that’s fine, but if you can’t get headshots on enemies, then why conserve ammo?
It’s lazy. It’s a cheap way to prolong playing time. Imagine Goldeneye if you didn’t have enough bullets to kill all the guards, and you had to run past them. That would be great fun, wouldn’t it?
Some games use ammo to great effect. Mafia has a certain amount of ammo for each enemy, and you can actually count how many shots they have taken, so you know how much ammo they have. You can go for the quick kill so that you get all their ammo, or you can let them use up a whole clip, and reload, before attacking. That’s strategy. That’s how you make a game fun. Not by forcing the player to run away like some limbless octopus.
So, then, what have we learned? Ammo. I want it, and I either want loads of it or none of it. There should be no in betweens. You should either kill things or not, there should be no in betweens. It’s simple. It’s lazy, and it’s the way I want it always to be.
When you kill someone, especially someone who is pointing a gun at your face, it is good. And we all like to feel good. So why don’t we all kill people all the time? Because they don’t give us enough damn ammo. Those crazy developers. I can imagine their board meetings:
“Right, so we’re making a game about killing”
“But the testers say it’s too easy”
“I know how we can solve that, we could put taxing puzzles in or make the levels longer”
“No, the programmers are too lazy”
“Oh, well then just halve the ammo and release it, people will think it makes the game more challenging”
One particular offender comes to mind. Resident Evil. Especially the remake on the Gamecube. If you’re going to shoot things, you should shoot them properly. They should all be dead. There shouldn’t be any need to run away to ‘conserve your ammo’. Where’s the fun in that?
“I won’t kill this one, I’m saving ammo for the boss”
Great. Just why I’m playing the game, because I want to complete it quickly. Not because I want to enjoy it. That’s right. Actually no. If the game let’s you kill things, it should always let you kill them. A game shouldn’t be impossible to complete because you’ve ‘killed too many things already’. I want to kill things. That’s why I’m playing the game.
If ammo is scarce to encourage stealth, then that’s fine, I’m all for stealth. But it should never be so scarce that you can’t kill things. If you only have enough ammo for one headshot for each enemy, then that’s fine, but if you can’t get headshots on enemies, then why conserve ammo?
It’s lazy. It’s a cheap way to prolong playing time. Imagine Goldeneye if you didn’t have enough bullets to kill all the guards, and you had to run past them. That would be great fun, wouldn’t it?
Some games use ammo to great effect. Mafia has a certain amount of ammo for each enemy, and you can actually count how many shots they have taken, so you know how much ammo they have. You can go for the quick kill so that you get all their ammo, or you can let them use up a whole clip, and reload, before attacking. That’s strategy. That’s how you make a game fun. Not by forcing the player to run away like some limbless octopus.
So, then, what have we learned? Ammo. I want it, and I either want loads of it or none of it. There should be no in betweens. You should either kill things or not, there should be no in betweens. It’s simple. It’s lazy, and it’s the way I want it always to be.
Then again, Resident Evil wasn't all about shooting.
It wouldn't have been so scary if you could just blast away every enemy you came into contact with...
It wouldn't have been so scary if you could just blast away every enemy you came into contact with...
Sorry UW, I thought you'd win too.
What can I say?
What can I say?
I wasnt expecting this to win.
Thanks loads SR.
:D
Thanks loads SR.
:D
Killing. We all love it. I know how much you people like to murder things in cold blood. I know that you especially like to murder people. Violently. I like it too. I like to kill things. Who doesn’t? Weirdoes, that’s who, geeks, nerds, crazy mofos who don’t know what’s good for them. Killing is good for you. It alleviates mental strain and stress, and nobody likes mental strain or stress. So we should all kill more people. With as much mess as possible.
When you kill someone, especially someone who is pointing a gun at your face, it is good. And we all like to feel good. So why don’t we all kill people all the time? Because they don’t give us enough damn ammo. Those crazy developers. I can imagine their board meetings:
“Right, so we’re making a game about killing”
“But the testers say it’s too easy”
“I know how we can solve that, we could put taxing puzzles in or make the levels longer”
“No, the programmers are too lazy”
“Oh, well then just halve the ammo and release it, people will think it makes the game more challenging”
One particular offender comes to mind. Resident Evil. Especially the remake on the Gamecube. If you’re going to shoot things, you should shoot them properly. They should all be dead. There shouldn’t be any need to run away to ‘conserve your ammo’. Where’s the fun in that?
“I won’t kill this one, I’m saving ammo for the boss”
Great. Just why I’m playing the game, because I want to complete it quickly. Not because I want to enjoy it. That’s right. Actually no. If the game let’s you kill things, it should always let you kill them. A game shouldn’t be impossible to complete because you’ve ‘killed too many things already’. I want to kill things. That’s why I’m playing the game.
If ammo is scarce to encourage stealth, then that’s fine, I’m all for stealth. But it should never be so scarce that you can’t kill things. If you only have enough ammo for one headshot for each enemy, then that’s fine, but if you can’t get headshots on enemies, then why conserve ammo?
It’s lazy. It’s a cheap way to prolong playing time. Imagine Goldeneye if you didn’t have enough bullets to kill all the guards, and you had to run past them. That would be great fun, wouldn’t it?
Some games use ammo to great effect. Mafia has a certain amount of ammo for each enemy, and you can actually count how many shots they have taken, so you know how much ammo they have. You can go for the quick kill so that you get all their ammo, or you can let them use up a whole clip, and reload, before attacking. That’s strategy. That’s how you make a game fun. Not by forcing the player to run away like some limbless octopus.
So, then, what have we learned? Ammo. I want it, and I either want loads of it or none of it. There should be no in betweens. You should either kill things or not, there should be no in betweens. It’s simple. It’s lazy, and it’s the way I want it always to be.
When you kill someone, especially someone who is pointing a gun at your face, it is good. And we all like to feel good. So why don’t we all kill people all the time? Because they don’t give us enough damn ammo. Those crazy developers. I can imagine their board meetings:
“Right, so we’re making a game about killing”
“But the testers say it’s too easy”
“I know how we can solve that, we could put taxing puzzles in or make the levels longer”
“No, the programmers are too lazy”
“Oh, well then just halve the ammo and release it, people will think it makes the game more challenging”
One particular offender comes to mind. Resident Evil. Especially the remake on the Gamecube. If you’re going to shoot things, you should shoot them properly. They should all be dead. There shouldn’t be any need to run away to ‘conserve your ammo’. Where’s the fun in that?
“I won’t kill this one, I’m saving ammo for the boss”
Great. Just why I’m playing the game, because I want to complete it quickly. Not because I want to enjoy it. That’s right. Actually no. If the game let’s you kill things, it should always let you kill them. A game shouldn’t be impossible to complete because you’ve ‘killed too many things already’. I want to kill things. That’s why I’m playing the game.
If ammo is scarce to encourage stealth, then that’s fine, I’m all for stealth. But it should never be so scarce that you can’t kill things. If you only have enough ammo for one headshot for each enemy, then that’s fine, but if you can’t get headshots on enemies, then why conserve ammo?
It’s lazy. It’s a cheap way to prolong playing time. Imagine Goldeneye if you didn’t have enough bullets to kill all the guards, and you had to run past them. That would be great fun, wouldn’t it?
Some games use ammo to great effect. Mafia has a certain amount of ammo for each enemy, and you can actually count how many shots they have taken, so you know how much ammo they have. You can go for the quick kill so that you get all their ammo, or you can let them use up a whole clip, and reload, before attacking. That’s strategy. That’s how you make a game fun. Not by forcing the player to run away like some limbless octopus.
So, then, what have we learned? Ammo. I want it, and I either want loads of it or none of it. There should be no in betweens. You should either kill things or not, there should be no in betweens. It’s simple. It’s lazy, and it’s the way I want it always to be.