Game Videos

[Mr. Johnson]

(closest thing I have to smug)

[Thompy]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhBEoFA2N-o[/media]

This taught me the most vital tool for living in a post-apocalyptic world is a glove with a built in squeegee. Also, this could well be the most defining single player FPS in some time.

[Dog Pants]

That does look like it has potential. I notice it was being played with a joypad though, which isn't a great sign.

[HereComesPete]

Metro 2033 was a good shooter and didn't seem to suffer any sponginess in controls given it was also cross platform.

Slavic minds seem to have the ability to make games that have an excellent sense of tension and horror.

[Dog Pants]

If they manage to keep that level of interest and tension throughout then I agree that it could be great, console crossover or not (I haven't disappointed by all of them). Thirteen minutes of footage is a pretty good preview too, but I hope it's not the best 13 minutes of the game.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

Metro 2033 was a good shooter and didn't seem to suffer any sponginess in controls given it was also cross platform.

Slavic minds seem to have the ability to make games that have an excellent sense of tension and horror.

That and rip off books.

Reminds me, I have metro 2033 to read somewhere.

[Thompy]

Thread reactivate!

This looks intertesting, just need to know the long term gameplay goals.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60TxhtEssx4[/media]


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sXnwa9bt6g[/media]

RPS article.

[Thompy]

I've been keeping half an eye on The Banner Saga, but I wasn't sure if it'd be my thing. This video makes it look pretty enthralling though, and the visuals are gorgeous.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XuJe9kvTjg[/media]

[Thompy]

Oh god yes.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdeOosOSl5Y[/media]

(Not the Kickstarter game, before anyone gets confused.)

[Mr. Johnson]

I've been keeping half an eye on The Banner Saga, but I wasn't sure if it'd be my thing. This video makes it look pretty enthralling though, and the visuals are gorgeous.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XuJe9kvTjg[/media]

I threw money at their kickstarter because vikings, and just had a go at the beta. Luckily for me my opponent was the composer for the game and he helped me with some of the stuff as the beta doesn't come with any kind of tutorial. The multiplayer is not unlike other RPG's, you move your characters around on a virtual chess board and you have archers, big dudes with axes, little dudes with axes, etc... I only played the one game (that I lost) but I really liked what I saw so far. The final game will feature a story mode and if the small glimpse of the game that I got now is anything to go by it's going to be pretty amazing. I'm probably a bit biased because I like Norse mythology but I think the turn based combat will appeal to at least some of you.

[Mr. Johnson]

CD projekt's (the witcher games) next title. Just an announcement trailer, but it looks interesting enough.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P99qJGrPNLs[/media]

[Dog Pants]

Strange thing. I hate how when videos show bullets moving in slow time other things (people moving, or the floating bits of debris in this case) seem to move at a similar speed. Also, those bullets being several feet apart in mid-air must mean one hell of a rate of fire from the rifles. Pedantic, I know, but it completely breaks the suspense of disbelief for me.

[Joose]

Also, those bullets being several feet apart in mid-air must mean one hell of a rate of fire from the rifles.

Or theres more than one gun?

EDIT: Oh, or do you mean there's only a few feet from one bullet to the bullet in front of it? Because in that case I give you sixty-odd years of R&D. If you can get with the idea of bullet-proof robo-women but not the idea of guns that fire a bit faster, your suspension of disbelief needs a reboot. Its gone wrong.

[HereComesPete]

Strange thing. I hate how when videos show bullets moving in slow time other things (people moving, or the floating bits of debris in this case) seem to move at a similar speed. Also, those bullets being several feet apart in mid-air must mean one hell of a rate of fire from the rifles. Pedantic, I know, but it completely breaks the suspense of disbelief for me.

I'm thinking guns such as the mg42 would be fast enough to get that kind of spread, as would most guns that fire in fixed bursts such as the Russian stuff that fires 2 bullets in a fraction of a second or a 3 round burst from an mp5 or similar. Plus there are a lot of police firing. I have to say the fact that she's got spider leg things growing out her arms, or the fact that she's bullet proof is rather more unusual to me than how far apart the bullets are.

[HereComesPete]

lulz, joose said it first.

[Grimmie]

It's quite pretty also.

[Dog Pants]

The bullet thing was only half my point, but even so my brain doesn't default to "wow, that's some high tech automatic fire", it defaults to "that's bollocks".

[Joose]

Ive been thinking about this a bit more this morning. Its monday, chuff all is happenening because everyone has gone HOLY SHIT, SNOW! CANCEL ALL MEETINGS! I am therefore bored. So...

To get bullets close together, you need a high RoF. The p90 is an assault rifle with a pretty high RoF (900 rounds per minute, or 15 per second), so would be a good choice for close together bullets. However, its muzzle velocity is 2350 feet per second. So, if you fire for a second there will be 15 bullets spread over 2350 feet (assuming the bullets are coming out in exactly spaced intervals and don't stop moving for any reason), which means about 156 feet between each bullet. With an effective range of 660 feet, you *could* theoretically get a slow-mo camera shot with up to four bullets in the air, but you would have to be zoomed out so far that you probably wouldn't be able to make out the individual bullets.

However! Future! New technology! Or, actually, probably not. Because assuming roughly similar muzzle velocities (which is really a best case scenario, as in all likelyhood future guns would push bullets faster) in order to get bullets 2 foot apart you would need to be firing 1175 bullets a second. We actually have guns that can do close to that right now; the Metal Storm for example fires 750 rounds per second from each of its 36 barrels. The bit that makes this go from "totally doable given 60 years of research" to "nope, the video is wrong" isn't actually the speed its firing bullets so much as the fact its doing that whilst ejecting shells. Really fast RoF would probably be done through something like a rail gun or (like the Metal Storm) some sort of stacked projectile doobery, because trying to operate in a regular way at that RoF is surely asking for jamming every couple of seconds. Plus, the shells being ejected look reasonably normal sized, meaning it would have to be belt fed (which it clearly isn't) or you would only be able to fire for a fraction of a second before reloading. So yes, even if they could future tech things in this way, they probably wont and if they did it wouldn't look like that.

HOWEVER AGAIN!

With all that in mind, in order to make a slow-mo bullet shot look realistic you can only show one bullet being fired. This makes it hard to show that the gun is being fired for anything other than a single shot. Someone firing just once in a gun fight is a bit lame, and even if that isn't what's actually happening, that's what it looks like. So the people making the video have a choice: Do you make the video look realistic and lame, or unrealistic and awesome? When you take into account that the vast majority of people watching the video wont know enough about guns/wont bother thinking about the physics of the thing to realise anything is wrong, making it look realistic would be a monumentally dumb move.

As for the floaty bits of debris moving whilst the bullets do, having watched a buttload of real things going in super slo-mo thanks to mythbusters (including bullets) there's nothing unrealistic about them spinning about slowly in place. That's pretty much exactly what it really looks like.

Finally, having watched the video again, none of the bullets in that clump are following each other, they are all on separate parallel trajectories. Such as they would be if a number of people fired guns at the same target whilst standing/crouching in a group. Like they are in the video.

TL;DR: Pants is wrong

[Dog Pants]

Haha, fair enough. At least my science was sound even if my observations weren't.

[Thompy]

You might want to 1080 full screen this.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVbeoSPqRs4[/media]

Me like.