Widescreen Gaming Forum

Showing gameplay elements whether using pieces of a level in a demo or the actual level itself is still showing gameplay methods that can be used, you're really splitting hairs there. What do you expect, they show you a full level of the game before it's even time to release a playable demo let alone the game itself?

As for where I got the survival horror designation it's seen in reviews of older versions, previews of this version, and customers comments from having played previous installments. Not to mention that they obviously hint at methods you can use to survive both the dark and creatures in the tech demo, if you were paying attention while scoffing at it.

I know some think using a lot of nit picking and opinionated remarks makes them somehow masterful debaters, but I think you are just digging yourself a hole here. Suffice it to say you won't like the game until you see what you consider to be proof it's worth your while. It appears most of us here can see it has something of value though, despite your not.

Showing gameplay elements whether using pieces of a level in a demo or the actual level itself is still showing gameplay methods that can be used, you're really splitting hairs there

I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. It makes a big difference to me whether you're looking at actual gameplay, or just distilled gameplay elements. The latter just doesn't shed any light at all on what it's like to play the game. Without actual gameplay footage, all you can do is *imagine* the gameplay situations in which manipulating light might be useful, rather than witness them firsthand.

What do you expect, they show you a full level of the game before it's even time to release a playable demo let alone the game itself?

They did it with Half-Life 2. Granted, HL2 was more mature (in terms of the development process) at the time of the E3 demo than AitD is now, but I think Valve did the right thing in waiting for HL2 to be in that state before showing off the technology behind it.

As for where I got the survival horror designation it's seen in reviews of older versions, previews of this version, and customers comments from having played previous installments.

I could either point out how this is fairly nonsensical, but it would be simpler to ask you to back this up. So I'll do that. Show me one person who has reviewed "older versions" of this game and called it a "survive in the dark horror game" other than yourself. If your claim is true, then this should be simple.

Not to mention that they obviously hint at methods you can use to survive both the dark and creatures in the tech demo,

That doesn't have anything to do with how "survive in the dark horror game" suddenly became an established genre.

I know some think using a lot of nit picking and opinionated remarks makes them somehow masterful debaters,

You seem to think that dismissing valid points that are contrary to your own opinions as "nitpicking" somehow puts you in the right.

Yes you are splitting hairs, nit picking, call it anything but sensible critiquing and that's what it is. Esp at this stage of the development when their only intent, and practically so, is to show elements of the game.

I really think you're jumping the gun in assuming this is all they will reveal about the game too. It could very well be they are showing us more than most devs would at the stage of development they're at.

If you're referring to HL2's Lost Coast, that was mainly hype to show off HDR, which was just starting to get used in games after devs like CryTek used it in Far Cry. It's not something commonly done and it was a buggy demo anyway.

It appears I did not have to backtrack to those reviews I was speaking of to show you that the "survival horror" designation is applied to AitD because one simple Google search reveals Wikipedia, which is pretty well known for accurate info, says AitD pioneered the genre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_horror

As for the last part, obviously you're in denial that you're nit picking and can't even grasp basic truths about what AitD is, so yes you're nit picking not critiquing really. Nothing I said there was out of place Cranky.

If you can't accept that most of us here appreciate and like what they've shown so far of this game fine, but at this point if you can't even acknowledge what the game is and why they are demoing it the way they are then I think it's best to agree to disagree and leave it at that.:wink:

Yes you are splitting hairs, nit picking, call it anything but sensible critiquing and that's what it is.

You're half wrong and half right. It isn't critiquing. I'm taking it for what it is - a tech demo, and if you re-read my first post, you'll see that I'm acknowledging that the technology is impressive. All I'm saying is that the tech demo doesn't show off actual gameplay, which isn't so much a criticism of this particular one as it is a property of tech demos in general.

I really think you're jumping the gun in assuming this is all they will reveal about the game too.

I never assumed anything of that nature. All I ever commented on was the things they presently demonstrate.

If you're referring to HL2's Lost Coast,

I'm not. I'm referring to a handful of the later E3 demos, one of which I linked to on YouTube. Lost Coast was more or less a tech demo too. It had gameplay, but the HDR lighting had little to do with the gameplay.

It appears I did not have to backtrack to those reviews I was speaking of to show you that the "survival horror" designation is applied to Ait

Exactly as I said two posts ago - you mixed up "survival horror" and "alone in the dark" and came up with the mishmash "survive in the dark horror game." Seriously, you could have spared yourself a lot of trouble if you just went "I meant to say survival horror" instead of going to extreme lengths to defend your new term.

at this point if you can't even acknowledge what the game is

Here's what the game is at this point - an engine, a small number of 3D models, some textures, and a placeholder map. If the tech demos are any indication of the project's maturity, then that's all the game consists of right now, and it's impossible to judge what the final product will be based on this. No matter how much you salivate at the prospects of being able to throw bags of blood at giant beetles.

Giant beetles, LOL, where did you conjur that from? Again, you're splitting hairs, my wording was not exact, but it basically means the same thing as survival horror, except for adding the dark part, which this game emphasizes obviously, as well as many other survival horror games.

You say you are not critiquing but you are more or less implying they've not shown anything impressive at all and that the tech demos they've shown are pretty much pointless, which they're not.

I think you're expecting far too much from a tech demo in the first place. On the one hand you acknowledge what a tech demo is, on the other it's as if you expect they throw you a free chunk of the game just to satisfy your curiosity.

I get the feeling you knew perfectly well what I meant in describing the game and are now backing out of my having proved that AitD is indeed a game about surviving horror in the dark. Let's go back and see exactly what was said before you even tried to call me out on it.

Here's what you quoted when you tried to refute what I said:

"As for where I got the survival horror designation it's seen in reviews of older versions, previews of this version, and customers comments from having played previous installments."

Now I may have worded it a bit different originally, but survive and horror are there plain as day. As mentioned the only thing I added was dark, which is merely a more descript way of saying what kind of survival horror game it is.

And your response:

"I could either point out how this is fairly nonsensical, but it would be simpler to ask you to back this up. So I'll do that. Show me one person who has reviewed "older versions" of this game and called it a "survive in the dark horror game" other than yourself. If your claim is true, then this should be simple."

What's nonsensical about this is your insistence that the mere addition of the word dark somehow makes me way off on my description of the game, yet it's used in the title and is obviouisly part of the gameplay. Why would they spend a lot of time in two tech demos talking about all the ways you can light your path and use the word dark in the title of every installment if dark had nothing to do with it?

You spend a lot of time arguing points that are pointless to argue. Yeah, that's just another way of saying you're nit picking, but I feel it's the one thing here you don't see about this conversation. Your insisting on splitting hairs makes chatting with you rather boring and pointless really. :roll:

Bored now.

Hey Paradigm, you wanna go outside and play? We could play "Horror and go Survive"...in the Dark.

_________________
moboP8P67-M-PRO-V3 cpuI5-2500K-3.3GHZ ramOCZ8GB gpu260GTX hddOCZ-VERTEX II-SSD psuNEOHE550W hudBENQ20"

Giant beetles, LOL, where did you conjur that from?

My imagination.

it basically means the same thing as survival horror,

Survival horror is just a name. The meaning isn't as important as the exact wording, which is good because "survival horror" doesn't really mean anything at all in terms of gameplay (what game *doesn't* involve survival as a part of core gameplay)? "Explosion psychotic" means basically the same thing as "Frag Maniac," but I'd still have messed up if I used that to refer to you.

I think you're expecting far too much from a tech demo in the first place.

I think you're extremely quick to jump to conclusions about what I do or do not expect.

What's nonsensical about this is your insistence that the mere addition of the word dark somehow makes me way off on my description of the game,

That wasn't even a "description" in the first place. You didn't say "This game is about surviving in the dark." You said "In a survive in the dark horror game, blah blah blah" which is the way one uses an established label. You even went on to say that the series has always been a "survive in the dark game." Again - a statement that only makes sense if you are talking about an established genre name, which it is not.

You spend a lot of time arguing points that are pointless to argue.

It takes two to argue. I don't see it as pointless - that's why I'm spending my time arguing them. What's your reason if you *do* see it as pointless? You're the one who made it an argument in the first place.

LOL, the other comments here are so true, and all this might I remind you was started by one Cranky Hermit's insistance on implying we have not seen anything impressive about this game. The name Cranky is indeed true to your personality it seems. Forever fussing over each word used as if to give a half arse english lit lecture yet missing the point in the process.

You go on to admit after ranting that you do acknowledge what a tech demo is after implying there should be gameplay shown, despite admitting you know tech demos generally don't have such elements. Which is obviously why I thought you were referring to Lost Coast earlier.

Here's just one example of your narrow minded text book way of thinking causing you to severely miss a point. You say Frag Maniac means the same thing as "explosion psychotic", yet you don't see that something as personal as a screen name has a specific implied meaning that is often not applied to the first dictionary definition found for the words used.

For that matter did it even occur to you that in the gaming world a more common dictionary definition for maniac when applied to a user name is the second one given by Webster: "a person characterized by an inordinate or ungovernable enthusiasm for something". That hardly makes them a "psychotic", but I could see how you'd view it that way.

Ironically it's my enthusiasm (as well as others) for this tech demo that seems to have for some reason struck a nerve in your cranky hermitic core. I really don't see that insisting the game is not represented well by what is merely and admittedly a tech demo is a valid point at all, more of a clever way of making a rant when you saw others here enjoying it.

I know a couple of guys with your style of nit picking, both english lit majors. Neither has done anything better with their lives than I despite their bragging on their degrees. One got evicted for schitzophrenic epiosodes due to being too stubborn to take his meds. The other basically has no friends because he's always putting people down. In the end he realized he'd lost a lot of good friends by it but it was too late.

The latter guy is a hermit too btw, as bright as he is he unwittingly made himself one and is now regretting it. Just goes to show there are more important things than nit picking, esp when it comes to tearing apart people's likes. Just let them enjoy it and maybe you'll learn to enjoy things a bit too.

Now you may think I'm jumping to conclusions alot about you being the same as these guys from the little I've seen you speak, but when someone assumes about names like you did as if to hide the fact that it was a direct flame, I tend to think you need to see some rather good examples of how it reflects on you.

this might I remind you was started by one Cranky Hermit's insistance on implying we have not seen anything impressive about this game.

If you want to trace it to that, then here's how it "started." I said that the tech demos are just tech demos and don't represent what the gameplay is like. And I also admitted the technology is impressive. That is a *far* cry from what you just said I did to "start" it.

You go on to admit after ranting that you do acknowledge what a tech demo is after implying there should be gameplay shown, despite admitting you know tech demos generally don't have such elements

I *never* implied that tech demos should show gameplay. All I said about tech demos and showing gameplay is that they don't.

Here's just one example of your narrow minded text book way of thinking causing you to severely miss a point. You say Frag Maniac means the same thing as "explosion psychotic", yet you don't see that something as personal as a screen name has a specific implied meaning that is often not applied to the first dictionary definition found for the words used.

You do realize that you just accused me of missing my own point? Because there's only one "point" you could possibly be referring to here, and it was my own.

For that matter did it even occur to you that in the gaming world a more common dictionary definition for maniac when applied to a user name is the second one given by Webster: "a person characterized by an inordinate or ungovernable enthusiasm for something".

Fine. Change "explosion psychotic" to "explosion enthusiast." I'd still have messed up if I tried to type your screen name and it came out that way.

I really don't see that insisting the game is not represented well by what is merely and admittedly a tech demo is a valid point at all

And I don't see what's invalid about explaining this. If you do, feel free to share.

Now you may think I'm jumping to conclusions alot about you

No, I think you've sank down to the level of name calling and personal attacks.