Bulletstorm 2 potential

(Stevenray1234) #1

Anyone else hoping this remaster is a way to reboot the game to actually make it into a series. Although short, it was an absolutely great story, and left off with a lead towards a possible second.

(Guajiro Pandoreño) #2

I would love for this to be the case, but we’ll see. The game play mechanics are wonderful, and if they took him off a rail and gave him a functional jump mechanism, I think it’d be a contender with BL2 for amazing combat variety. Even a sequel/DLC where there’s just more of the same combat would be welcome.

(Damien Azreal) #3

Honestly, I never missed the ability to jump in the game.
At no point while playing the game did I ever think “I really wish I could jump right here”.

And, while I hope and pray that the day comes when a BulletStorm 2 becomes a reality. I also hope that it does NOT go “open world” in design. That is possibly the biggest flaw happening with a lot of games lately.
This flawed idea that it needs to drop a linear progression and go open world.

A sequel would be amazing news. But, while I’m not against some changes and tweaks… there’s zero reason to drop the linear, level to level style.

(Stevenray1234) #4

I don’t see any reason to have a jumping mechanic in any shooter. NOBODY jumps while actually shooting a gun, and in Bulletstorm, Grayson is one of the elite assassins of the universe, so obviously he wouldn’t jump an shoot.

(Guajiro Pandoreño) #5

[quote=“Damien_Azreal, post:3, topic:1551896”]there’s zero reason to drop the linear, level to level style.[/quote]Not even to make this option available to players who might like it? In BL2, for example, if I preferred linear, level-to-level style play, I could just not deviate from the rail as I went through the game (and stick to maps that are built like this for end-game play). If I didn’t like using sniper rifles or jumping (for example), I wouldn’t hold it against a game if it had them; I would just not use them. I wouldn’t ask the designers to omit them on my behalf.

[quote=“stevenray1234, post:4, topic:1551896”]I don’t see any reason to have a jumping mechanic in any shooter.[/quote]That doesn’t mean a reason doesn’t exist.

[quote=“stevenray1234, post:4, topic:1551896”]NOBODY[/quote]I don’t believe we’ve met. :laughing:

(Damien Azreal) #6

I agree.
Very, very few first person games ever actually give a solid, valid reason to the player to actually jump while playing.
The FEAR series, made it work because it made jumping part of the combat. By adding melee attacks to the jump mechanic, it became a crucial part of the combat system.

The Mirror’s Edge games make jumping a crucial part of the gameplay as it is an absolute must to get around the world.
While in other FPS games, jumping feels like it’s there just because. Regardless of if it actually makes sense or not.

But BL2 is not a linear game. You can just do the story in BL2, but you’re still traveling back and forth across the same locations to reach mission locations, taking on additional missions in a standard open world way.
But, it works for the Borderlands series because that’s what they were designed for.

Adding an open world function to a series just because it’s the hot item at the moment is a problem, and that’s what I’m saying.
Making Mirror’s Edge Catalyst open world was a huge mistake. I loved the first ME, but I’m finding it very difficult to enjoy the new one. The open world doesn’t feel as interesting because I’m not experiencing new locations, I’m going back and forth across the same rooftops.
Doing tired timed “Leader board” crap to gain XP. Adding an open world design to a game can hurt a game. Even the newest Homefront suffers because of it’s open world formula.
At times, it devolves into a grind when a bit of stream lined designed could’ve improved the pace and feel of the experience.

There’s nothing with with a linear game. But, for some reason… so many people look at the word “linear” as if it’s some instant negative in a game. Nevermind that some of the best FPS games ever made were… LINEAR games.
Just because open world works for some games, doesn’t mean it should be forced into other games.

(Greybeard) #7

Just adding my opinion to a very interesting discussion.

Bulletstorm’s game mechanics lend themselves to a linear level design. It’s clear that the levels were often designed to let the player achieve the skill shots for the new weapon they’ve just found. Not exclusively but in general. This is a good thing.

However, a linear level design doesn’t have to mean “on the rails”. It can encompass an environment where a jump ability is not only useful but desirable. Let’s take PCF’s own Painkiller as an example. You can’t get a game that’s much more linear than Painkiller but the ability to jump on and around the scenery, to give you a combat advantage, is an integral part of the game.

I think we must distinguish between “open world” and, what I call, “open map”. “Fallout 4” and “Dying Light” are “open world”. After the tutorial, you are let loose on a massive game map that lets you explore as you please. In contrast, let’s consider games like “Deus Ex” and “Dishonored”. Here, you are given a series of medium sized “open maps” and specific objectives to complete in each. But the openness gives you the freedom to choose how you carry out those objectives. Most recently, Wild Flying Hog have managed to put, traditionally linear, old-skool shooting in an open map context, with Shadow Warrior 2.

I think an open map format with a jump ability, for mobility, would allow PCF to control the presentation of weapons and skill shots but also give a much greater sense of freedom for the player.

And Anarchy and campaign co-op, please :smiley: