Extra Punctuation: Not All Sequels Suck

Recommended Videos

beleester

New member
Feb 22, 2011
35
0
0
I grew up with Klik n Play (or however they spelled it) and The Games Factory. Both were pretty good tools for making 2D games: They had a fairly flexible event-driven engine with a bunch of prepackaged stuff for collisions and movement schemes, and you could make some decent games with it. It still had the problem that I didn't have any good ideas of what to do, but the examples they showed were neat.

It also had one really intuitive feature for programming the game: You could play through your incomplete game, and every time an event occurred that hadn't been programmed, it would pause the game and ask you what to do. So you could, for example, jump into spikes, then tell it that when you do that it should kill your character. Or you could shoot an enemy, and tell it that it should destroy the enemy and the bullets.
 

EchetusXe

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,046
0
0
ahhh Star Trek TNG.

"But.. this is impossible. It seems to be coming from the holodeck. Is this possible?"
"Yeah, that was the problem last week."
"I thought you fixed that malfunction?"
"I said I would get around to it IF I had the time."
 

GeekofGames51

New member
Jun 25, 2012
1
0
0
The first half of the article was about how most sequels are just technological improvements on their predecessors, while the second half thinks up the idea of design software with a GUI as simplified as Windows.

To comment on the first half, isn't the whole point of a sequel just to be a continuation of its predecessor? If it flips the mechanics and overall gameplay of it, then it becomes a completely different game (think Banjo Tooie to Nuts and Bolts).

As for the second half, At the point when design software becomes that simplified, everyone would be making games, and if everyone made the games, who would play them? I don't know, maybe the select few who are too lazy to make their own games will play everyone elses, like me. :)