Well I think the point of her comment was to make a non-violent game that the stereotypical girl would find appealing, so I'm pretty sure my statement still stands.Tree man said:The year is 2088, only you can stand in the face of the nano-machine armies, use your wand of death to create hunterkiller butterflies, then set your army of butterlies up with sparkle cannons and let them loose, you are dalec drason, and you are humanities last hope against the machines....Thaius said:Well she's not entirely wrong, just woefully ignorant about how these games work. I mean you could certainly make an incredible game out of that concept, but how would you contextualize it? What's the story? Why are you turning things into sparkly butterflies? How does that factor into the bigger picture of the gameplay? It's certainly a viable gameplay concept, but to simply say "replace guns and blood with magic wands and sparkles" is extremely ridiculous and simply demonstrates an intense lack of understanding of this medium and how it works. But at least that misunderstanding isn't extending to the same lengths to which most people take it.
I'd buy it.
**laughs** Okay, now I want this game!The Heavy Metal Nerd said:"As you know, most of us females just hate those action video games," she said. "You don't have to use shooting. You can use, for example, a princess which has a magic wand and whenever she touches something, it turns into a butterfly and sparkles."
Furthermore, the article in question was about research she'd conducted which said action-heavy games actually IMPROVED vision and brain functions.
Exactly. It sounds like she's cheaply satirizing someone who actually made a sound argument against videogame violence. Apparently she's serious, so...NinjaDeathSlap said:Um, hate to break this to you Daphne, but just because you have ovaries does not mean your sentiments are shared by every other female on the planet.
Ironically, if it wasn't for violent video games having used up all my aggression, I'd probably be plotting her murder right about now...
Just read that. She basically called men unintelligent, and claimed women were all pacifists.Mischa87 said:Funny no one made a reference to this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112508-Silicon-Sisters-Say-Game-Industry-Still-Doesnt-Understand-Women
Seems like they were cut from the same cloth eh?
http://lollipopchainsaw.com/Bara_no_Hime said:**laughs** Okay, now I want this game!The Heavy Metal Nerd said:"As you know, most of us females just hate those action video games," she said. "You don't have to use shooting. You can use, for example, a princess which has a magic wand and whenever she touches something, it turns into a butterfly and sparkles."
Furthermore, the article in question was about research she'd conducted which said action-heavy games actually IMPROVED vision and brain functions.
Imagine it - a modern FPS with beautiful graphics. Instead of being gritty, however, it's shiny and pink and sparkly.
It functions just like a modern FPS, but instead of a gun, you see a dainty arm with a magic wand. And the beam attacks from the wand disintegrate enemies into gib made of butterflies and sparkles. Also possibly rainbows.
I would totally play that game. ^^ It would be fucking hilarious!
Edit: Just to be clear, I ALSO like my sniper rifle and shotgun. But this game concept sounds worth it for the LOLs alone. ^^
**watches the trailer**RedEyesBlackGamer said:http://lollipopchainsaw.com/
Suda51 is already taking a genre known for gore and violence and juxtaposing it with rainbows and other pretty visuals.
Boy, this sure has gotten silly.Jadak said:You've clearly never been attacked by a swarm of butterflies, nevermind zombie butterflies. Less of a threat? Pfft.LarenzoAOG said:So you're turning one enemy into another? That's a silly game mechanic, and since I assume that the butterflies would pose less of a threat to the player than any difficulty or strategy would be thrown right out the windo.Jadak said:Nonsense, the butterflies only exist because you created them out of an existing hostile element, likely a zombie of some sort.LarenzoAOG said:Alright you have the conflict but it is entirely at the behest of the player, that game would be deeply flawed for sure.Jadak said:After you turn the target into sparkling butterflies, they turn on you. Presumably.LarenzoAOG said:That wouldn't work at all, where is the conflict that keeps us enthralled?
So really, it's a tactical choice, zombie or butterfly swarm? (may or may not be zombie butterflies)
ME. TOO.Thaius said:Well I think the point of her comment was to make a non-violent game that the stereotypical girl would find appealing, so I'm pretty sure my statement still stands.Tree man said:The year is 2088, only you can stand in the face of the nano-machine armies, use your wand of death to create hunterkiller butterflies, then set your army of butterlies up with sparkle cannons and let them loose, you are dalec drason, and you are humanities last hope against the machines....Thaius said:Well she's not entirely wrong, just woefully ignorant about how these games work. I mean you could certainly make an incredible game out of that concept, but how would you contextualize it? What's the story? Why are you turning things into sparkly butterflies? How does that factor into the bigger picture of the gameplay? It's certainly a viable gameplay concept, but to simply say "replace guns and blood with magic wands and sparkles" is extremely ridiculous and simply demonstrates an intense lack of understanding of this medium and how it works. But at least that misunderstanding isn't extending to the same lengths to which most people take it.
I'd buy it.
?but yeah, that would be awesome and I would totally buy it too.