Quick Look: Scarygirl

@ajamafalous: Berry Swirl

So, they have Nathan Jurevicius, who makes cool stuff like this:

Yet, they make the game look like a fake Tim Burton movie promo?

Edit: Well the second level looked nicer. Still, why the whole goth motif? Lame.

I couldn't agree with Brad more on this: this game looks stiff... I like alot about the idea: nice art style with a colorful palette and Tim Burton-esque design. That, and the ambient sounds set up a nice atmosphere. But the controls and gameplay feel stiff and incredibly generic :P

Edit: Also, this game has really close jumps... That's a cardinal sin of platformers 101.

@Zithe said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

I really don't see how they couldn't figure out that boss battle.

These guys play video games for a living.

Sarcasm? Or a dumb comment?

good old brad

I'll agree with Brad that the sitar and the tabla are cool little addons when the rabbit levitates.

Don't know about anyone else, but I absolutely hate vignetting in video games. It does nothing for my immersion or the aesthetic appeal. It's just annoying and obfuscating.

This game looks like it controls terribly.

So you've got Pieces of heart AND rupees?

I still absolutely cannot understand why the dudes expect offline co-op partners to get achievements. One copy of the game equals one copy of the achievements. If you're not playing online, how are they even supposed to know that every player owns a copy of the game?

I love Brad QLs because he tends to say something and then do the opposite. Like how easy the game is, and then he dies. Or how he can't figure out how to get the snowball to hit the boss, then does it, and then can't figure out how he did it or why the boss is running around. Also, brad is always collectable hunting, while Vinny is in run to the right mode.

@TwoLines said:

@Zithe said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

I really don't see how they couldn't figure out that boss battle.

These guys play video games for a living.

Sarcasm? Or a dumb comment?

Well I was serious, so I guess I'll have to go with dumb comment. I don't understand what's dumb about it though.

@Forcen said:

Play the original flash game here: http://www.scarygirl.com/

I think I like the look of the original better.

Love the art style, but I'm a hipster nerd.

@wrathofconn said:

I still absolutely cannot understand why the dudes expect offline co-op partners to get achievements. One copy of the game equals one copy of the achievements. If you're not playing online, how are they even supposed to know that every player owns a copy of the game?

If a game has been purchased on a 360, any profile on that system can play the game, online or off, and get achievements. If it wasn't purchased on that 360, as long as the purchasing account is logged in online (second controller or something), then another account can play the game and get achievements.

That's to say nothing of retail titles, or rentals. Microsoft isn't a stickler for proving ownership before giving up benefits. They're not Nintendo, they're not limiting you to 30 launches of a demo or anything.

The second player getting achievements is actually quite standard, which is why people get annoyed when they're not there. It's a case of lazy programming, nothing more. I don't see why you wouldn't expect a game in coop to offer up achievements to player 2. At this point in the cycle, achievements motivate people to play games and when they don't get them after doing things that should have earned them, people feel like they've wasted their time. It's a very real problem, which is why Bethesda and other publishers put pressure on MS to implement DLC achievements (People weren't buying their DLC originally).

You may not care about achievements, so all of this is moot, but for those people that do, and consider their leisure time valuable, there's zero reason to play through a game without getting credit for it, at least not in the OCD way demanded of achievement seekers. The motivations are completely different. You play to have fun with your friends, but if your Player 1 buddy is going for the achievement to get every single gem, including hard to reach ones, where's the fun in waiting around for them to try a tricky jump over and over so you can continue advancing? What do you care about 100%? It's just not fun.

God I hate the artstyle sooo much.

Seems like a pretty neat little platformer. I am a sucker for this kind of stuff but I think I'll pass, unless it ends up on Steam and then has some kind of a $1 sale.

I don't like alot about this.

If they centred the game around the crazy meditate-jumping bunny guy, then I think they'd be onto something.

Should have been 2D, the artwork would've com across better, and maybe the controls would've been less floaty.

the guru bunny is kinda cool, the rest looks very mediocre. looking forward to the guru bunny game.

@Zithe said:

@TwoLines said:

@Zithe said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

I really don't see how they couldn't figure out that boss battle.

These guys play video games for a living.

Sarcasm? Or a dumb comment?

Well I was serious, so I guess I'll have to go with dumb comment. I don't understand what's dumb about it though.

They don't play games for a living. They review them. I think that makes quite the difference.

@TwoLines: Not for the point I was making it doesn't. You can't review a game without playing it. My point was that they should have played enough games to be able to pick up on simple patterns and mechanics like that, yet they constantly fail to see them.

Weird.

The game audio is too high in the mix.

I like the art style a lot. That rabbit looks super awesome for some reason.

Brad 'its pretty hard to die', 1 minute later...dead

@Nakiro said:

@Zithe said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

I really don't see how they couldn't figure out that boss battle.

These guys play video games for a living.

I think secretly Giant Bomb crew just likes to troll everyone. It happens so often that there's no other explanation.

My explanation: They (have to) play too many video games.

Imagine an elderly toy tester. He's seen and played with just about every type of toy for decades, so when tasked with exhibiting action figures "for the kids" I bet he'd look like he'd never played with toys before. He'd be all, "Pay special attention to the askew angles of the design crafted by Welsey Whatshisfuck. EXQUISITE! And here's the genre-defying wrist articulation. A pity about the lack detachable Gibberdyshank" and such.

And the onlooking children'd be like, "... Yeah, whatever. Mommy Sasquatch is angry on account of all the genocide so now you gotta hit her with the giant snow-balls! Are you even paying attention, mr.?"

"But... but the wrist articulation... Ah, fuck you kids!"

@Zithe: I still don't think their profession can be described as "playing games for a living." It's the simplification of the journalist proffesion, by describing it as proffesional users of the medium (be it good or bad), that's what irks me.

Now, if you were to say: "And these guys review games! Sheesh!" I wouldn't have a problem with that. But playing games proffesionaly, that is the domain of the SC2 and CS players.

It's not a big difference, I know. I'm just annoying that way.

@TwoLines said:

@Zithe: I still don't think their profession can be described as "playing games for a living." It's the simplification of the journalist proffesion, by describing it as proffesional users of the medium (be it good or bad), that's what irks me.

Now, if you were to say: "And these guys review games! Sheesh!" I wouldn't have a problem with that. But playing games proffesionaly, that is the domain of the SC2 and CS players.

It's not a big difference, I know. I'm just annoying that way.

They get paid to play games, so they play games for a living. And considering how much work and money goes into the creation and publication of these games, it wouldn't kill them to take a minute or two to pay attention and understand how a game works so that they can use these QuickLooks for something other than laughs. This game's better than this video lets on, but it looks like shit because Brad plays games like shit and blames the game for it.

"Vinny and Brad give a Scarygirl a merry whirl. Jheri curl. Fairy hurl."
 
I got way too big of a laugh out of this.

@Zithe said:

@TwoLines said:

@Zithe said:

@Cyrisaurus said:

I really don't see how they couldn't figure out that boss battle.

These guys play video games for a living.

Sarcasm? Or a dumb comment?

Well I was serious, so I guess I'll have to go with dumb comment. I don't understand what's dumb about it though.

Pretty sure at that point they were just uninterested in playing this game any further so I'm willing to forgive them for not figuring that out.

Wow, this game looks incredibly dull.

I remember playing Scary Girl's flash game and not liking it.

It does have a cool art style, but the gameplay seems pretty boring...

Really poor production value on this one... None of the particles fit in with the rest of the graphics and it's really strange that the main character doesn't even have any animation blending... Sound effects are missing or poor, like the weird crunching of the falling boulder, complete lack of sound when blocking enemy attacks and the single most default punching sound ever... Strange stuff.

@wrathofconn said:

I still absolutely cannot understand why the dudes expect offline co-op partners to get achievements. One copy of the game equals one copy of the achievements. If you're not playing online, how are they even supposed to know that every player owns a copy of the game?

Because plenty of games do it and who cares if you own it or not? Its not a good way to encourage people to do co op. Its kind of off putting that you don't get an achievement (to the people who care) for playing a mode they put in the game. It's just lazy design.

@MasturbatingestBear said:

@wrathofconn said:

I still absolutely cannot understand why the dudes expect offline co-op partners to get achievements. One copy of the game equals one copy of the achievements. If you're not playing online, how are they even supposed to know that every player owns a copy of the game?

Because plenty of games do it and who cares if you own it or not? Its not a good way to encourage people to do co op. Its kind of off putting that you don't get an achievement (to the people who care) for playing a mode they put in the game. It's just lazy design.

I've got a solution: How about neither person gets achievements?

@gladspooky said:

@MasturbatingestBear said:

@wrathofconn said:

I still absolutely cannot understand why the dudes expect offline co-op partners to get achievements. One copy of the game equals one copy of the achievements. If you're not playing online, how are they even supposed to know that every player owns a copy of the game?

Because plenty of games do it and who cares if you own it or not? Its not a good way to encourage people to do co op. Its kind of off putting that you don't get an achievement (to the people who care) for playing a mode they put in the game. It's just lazy design.

I've got a solution: How about neither person gets achievements?

Yeah that's good old gladspooky troll logic for you.

This game is loud.

Every time the GB crew says "it's hard to die," death is right around the corner

I like 2D Platformers and am a fan of Kirby 64 but this looks really reall boring. No sale.

I send my condolences to anyone who plays this.

No little girl don't trust the land octopus. It will end horribly for you.

This does not look like a product that I would purchase.

So much clunk. It's like things are speeding up and slowing down at the same time. Like they are skipping frames of animation. It's hard to watch.

This game looks really unfinished and uninspired from a gameplay aspect, the lack of character animations is really distracting, and some of the sound effects are a bit annoying. (Ex. Rocks falling loop)

I'm also kinda tired of seeing the Psychonauts/"Nightmare Before Christmas" art direction in games. It feels like they're just trying to sell the game with that alone.

It's like Pandemonium mixed with Little Big Planet. Sort of...