I think I've seen a similar mechanic in the critically acclaimed side-scroller Braid [1]. There's a world called "Time and Place" where the flow of time is tied to the player's horizontal position. Going right and left takes you forward and backward in time respectively, and standing pauses it. Amazing game, really.
Also, a new game from the creator (Jonathan Blow) is scheduled to release this year, The Witness [2].
I got Braid after watching the movie Indie Game. I don't ever really play games anymore but I really enjoyed it.
The mechanic in Braid is clever in a bunch of ways. The key idea is that you can reverse time, so you never totally die. As the game advances things start being tied to the movement of time in strange ways. Sometimes not everything though - so you can (and need to) craft convergences of certain objects in order to solve various puzzles.
I was not so thrilled when playing Braid. First of all I really liked the idea - but after some levels it got cumbersome. Some of the events can not be rolled back totally - so you have some annoying levels, where you have to start from the beginning (at least this is my foggy memory).
The story was absolutely cheesy - I simply lost interest in it. Which is not really something unusual, because I am not a gamer at all.
Wow, the Braid gameplay was damn different - not completely original, it was definitely influenced by Viewtiful Joe - but certainly a departure from the standard sidescroller action.
But the story was truly remarkable - in my top five best game stories, easy. As others have mentioned, you must not have played for very long.
I never watched that movie but I bought Braid and beat it...I respect Blow's commitment to artistry solely from how good Braid was, but I do admit to wishing he would take the half-easy route and make an add-on/sequel of sorts, to build upon such a unique world he created. Not all sequels have to be commercial derivatives (Portal 2 was pretty good, as was the sequel to the original Katamari Damacy game)
On a technical perspective...I'm sure he's written about this...but how does Braid manage to keep what I assume is a total record of gameplay? That is, theoretically, you could leave the game on for a very long time and rewind it...at some point, the console's memory runs out, right? I'm saying this as someone who really has no idea how little resources it takes to pop/push game events off a stack...I'm just assuming that if Photoshop has an undo-limit, Braid would have one too?
(Though Photoshop is different in that the program has to anticipate the user leaping back 5000 steps in a single go, where as with Braid, the player only has access to the top of the stack of events)
On further reflection, games that have "replay/ghost" modes, where a speed-record is overlaid atop the current game layer, invoke the same event-recording mechanic without trouble, so I guess I'm just overestimating how much space an abstracted game event/state would take to record.
I assume it doesn't record what happens every frame, but specific events. That way if you don't move, it doesn't write anything until you do. Some record systems only record player input.
Jonathan Blow gave a tech talk at GDC about how the rewind mechanic was implemented. It turns out that he does in fact save the non-constant game state of every frame. Around 6:20 is where he talks about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSeYShR-OG0
As usual, I've played this one in the IGF. Great game that has that super addictive "one more try" feeling to it. It probably took my about 100 tries to complete the demo level, so it's kinda like Super Meat Boy in that regard. But the difficulty is why it's fun, and the quick loop of dying and trying again works well in an FPS. Recommended and thumbs-up'd.
This is a different game than you probably think it is. It's much more like the embodiment of the Matrix than Braid-like.
Yes, it looks like a great mechanic and I really love to see that mechanic happen. But I believe that FPS don't live from such a mechanic alone. The atmosphere and the balanced, interesting set of weapons is what makes the game or not. Sadly the video does not show much about that area of the game so it's hard to say if it will be super hot or not.
The mechanic itself isn't actually that interesting. When they released the demo there was a discussion about how the mechanic works over on the destiny.bungie.org forum: http://destiny.bungie.org/forum/index.php?id=15007 — in a nutshell the time pausing mechanic doesn't really make the game a ‘puzzle’: it just lets you pause the game arbitrarily to let you line up your shots. This is why other shooter games (F.E.A.R, Max Payne) that have let you slow down time do so with finite resource mechanics to prevent overuse.
If the developers implemented any more interesting mechanics that let you rewind time, or made some enemies immune from time pausing then this might become an interesting game, but based on the demo it just looks like a shallow but pretty game, and is unlikely to be that much fun.
The time pausing mechanic also lets someone who has not played FPSs for half their life have the experience of being a god-like player who avoids all shots and gets a head shot every time. As someone who normally hates first person games and has no interest in practicing them for months on end, this is cool.
Yes, this really seems like it's an FPS intended for non-FPS players. I think that's the whole point - the game basically says "let's eliminate all skill from the FPS game and make it into pure strategy and see if there's a fun game there".
That's an interesting question - once you can nail every headshot, plan every evasion, and spot every foe with complete ease... is an FPS still fun? Can it be made to be fun?
Obviously, for an FPS fan for whom the skill is a core part of the gameplay, this might not be an interesting question for them.
Is it an option? I think if you move the time moves as well. If you aim badly you still need more time to get it right. You can just take a break in the middle by not moving at all. At least that's how I understood it.
In the original 7-day prototype, time moved at a crawl if you stood still, and accelerated to normal speed when you moved. Changing the view with your mouse did not count as "moving" so you have a lot more time to line up a shot. Of course you also have to contend with travel time of characters and bullets, which is not a wholly trivial task.
I think this is a good point. F.E.A.R did this amazingly well in the first instalment, and the way that the enemies worked with cohesive group strategies was pretty ground breaking for the time.
I think this title could benefit from something similar. It's a fine line to walk though, they have to be different enough to not just be a rehash.
In the demo, you could never fully "pause" the game. Even when you stopped moving, everything still moved, just very slowly.
The game most definitely turned into a puzzle in the same way that Braid's levels were puzzles. I can't see how you could say it was anything else.
IMO, the demo was a blast. If they made 30 more levels like the demo, I'd buy it. Adding grenades, swords, and interesting level designs is more than enough to warrant a purchase.
I can't stand FPSs normally but when the original prototype of Superhot made the rounds I loved it. Whether they can stretch it to a full sized game remains to be seen; they certainly seem to have a bunch of ideas on how to do it.
Just moving around in the prototype is a lot of fun, and that can go a long way for me.
I'm an avid FPS player (Counter-Strike, Quake, Doom, Halo, Far Cry) so I get what you mean about FPS games, but it's really not applicable. The issue is that Superhot isn't much about the "shooter" part of FPS. It's more of a puzzle game, and it's much more dependent on level design than balanced weapons (especially since weapon balance comes in to play most greatly in multiplayer).
I'd really suggest playing the demo they put out. I'm very excited to see a full game come out.
Have you actually played Portal?
The game is dripping with atmosphere. In fact, I would say it is completely the antithesis of your argument: there is far more to it than just an interesting game mechanic.
I remember playing Portal without knowing anything about it. The game mechanics drew me in at first, but my interest waned as it got more difficult, because much as I like puzzle elements, I'm not a hardcore fan.
And just at that point the story took some turns and I was hooked. Amazing game, and I can't imagine the amount of tweaking involved to get the balance just right.
Portal would be interesting as a concept alone, but they packed it together with a cool story and characters like GLADOS that turned a cool mechanic into an excellent game. There were a lot of things outside of the puzzles, the warnings on the walls (the cake is a lie), etc... it was brilliant.
Portal flashed in my mind as I played through this game. Specifically, the idea of being thrust in to a world you don't yet know all the rules of and having to figure them out as you go. I'd almost prefer if they didn't flash the instructions in big letters and you have to learn the mechanics on your own.
I never played portal exactly for that reason. It seems to have a story, more than one tool to interact with, flair, etc. Therefore it's not a perfect example. But I actually believe there are probably a lot of games out there who simply won with one mechanic, like back in the day when Max Payne was a not-so-bad shooter with a simple mechanic added, to slow down the time until some "Mana" runs out. It really happens, I agree on that. But if I want to invest my money in a crowd funding campaign I don't bet on luck. I bet on things I believe to be success factors, which in this case is not a mechanic.
Portal was definitely more than one clever gimmick repeatedly reused though: puzzle design, plot (short as it was), and atmosphere were very well thought through. I recommend giving it a shot if you have a couple of hours spare next time the original is dirt cheap in a Steam sale.
It is worth replaying with the "commentary track" option afterwards: it is quite an education to find out how much play testing and rework effort goes into trying to get everything "balanced just right" even for a game of that size (which in turn explains where a chunk of the massive amounts of money and other resource ploughed into some larger titles goes, and why naively cheap game based kickstarters are a often bad idea).
If with this game the creators can wrap the other elements around their core gameplay artifact(s) in the same way then it'll be well worth a go, if they can't then, well, that is always the risk of kickstarter and it is your choice (valid either way) to, or not to, take a punt on that.
I usually don't mention Portal 2 until they'#ve play the original. Avoids the "I don't have time for both right so is it worth it?" thought! Mention Portal 2 once Portal has been played and they want more now...
There are various bits of the commentary when they discuss previous versions of levels and why they changed things after the play-testing sessions. A lot more effort seems to have been expended getting things as close to "just right" as possible than you might first think.
I still feel Portal 1 works very well as a kind of introduction to the much bigger (and in most ways better) Portal 2. I also usually suggest people play the first one, especially if they're not that into FPS games, because it's less of an investment and focuses a bit more on just the puzzles.
Apparently, I missed the excitement of this when it first rolled around. This is the first time I'm seeing this.
I backed them, and I don't often back things. I also don't often play computer games.
I think the comparisons to Braid are great - Braid is one of the rare Computer Games I actually did play and really, really love. I think this has a chance of being a puzzle game with similar levels of awesomeness, if done right.
I'm also amazingly impressed by the prototype that was built in 7 days. I'm not a game dev or close to it, but I'm very surprised by what they managed to get done in such a small amount of time.
From technical stand point, I agree. Pretty good result for 7 day work. But as a game, it feels like you gonna play it 1 time and forget about it. If you feel it's worth the money for essentially hour of entertainment with gimmick, good. Otherwise there are much better choices.
Especially when the multiplayer experience is horrific - over caffeinated youth screaming slurs of all kinds as they bunnyhop around a supposed stealth map.
If the principle mechanic is 'you move, time moves' that would be a pretty difficult game. Lining up to slice a bullet your friend runs into the room, you die.
At $14 (~£8.50), that's what I expect from a game at that price level. It's a very interesting puzzle game, implementing a unique(-ish) mechanic; compare it to Portal or Antichamber, not an FPS.
This would be amazing team play. It's bringing back memories of when I played in a top Quake clan when I was a teenager. You could practice and coordinate certain runs, some members sacrificing themselves to capture the flag - however with this the level of complexity and timing actually sounds fun and challenging enough that I'd be interested in starting to game again.
What if the time movement was in a local area of effect, and when multiple players had overlapping areas, there was a multiplier effect? That'd be cool.
I recently played this game at an indie games festival in Berlin.
I'm embarrassed to admit, I didn't realize that the time only moves when I move. It was difficult, but I still managed to beat all levels. I'm curious to see what level design they come up with that utilizes their game mechanic.
Cool idea but I think there's much more you can do with the concept. Now it just seems to be about dodging bullets but I may be wrong. I also don't think the name is that fitting but those things tend to grow on you.
It plays more like a puzzle game, actually. It’s not about twitch reaction skills (though you can make it about that if you just decide to run; speed runs will be interesting with this game), it’s about figuring out the best course of action in a much more methodical and slow way. It’s very much unlike every other first person shooter out there (even those with bullet time).
Much of the quality of the final game will depend on the level design, though I’m somewhat optimistic, given that their seven day prototype already delivered pretty solidly on that. You should really play their prototype to get a feel for their game. It’s quite unique.
Also, SUPER HOT definitely grows on you after hearing it a million times during the prototype.
I think, this game could make sense if player's arms (and preferably the whole body), were simulated biomechanically correct (at least to some extent) so you had to move your guns and your body efficiently saving milliseconds for doing stuff like in [2] (This is a screenshot from the movie Equilibrium. I'm not a fan if the movie, but the "novelty" of Superhot could be justified only in a combat like that). But such game would probably require very strange controls, making it completely unplayable for most of its target audience.
Don't know. I tried to play QWOP and did not like the controls at all. I tought about something more streamlined, but it's hard to say exactly what would be good controls. Maybe, you can select the target by clicking, and the player's ragdoll finds the most efficient way to target that enemy.. As simple as that but, you still have to think about the mechanics of the body, and use your momentum efficiently.
Not sure what that has to do with anything since this is not even remotely the same. Just saying that the "time moves only when you move" could be used for a lot but this seems to be focused on one thing only.
I find the subjective gameplay experience of super hot - trying to navigate one's way through a spatio-temporal maze of bullets - has a lot in common with touhou.
I don't see a mention of the platform they are targeting anywhere on the kickstarter page. I would donate money if I thought there would be an iOS version, but I am guessing that no mention = windows.
I think there's something to be said about "headline blindness" (like "ad blindness").
I also came here to ask what platforms were supported, and I read the entire article and watched the entire video. I even searched the page for the word "platform". And still missed it.
If the information is important, it needs to be mentioned in the body text. Putting it in the headline, or in all caps, or in a big box at the top of the page actually makes it invisible to some people.
I saw that right away, but Unity doesn't imply a platform. Unity supports consoles also, but I never expect an independent developer to come out with PS3, XBox or Wii support.
Damn, now I'm wishing for a remake of the original Jedi Knight with this mechanic as an integral part of it. Not only because it was by far my favorite game in the series, but also because Jedi Knight always felt like more than 'just' an FPS; it had a lot of puzzle elements in it.
I also would like to one day create my own level. I tried doing this for Jedi Knight, but the Unreal Engine-style negative-space engine and the incredibly buggy (community-created?) editor foiled my attempts :-(.
it has the aesthetics of a raw edgy antichamber, albeit completely different game mechanics, it definitely looks like fun, secondly i am a sucker for indie games and their unusual approaches, and with an oculus this will probably be the bomb.
Why does it look like a failure? As far as I can tell, the kickstarter began this morning at 7AM EST, and it has been pledged $10k in the past 2 hours it has been open. It doesn't necessarily mean it will reach its $100k goal, but I don't see how it looks like a failure already.
I think its a neat concept that definitely has legs. That said, all of the things they were going to do with the $100k makes me feel like these guys don't know what things cost.
Also, a new game from the creator (Jonathan Blow) is scheduled to release this year, The Witness [2].
[1] http://braid-game.com/
[2] http://the-witness.net/