it is when you compare it to a videogame. in games these numbers would be in the high hundreds in an action game. i mean the number of people you kill in uncharted just to collect a trinket is ridiculous. that’s the contrast.
And honestly, killing shouldn’t be the main way to solve problems in an Indiana Jones game. If you watch the movies, he largely avoids fighting, and when he does, he usually knocks out opponents instead of killing them. When he uses his whip, it’s rarely directly against a person, it’s to swing across gaps, trigger traps, or disarm an opponent, not to attack an opponent. And that is what an Indiana Jones game should be.
If this Indiana Jones is focused on combat and merely limits itself to whips and punching, it’s going to miss the mark of what makes an Indiana Jones game an Indiana Jones game. It should be focused on puzzles, stealth, and chases, not combat.
I absolutely love P&C adventure games, even to this day. I loved Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, and I think that’s the perfect medium for an Indiana Jones game. We can make it 3D by making it largely a walking sim puzzle game, with some QTEs or something for the action sequences.
That wouldn’t appeal to a broad audience though, but I think it would work well. But as long as it’s not just AC with whips instead of knives, I’ll probably play and love it.
telltale games had a great formula that served as an evolution of that genre imo… and they were massively successful.
unfortunately though going overboard with fake choices (which i initially didn’t have a problem with btw—different discussion though) and more importantly seeming to have a very strict formula that kept repeating in all their games kind of turned people off with time. this wasn’t helped by the fact that they stretched too thin with too many projects at once leading to reduction in quality and polish.
Fate of Atlantis is my favorite p&c adventure. great writing, great characters, great visuals, truly interesting adventure, and not reliant on moon logic as much.
But that’s not what that analysis was about. It’s about whether or not it would be suitable for a game on indy to be a shooter and trying to see how synonymous he is with shooting. The Devs saying that him using a gun is rare. But this comment was comparing deaths by other means vs guns. Instead of just combat with guns vs other means.
i don’t get what u mean. what else does he shoot? the point is gun combat is not the point of the movies. shouldn’t he the point of the games either. he’s known for hit hat and whip more than his gun.
I’m not arguing for it being a shooter. In arguing against it. Saying that comparing the deaths he caused and how is less indicative because there’s more combat sequences that don’t end in death, removing them skewed the data to make it look like our war almost a 50/50 on whether he used a gun or not in any given encounter. That’s wrong. That’s what I was saying.
Yeah, the immediate problem with comparing gun to non-gun kills is that anything involving a gun is automatically more likely to result in someone dead. So it doesn’t really give you a picture of how Indy likes to approach problems. And once a gun does become the tool of choice in a scene, the body count is likely to rack up a lot faster. You can show five people getting gunned down much faster than you can show one Nazi getting his head propellered off. Guns tend to be how disposable mooks die, but signature enemies get the more elaborate deaths.
But not every altercation he has ends in the death of someone so i don’t know if deaths is the metric to measure it by
it is when you compare it to a videogame. in games these numbers would be in the high hundreds in an action game. i mean the number of people you kill in uncharted just to collect a trinket is ridiculous. that’s the contrast.
And honestly, killing shouldn’t be the main way to solve problems in an Indiana Jones game. If you watch the movies, he largely avoids fighting, and when he does, he usually knocks out opponents instead of killing them. When he uses his whip, it’s rarely directly against a person, it’s to swing across gaps, trigger traps, or disarm an opponent, not to attack an opponent. And that is what an Indiana Jones game should be.
If this Indiana Jones is focused on combat and merely limits itself to whips and punching, it’s going to miss the mark of what makes an Indiana Jones game an Indiana Jones game. It should be focused on puzzles, stealth, and chases, not combat.
that’s why the best indie games were p&c adventure games.
I absolutely love P&C adventure games, even to this day. I loved Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, and I think that’s the perfect medium for an Indiana Jones game. We can make it 3D by making it largely a walking sim puzzle game, with some QTEs or something for the action sequences.
That wouldn’t appeal to a broad audience though, but I think it would work well. But as long as it’s not just AC with whips instead of knives, I’ll probably play and love it.
telltale games had a great formula that served as an evolution of that genre imo… and they were massively successful.
unfortunately though going overboard with fake choices (which i initially didn’t have a problem with btw—different discussion though) and more importantly seeming to have a very strict formula that kept repeating in all their games kind of turned people off with time. this wasn’t helped by the fact that they stretched too thin with too many projects at once leading to reduction in quality and polish.
Fate of Atlantis is my favorite p&c adventure. great writing, great characters, great visuals, truly interesting adventure, and not reliant on moon logic as much.
But that’s not what that analysis was about. It’s about whether or not it would be suitable for a game on indy to be a shooter and trying to see how synonymous he is with shooting. The Devs saying that him using a gun is rare. But this comment was comparing deaths by other means vs guns. Instead of just combat with guns vs other means.
i don’t get what u mean. what else does he shoot? the point is gun combat is not the point of the movies. shouldn’t he the point of the games either. he’s known for hit hat and whip more than his gun.
I’m not arguing for it being a shooter. In arguing against it. Saying that comparing the deaths he caused and how is less indicative because there’s more combat sequences that don’t end in death, removing them skewed the data to make it look like our war almost a 50/50 on whether he used a gun or not in any given encounter. That’s wrong. That’s what I was saying.
Yeah, the immediate problem with comparing gun to non-gun kills is that anything involving a gun is automatically more likely to result in someone dead. So it doesn’t really give you a picture of how Indy likes to approach problems. And once a gun does become the tool of choice in a scene, the body count is likely to rack up a lot faster. You can show five people getting gunned down much faster than you can show one Nazi getting his head propellered off. Guns tend to be how disposable mooks die, but signature enemies get the more elaborate deaths.