Strafe: A Bleeding Edge Game Set For 1996 Release Date

[Jaxxoon R]

"No, you'll just die!" may just be my new favorite quote.

[cq75]

It looks like they can't really figure out how low res they really want to go, random parts of the levels have several inch thick pixels but other parts have far better texture quality.

Sometimes the level geometry is too sharp, sometimes the textures are solid color, sometimes they're not, I'd like to say I know what they're going for here but I'm really not sure. It kind of looks like a bizarre Doom 3 mod.

[DooM_RO]

The only things I don't like are the monsters. They look kinda dull. Does anyone know the developers?

[Touchdown]

So, there's a 10min Pre-Alpha gameplay with commentary.

[scifista42]

Touchdown said:

So, there's a 10min Pre-Alpha gameplay with commentary.

It actually looks rather good gameplay-wise. Weapon / ammo / health / enemy mechanics, all fine with me (only the projectile-throwing enemies aren't visible enough). Destroying the screen with exit statistics is a cool touch.

[hardcore_gamer]

Touchdown said:

So, there's a 10min Pre-Alpha gameplay with commentary.

Gameplay wise it looks pretty fun. I hope they improve the level generation though.

[Technician]

I fucking hate the art style. We have grimy, detailed corridors and cartoony, simplified weapons and pixelated blood effects. Nothing is homogenous, graphically.

[hardcore_gamer]

Technician said:

I fucking hate the art style. We have grimy, detailed corridors and cartoony, simplified weapons and pixelated blood effects. Nothing is homogenous, graphically.

I agree only in part. I like the visual style of the actual levels but think the pixel graphics look out of place. It almost reminds me of minecraft. But the game is not done so perhaps it is subject to change. And I believe they said some of the graphics were placeholders.

[scifista42]

hardcore_gamer said:

And I believe they said some of the graphics were placeholders.

They've probably talked about those untextured or unicolored graphics here. Besides... You know that such a statement is a common excuse to reject criticism about visuals. (Even some Doom mappers do this :D) On the other hand, Strafe's art style is probably inconsistent in its nature and concept, trying to appear crazily low-res. I don't say that I like it at all, but so far I don't mind it either.

[Shaviro]

Interesting video. I'm actually kinda fond of the look. If they spent some more time streamlining the style it would be pretty spectacular in its own right. This also includes making tailor-made levels though, so I'm not sure it's going to happen. As for the game I think it looks fairly boring. Perhaps it will do for some nice casual gaming once in a while.

I'm greatly inspired by the idea of lowering the fidelity a little though. It might be a viable route for myself after my current project. Going down in texture size and reducing the per-pixel calculations. Then instead of going bare square hallways, throw a fuckload of contextual detail at the scene with interesting locations and level design. An interesting research branch for something like this would be an actual gibbing system as seen in Doom (Death animations) rather than "just" spraying blood all over the place.

[DooM_RO]

I like the art style too but I think the enemies look boring.

[Phml]

I have to ask: can anyone here think of arguments to support the design choice of a single permanent weapon? This idea seems common amongst "retro" indie devs; we've had it in ROTT 2013, in Tower of Guns... It just seems weird. Not only old shooters are characterized by having a bunch of weapons, players will lament loudly and repeatedly about the often seen 3 weapon restriction. So why go the other way? Are there people who enjoy shooting one and only one weapon most of the time?

Trying to think of it earnestly, infinite ammo modes in Serious Sam had their popularity in co-op, and there's the Doom meme of mostly using the shotgun (1) or SSG (2). Perhaps this is where this comes from, the "powerups" weapons being similar in spirit than the occasional use of plasma rifle and rocket launcher the "average" player would have. Meh. Even if that would prove accurate, it still bums *me* out more than anything.

Anything except perhaps screen sway. Holy crap does this game have it in spades! It's scary to see how much the player struggles in the "big fight" of 5 creatures and a half at the 2:30 mark, makes you think the game rules simply won't support more than a dozen monsters at once lest you can't take a shot from the screen wobbling in all directions. OK, I'm probably compounding the mouse mouvements with actual screen shake and exaggerating how bad it is; but screen shake on basic hits is a bad idea for a fast shooter, period, as it rewards conservative play, and indeed you can see how the player kept camping around corners and backing away the whole time. It was painful to see how slow the action was right as the speaker talked about how fast it was and how it would be great for speedrunning and such.

Granted there are various culprits to that beyond just screen shake, like the slow movement speed, relatively cramped interiors; and having a continuous fire accurate hitscan weapon is a recipe for camping tactics. The corrosion didn't help either; blocking your path, how is that conductive to speed? Although the whole spraying enemy blood all over it feels ridiculously cool, like a paintball gimmick.

From this presentation the whole game looks like that. Cool ideas sprinkled with awful ones. I suppose they don't want to limit themselves and I might not be the target audience, but aah, this is frustrating. I want to play the good half part of the game without having to suffer through the tedious half.

Level design seemed solid to me. Sure, it's going to look average at best if you compare it to man-made Doom maps, but for random generation and by modern standards, that's pretty good. You've got your stairs, lifts, height variation, windows, cover, corners, doors, railings... Nothing fantastic done with it, but it's serviceable. Of course, "serviceable" doesn't cut it if the gameplay stays as demonstrated, but I think it's a given if you automate level generation you can't rely on it carrying lackluster gameplay.

Loving the deadpan tone of the first speaker. The hype around this game is fun to follow. If this flops the devs should rebrand themselves as marketers or youtubers. :)

[Ed]

$185,096 seems like a ridiculous amount of money to ask for to get that game out the door. Maybe I'm missing something, but low quality assets, whether intentional or otherwise, should demand much lower build times. Much lower than some other, more modern styled shooter games I've seen on Kickstarter that were asking for a comparable sum.

[Clonehunter]

I thought it looked great. Backed. I just hope some more enemies are added, though, since currently the bestiary seems rather low.

[Linguica]

Ed said:

$185,096 seems like a ridiculous amount of money to ask for to get that game out the door.

Seriously? That's chump change to make an entire commercial FPS from scratch.

[Carnevil]

Linguica said:

Seriously? That's chump change to make an entire commercial FPS from scratch.

Definitely - especially if you don't want it to take forever to produce.

Anyway, it's not looking good for this, and the same goes for RetroBlazer (I feel bad for them launching their Kickstarter only a few days after this one). It seemed like it got a good response by being full blown retro, but it seems like even that hasn't been able to generate enough interest. I'm not sure how Kickstarters generally go, but raising 60% of the goal in the last 10 days seems like a stretch. I hope they can pull it off, though.

[StevieWolfe]

Maes said:

That's a pretty big CRT screen for a 1996 computer in the "ad"....anything above 14" cost a small fortune, back then. Maybe they were the richest kids on the block or something.

So...essentially STRAFE would play like a Quake with much more colorful graphics and speed. If that shit actually existed in that form in 1996, it would be the motherfucking ass.

I dunno, I had a HUGE crt back then for my little gaming box. I didn't buy it though, it was one of the many my dad found left behind after he did a renovation/clear out job for an old office complex. Back then dumpster diving for computers did yield some decent results lol...

[Jaxxoon R]

I saw Vinny's stream of this game.

It looked boring and poorly paced.

One of only 3 weapons throughout the entire map is a terrible idea. There are enemies that fill the entire map with pain when you kill them which is especially bad in such cramped, flow-less maps. Enemies are hard to see despite the art style.

And it's stupid they tried to get funding for this game in such an early state, it's supposed to be procedurally-generated, but not even a core concept of the game is working and they expect it to be able to be pitched?

No wonder they had a live-action trailer.

[Clonehunter]

Carnevil said:

Definitely - especially if you don't want it to take forever to produce.

Anyway, it's not looking good for this, and the same goes for RetroBlazer (I feel bad for them launching their Kickstarter only a few days after this one). It seemed like it got a good response by being full blown retro, but it seems like even that hasn't been able to generate enough interest. I'm not sure how Kickstarters generally go, but raising 60% of the goal in the last 10 days seems like a stretch. I hope they can pull it off, though.

I think in some cases a product still sees the light of day, sometimes. I think the Carnivores remake didn't see it's goal reached, but it's still on going and still to be released and has had recent updates (Including some kind of interview on the Jurassic World website)

[Carnevil]

That and if it doesn't reach its goal, but still manages to get substantial pledges, they could do another Kickstarter at the same or lower amount. That ended up working out for Hive Jump. They had one Kickstarter that failed - polished it up, relaunched it with a more reasonable goal, and was successful (I think even got a stretch goal or two).

But yeah, people who do this tend to be very passionate about their projects, and will make them happen no matter what.

[Stygian]

Moar gameplay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZDQCT4MmjI

[Clonehunter]

The guy(s?) playing seems really inattentive to what's going on when it begins. Still looks pretty neat, but are those big screen covering effects in the game or is the uploader just adding a much of random (And annoying) effects?

[Carnevil]

Phml said:

I have to ask: can anyone here think of arguments to support the design choice of a single permanent weapon? This idea seems common amongst "retro" indie devs; we've had it in ROTT 2013, in Tower of Guns... It just seems weird. Not only old shooters are characterized by having a bunch of weapons, players will lament loudly and repeatedly about the often seen 3 weapon restriction. So why go the other way? Are there people who enjoy shooting one and only one weapon most of the time?

Having just dealt with this a bunch, I think there are a few reasons this has been happening a bunch. First, people want lots of weapons, and this is a great way to offer them a bunch. The oldschool shooter model of "Keep every weapon you pick up ever!" isn't all that conducive to that model because there's a finite number of number keys on your keyboard. A model where you're picking one weapon (Tower of Guns, ROTT 2013) or two weapons (Sanctum 2) at the beginning allows you to have an unlimited pool of weapons to pick from, and even allows for adding weapons to that pool through unlocking.

Secondly (and I would largely attribute this as a failure on the part of game designers), there's a lot of redundancy with most weapons, so having lots of them all at once really doesn't matter. Assuming ammo isn't part of the equation, if the shotgun and chaingun both behave similarly (one just fires faster), what's the point of having both? Just pick the one that does higher DPS and stick with that. It's hard to design each weapon as being optimal in a certain situation (making each weapon useful) without stepping on the toes of another, and it's even *more* difficult to communicate this to players. Having just went to PAX South, you wouldn't believe how many people just ran through the first level of Wrack with the sword only because it's "badass I love it" - even though that's obviously not the optimal weapon to be using everywhere.

Wish that wasn't the case, but it is what it is.

[Doomkid]

Carnevil said:

if the shotgun and chaingun both behave similarly (one just fires faster), what's the point of having both?

I hate to be "that guy", but the shotgun's "burt then cover" is quite different from the chaingun's "repeated snipe". I get what you're saying though ;) This was one of the many, many flaws in Daikatana.. Too much that all feels the same. I'd much rather have 5-10 guns that all serve a unique purpose than a bunch of clone guns.

Carrying all guns at once is awesome in Doom, but the game was designed with that in mind. I've never minded a weapon carrying limit that much, as long as the guns themselves are cool/useful enough to not need more than, say, 3 at a time. 2 guns like in Halo does feel quite limiting, there's definitely a perfect balance to be struck here.

[Carnevil]

Doomkid said:

I hate to be "that guy", but the shotgun's "burt then cover" is quite different from the chaingun's "repeated snipe".

I know that and you know that, but do the vast majority of players - who haven't sunk 50+ hours into the game? I doubt it, and that's part of my point. It's a nuanced thing, which most people aren't going to pick up on quickly.

Besides, how useful is repeated sniping in Doom? I'd argue "not very".

[Doomkid]

You definitely make a valid point. Guns that are only slightly different in nuancey ways get really repetitive, so I'll go ahead and eat my hat now. I guess Doom has the excuse of being really old, but it does blow my mind that most big budget FPS have actually gone in the opposite direction and made every fucking weapon a hardly-different machine gun.

[Phml]

First, people want lots of weapons, and this is a great way to offer them a bunch. The oldschool shooter model of "Keep every weapon you pick up ever!" isn't all that conducive to that model because there's a finite number of number keys on your keyboard. A model where you're picking one weapon (Tower of Guns, ROTT 2013) or two weapons (Sanctum 2) at the beginning allows you to have an unlimited pool of weapons to pick from, and even allows for adding weapons to that pool through unlocking.

Hmm, I get it now! Thanks for putting it that way. I actually agree with that philosophy, although I feel one doesn't need to go all the way to a single weapon to achieve the effect. Especially as this destroys ammo management...

Ziggurat has a great implementation of the concept: you start with your basic infinite pea shooter, and you also get three different weapon classes, each of them having a distinct theme and mechanical use. This way there's no keyboard trouble, and you still have multiple options during a fight, as well as great variety with several dozen weapons to pick up through the game.

I've never minded a weapon carrying limit that much, as long as the guns themselves are cool/useful enough to not need more than, say, 3 at a time. 2 guns like in Halo does feel quite limiting, there's definitely a perfect balance to be struck here.

It does feel like 3 is a fine number, provided we're talking about 3 main weapons. Too many games want to mix it up with situational strengths, i.e. rocket launchers with limited ammo being extremely effective against armored vehicles while every other weapon would suck, leaving you with a constant Too Awesome To Use conundrum.

Having either weapon limits or enemy immunities is fine, but both at once tends to result in unmitigated disaster.

[Doomkid]

Phml said:

It does feel like 3 is a fine number, provided we're talking about 3 main weapons. Too many games want to mix it up with situational strengths, i.e. rocket launchers with limited ammo being extremely effective against armored vehicles while every other weapon would suck, leaving you with a constant Too Awesome To Use conundrum.

Having either weapon limits or enemy immunities is fine, but both at once tends to result in unmitigated disaster.

Well put. For some reason I feel a little OCD about guns that only are needed/usable one or two times throughout the game, yet you carry it around with you almost the entire time - it just seems like a waste!

Even when a game imposes a weapon carrying limit, the Doom philosophy of "every gun has it's use" should always be carried over. It seems like such an obvious element of design, but so many games out there just don't seem to get it right. Even Goldeneye, which I really enjoy, suffers from a bit of "all this shit is the same"ism. At least there are lots of cool and interesting weapons to discover throughout the game, which certainly helps to hide the repetitive nature of the pistols and machine guns.

[DeathevokatioN]

The ad is supposed to be over the top and cringeworthy, it wouldn't be an authentic 90's ad if it didn't achieve this. Brilliant marketing.

[sheridan]

Linguica said:

Seriously? That's chump change to make an entire commercial FPS from scratch.

Well yeah, if all of your team members are actually on a payroll. Most indie developers, particularly the startups, don't take a paycheck and live with their parents to cut costs.

I applaud the developers of this game for pulling in as much money as they did but the fact remains that most developers are able to do far more with far less if their heart is really in it.