Is there a really long Gamma Correction slider so I might, possibly, maybe be able to see what's going on? I get it - end of humanity, and stuff is gonna be dark. Does it have to be THAT dark? Might be fun if I could actually see the action...

The prototype controls had a totally different feeling to them (the jump didn't have a fixed height for example) and it was indeed floaty as hell. It's all been fixed in the full game and it's really tight now.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of Abuse. Man, what a fantastic game that was. I hope we'll see that on GOG one day.

Thank you. More and more it looks to me that "OMG it's so hard you guys" is the lazy developer's way out of properly balancing their game...just like how many people accuse indie developers of using pixel art as a lazy way out of putting effort into the aesthetics/graphics of their game.

As someone who loves Soldat, who made a 2D version of Quake 2 inspired by it, and someone who spent some time fixing the Abuse SDL port... this game looks like the best thing ever. I only played the prototype and it was great.

Point taken :S. It's been a rough day, but that should be of no consequence...

Fair enough.
As far as the game is concerned, here's the thing - if they're not describing it inaccurately, it might just be a good game regardless. Have you played N, the silly game with a ninja? It's not horribly sophisticated otherwise, but the difficulty gives it a charm of sorts.

OK - what's the tell here? What's the distinction?
Should people who like hard games go for games
- that are simple but marketed is hard?
- that are hard and marketed as hard?
- that are hard but marketed as simple?
- that are simple and marketed as simple?
Which games are guilty, and which are OK? Is "Dark Souls" damned by being famous for difficulty, or is notoriety not much of a factor? Do single-player games really count here? Do only they count, or does this extend to multiplayer? Is genuine difficulty enough to absolve the game of your accusations? If so - what makes the difficulty genuine?

How do you tell the difference between those who like hard games and have something to prove and those who do NOT have anything to prove?
Where would you place me? For example: I play Jagged Alliance on Hard, I do not save mid-day, but I restart each day until I'm satisfied with the result (no death, no permanent damage, preferably no sector loss, etc). I've beaten the first campaign on TIS-100, though I've struggled with one mission for quite a while. I beat "I Wanna Be The Guy" on Hard. I have a policy of not saving between missions, though I sometimes break that (I did that at some point in my playthrough of Blood). I like competitive titles like Overwatch, Battlerite, and Awesomenauts, but I've also bawled my eyes out with Dreamfall, and have enjoyed quite a few adventure games. I have not dropped a single match in competitive TASTEE: Lethal Tactics and have topped the leaderboards one month, and the daily mission ones often as they got introduced, beating the scores of the game's developers a few times. I've also played Kingdom Rush, got all Achievement in Plants versus Zombies, and enjoyed Zuma even passively. I've watched and relatively closely monitored the Korean Starcraft 2 scene for a few years, but have never played on a competitive team in my life... Does mentioning all of this show that I have "things to prove", disprove that, affect it at all? Do you see the possibility of pride without hubris, or does everyone have to be secretive about their accomplishments?
I have an inkling that your stance here is either arbitrary, inconsistent, or ridiculously meticulous in its definition.

Bombastic language aside, I don't believe we really were personally at odds here :). I'm not really into grudges or negative feelings in general.
Well... Maybe aside from that "I hope you and your group get banned; I would ban you myself if I could" asshole. That guy oozed negativity :S.

Given who devs of this particular one are you don't need to be Polish to understand art direction and overall philosophy behind this but it helps a lot. Especially after King Arthur's Gold, Soldat, Link-Dead (that last one being closest to spirit of Butcher in a way). ;p

To simplify it- when the game is advertised with "the easiest mode is >HARD<" than it definately tries to cash in by selling bragging rights to people who feel like they need it. That's an obvious stunt.

I see nothing wrong about people enjoying a challenge. I'll be honest - I don't really "get" competative mentality. I'm the wrong perso to discuss it with. I don't play competative games, I don't care one bit for achievements. I don't see difficulty, easy or hard, as something that should be a feature, and I think that all games should have a full spectrum of difficulties to choose from, from child's play to super-duper hard for everyone to enjoy the way they like. When a game tries to be "exclusive to the hardocore gamers" it enters that mentality of bragging rights that I don't like. People acting as if others being able to play and finish the game on an easy difficulty setting would somehow spoil their own gaming experience.

I don't begrudge anyone their taste in games, be it for the tough as nails games, or for some impossible to lose or get stuck walking simulators. I just don't like the crowd of people who act like beating super hard games makes them better than people who don't even like and don't play those games, and by extention I dislike it when devs try to cash in on that mentality.

I hope that's not too "arbitrary, inconsistent, or ridiculously meticulous in its definition" for you :P

OK, using your own definition - name some "good hard" and "bad hard" games.

I guess this might be a personal thing. The notion of "will" permeates my life in a multitude of ways...

But... they are. They really are. Just like those who swim farther and faster are better swimmers and those who weave more beautiful baskets with ease and grace are better basket-weavers, those who beat tougher games with more finesse are better players. This doesn't make each of these people a better human being in general (to be a "good person" is different than being a "good gamer"), but give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. You don't have to like these people (especially those who are assholes about it!), and you don't have to appreciate or value what they stand for, but you can't simply deny it.

We finally have someone to blame! Grab your pitchforks guys, and pack a lunch. It's a long trip to Poland. :-p

Well, all of those look FAR PRETTIER than this game to me. All I see in this game's screenshots is one unidentifiable thing that's supposed to be the main character surrounded by red, brown and orange blotches. It's not much different from the drawings my nephew used to do when he was three.

Add to that a story that didn't appeal to me and there's a game I don't feel like playing even if it was the only game left after someone erased my entire game collection and I had no money to buy anything else.

Wait, you are this guy?

What makes you say that?

Guess. :P

You have failed to understand what I've been saying entirely, haven't you?

I see you're one of those assholes (as, let's be honest, was quite evident from your manner from the start), so my time trying to explain this to you was wasted. Perhaps one day you'll learn that not everything is a competition, and you can't outrace someone who's just taking a walk :)

When they said "kill all humans", they should have specified and said that you will need to kill a bunch of Rambo clones who will fuck your shit up as soon as you open a door.

Wow, you guys care way too much. I didn't expect to get a couple paragraphs worth of a comment from my smart-ass remark.

I mean, some people like pixel art, others don't. Some people like tough games, other people don't. There's really no reason to waste time arguing over it. Both groups are being catered to in this day and age.