Here’s a guide to referential humor, for the record

Ideal: Joke is not dependent on understanding the reference, but are funnier if you do.

Not Ideal: Joke is dependent on understanding the reference, is not funny if you don’t.

Anthony Burch: A robot yelling YOLO HASHTAG YOLO, this is the entire joke

Oh my god it actually gets better

Oh my god it actually gets better

asker

kiwigameenthusiast asked: So we all know Anthony Burch is a twit, but what about Ashley Burch? I want to like her, because I think she's a great voice actor, but I don't follow her on twitter or anything. Does she have an actual sense of humour?

She helps write the TF2 Cartoons now, so, she’s funnier than her brother, I guess.

Why don’t you just put in a .wav of yourself sobbing, Burch? It’s not like we can’t tell.

Why don’t you just put in a .wav of yourself sobbing, Burch? It’s not like we can’t tell.

Pacing

Let’s talk about pacing.

Pacing is probably the number one biggest concern you should have if you’re making a narrative work. We only have so much time on this tiny blue pearl, after all. If your audience is giving you their attention (and possibly their money) you should try not to WASTE THEIR FUCKING TIME. And despite pacing being so important, it’s probably the aspect of narrative works that I see abandoned the most, in virtually every medium. Games that drag on to long. Shows that can never get to the fucking point. Comics that are written for the trade. Webcomics written by the page. All of these are bad, and will almost uniformly suck ass.

Works should be paced briskly. That doesn’t mean everything should move fast, it just means not to waste the audience’s time. A slow burn on a story is fine, as long as you aren’t wasting the audience’s time too much. When you put something into a work you need to stare at it and ask yourself ‘does this need to be here?’

Does this further the narrative? Does it establish something about one of the characters? Does it set up for something that will happen later? What’s the shortest this can be while still including everything I want? You don’t want to reduce your own work, but unless you have an editor to help you, almost everything anyone produces can use some fucking cuts.

Comics have been blighted for years by the ‘write for the trade’ mentality, where stories that would have been 2 or 3 issues are stretched to take up an entire trade. It wastes the audience’s time and money, and is just the shit cherry on the crap sundae that is modern cape books.

Like 90% of webcomics aspire to be narratively driven yet also have a joke on every page, so you end up with stories moving at a glacial pace while panel upon panel is used to set up and deliver jokes that aren’t as funny as the author thinks they are anyway (surprise most webcomics are shit!)

For a game, pacing is especially critical, since games are an interactive medium. If the audience finds the game tedious or boring before the credits roll, you have failed. A lot of people harp on games having a certain length, but if your game is only enjoyable for six hours, it really should not be 10. Examples of this kind of shit are both Overlord games. Those games are charming, and relatively enjoyable, but both of them are like thirty hours long. They can’t support themselves. (It’s to note, when some idiot babbles about ‘games needing to be shorter’, this is usually what they mean. Dunno why they always phrase it in the most inflammatory manner possible.)

Remember; it’s better to leave your audience at the credits wanting more, than at the credits going ‘thank god’. It drastically changes how people will remember your game, the impression it’ll leave on them, everything.

It’s hard, especially for games. When developing a game, trying to figure out ‘how long is this fun?’ is about as easy as trying to catch smoke in a jar, but hitting that magic length will make your game exponentially better than if you didn’t.

asker

Anonymous asked: Who do you think is worse, Activision or EA? I probably already know the answer, but I just wanna throw that question out there.

EA.

Activision caters to an audience that isn’t me, EA actively fucks up things I liked.

yep

yep

asker

Anonymous asked: What do you think is the most important thing a weapon should have?

terminusest13:

Feedback.

If you ask Doomers what their favorite weapon is, the answer will almost universally be the Super Shotgun—and out of all the weapons, it delivers the most feedback to the player.
If you ask FPS fans what their favorite type of weapon is, the answer will almost universally be the shotgun—out of all the different types of weapon, it is naturally suited for the most feedback.

So what is feedback? Well, a weapon needs to be much more than just “point, click, deliver damage”. It’s all the little touches that contribute to it: The way the player character reacts to firing it, the visual effects that compliment how it’s fired, the way the enemies react, the follow-up after you fire it, and the sound effects that accompany it.
A weapon needs to actively demonstrate to the player that it can and has caused damage; it’s not enough that a weapon has to BE effective, it has to FEEL effective.

Compare two double-barrels in similar video games, the Super Shotgun in Doom with the sawed-off of Blood. While the SSG is often heralded as the greatest video game shotgun of all time, the sawed-off in Blood is…eeehhhh.
This is because the Super Shotgun provides infinitely more feedback.

The sound is deeper and more thunderous. The reload animation is intricate—the most frames for a single weapon in the game. It takes a good amount of time to follow through, giving the player time to breathe from firing out a massive load.
And, well, the load is massive. When you connect with all 20 pellets, practically the entire screen goes red, particles and sprites splatter everywhere, the enemy is thrown back and (almost) always goes into a pain state. And for hordes of weaker enemies, they always fall to one single blast.

image

This is the most satisfying shit.

If you compare this with the shotgun in Blood, it stands in stark contrast.
The sound is light and wimpy. The animation is fast and doesn’t really have any weight to it. And enemies hit with it barely flinch and keep on running to you. Though it does a good amount of damage, it doesn’t feel like it. It actually feels pretty pathetic.
So the majority amount of time in Blood often isn’t so much charging out with the shotgun, but chucking dynamite around.

image

A weapon with more feedback will always be considered to be more powerful, even if it actually isn’t. If you had two weapons, and put the Doom rocket launcher side by side with a custom rocket launcher with recoil, screen shaking, a smoother animation, guaranteed gibbing on death, a pump action, and 10% less damage (that the players don’t know about, of course)…the custom rocket launcher will still be the weapon picked the majority of the time.
It might not actually do more damage, but it FEELS like it does more damage.

And that’s what every weapon should strive for.

asker

Anonymous asked: Thoughts on the *new* Nintendo 3DS?

I seriously fucking hope that isn’t it’s name in North America, that shit’d be more confusing than anything else.

What’s wrong with 3DSi?

asker

Anonymous asked: It might be a little too early to tell but do you think Sony's Third Party Production team has been a bust?

I feel like Sony announced them right before the PS4 launched and now that it’s wildly successful despite having no games yet, they just stopped giving a shit.