Game Informer: Exploding barrels aren't innovative

[MrAngryFace]

In the preview for Project Origin they spend like a paragraph going over how you can roll these red barrel things at enemies and shoot them so that they explode. That kinda stuff doesnt deserve a paragraph

[cool breeze]

Killzone 2 is also expanding explosive barrels by having the area you shoot act as propulsion to move the barrel in a dynamic direction.  Crysis let you pick up explosive barrels and throw them at enemies.  Instead of solving the explosive barrel problem by oh, removing them or something crazy like that, they see fit to just improve on the barrel instead.

[MrAngryFace]

There's been exploding barrels since doom blargh

[Bildi]

Agreed.... zzzzzzzzz.

[Joe Molotov]

Can a barrel actually explode if shot, and what circumstances would it take for a barrel to be able to explode? Someone contact the Mythbusters!

[duckman2000]

Killzone 2 is also expanding explosive barrels by having the area you shoot act as propulsion to move the barrel in a dynamic direction.  Crysis let you pick up explosive barrels and throw them at enemies.  Instead of solving the explosive barrel problem by oh, removing them or something crazy like that, they see fit to just improve on the barrel instead.

There isn't a problem though. It's just another bitches' stone, a griper's standby when people need to gripe but can't find anything that's really worth griping about. Something that explodes after you shoot at it is a good thing to have in a shooter. And we have moved from having a single volatile, explosive item to stacking lots of these items together, and make them interact with the environment. It's shooter evolution at its absolutely finest, and only aggressively lame people complain about exploding barrels.

[MrAngryFace]

Those of us who have played FPS titles since doom are a bit weary of exploding barrels, no matter what game they come in. You never hear us go 'oh wow those exploding barrels, that made the level.'

[duckman2000]

good job missing the point of the thread.  way to go.

I'm pretty god damn sure I was responding directly to the post I quoted. Which would be why I quoted it. Good eye though

spoiler (click to show/hide)

not

[close]

[cool breeze]

There isn't a problem though. It's just another bitches' stone, a griper's standby when people need to gripe but can't find anything that's really worth griping about. Something that explodes after you shoot at it is a good thing to have in a shooter. And we have moved from having a single volatile, explosive item to stacking lots of these items together, and make them interact with the environment. It's shooter evolution at its absolutely finest, and only aggressively lame people complain about exploding barrels.

Sure, but don't make that one of the 'features' for you game. 

And by problem I didn't exactly mean something wrong with them like the common usage of that word.  It is more like "Oh, you just got knocked up, but you wanted to have a baby, so its not a problem".  See what I mean?

Still, explosive barrels are overdone in some games and should be removed at times.  I'm not saying from the entire game completely, but when they are out of place.  Uncharted is a good example where explosive barrels were everywhere when it didn't make a lot of sense at all.

[WrikaWrek]

If you take out Exploding barrels from gaming, certain games would just fall apart.

It's the backbone of shooters.

[duckman2000]

There isn't a problem though. It's just another bitches' stone, a griper's standby when people need to gripe but can't find anything that's really worth griping about. Something that explodes after you shoot at it is a good thing to have in a shooter. And we have moved from having a single volatile, explosive item to stacking lots of these items together, and make them interact with the environment. It's shooter evolution at its absolutely finest, and only aggressively lame people complain about exploding barrels.

Sure, but don't make that one of the 'features' for you game. 

And by problem I didn't exactly mean something wrong with them like the common usage of that word.  It is more like "Oh, you just got knocked up, but you wanted to have a baby, so its not a problem".  See what I mean?

Still, explosive barrels are overdone in some games and should be removed at times.  I'm not saying from the entire game completely, but when they are out of place.  Uncharted is a good example where explosive barrels were everywhere when it didn't make a lot of sense at all.

Agreed. When they become scripted set pieces used squarely to aid in blowing up some piece of the environment that's between me and whatever the destination is, then it feels sort of, er, lazy. In shooters, where explosions make for half the appeal though, I'm not seeing it as a problem. I like what I've seen from both Killzone 2 and Far Cry 2, where the barrels/tanks are less predictable.

For the record though, my reaction when reading this segment of GI was similar to that of the OP, seemed like a weird thing to highlight.

[Bildi]

Can a barrel actually explode if shot, and what circumstances would it take for a barrel to be able to explode? Someone contact the Mythbusters!

I remember they couldn't make a car explode by shooting the gas tank - so maybe exploding barrels is a myth as well?

[MrAngryFace]

GI was mentioning it in an article on Project Origin, not Killzone.

[duckman2000]

Can a barrel actually explode if shot, and what circumstances would it take for a barrel to be able to explode? Someone contact the Mythbusters!

I remember they couldn't make a car explode by shooting the gas tank - so maybe exploding barrels is a myth as well?

It should work, if you can get the vapors to ignite from sparks (metal hitting metal). I don't quite get this common implementation where the barrel explodes after a set number of bullets shot into it.

Compressed air and chemical tanks make the most sense.

[duckman2000]

GI was mentioning it in an article on Project Origin, not Killzone.

Speaking of which, I guess there is a new trailer for Project Origin.

http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/812587/fear-next-gen/videos/projectorigin_e3trailer_070808.html

The first person combat game of 2008. It's hard to imagine that they couldn't find anything else about the game worth writing about.

[Bocsius]

What? Exploding barrels are always a fresh and new experience.

Yours,

Saving the Princess

[Van Cruncheon]

Killzone 2 is also expanding explosive barrels by having the area you shoot act as propulsion to move the barrel in a dynamic direction.  Crysis let you pick up explosive barrels and throw them at enemies.  Instead of solving the explosive barrel problem by oh, removing them or something crazy like that, they see fit to just improve on the barrel instead.

There isn't a problem though. It's just another bitches' stone, a griper's standby when people need to gripe but can't find anything that's really worth griping about. Something that explodes after you shoot at it is a good thing to have in a shooter. And we have moved from having a single volatile, explosive item to stacking lots of these items together, and make them interact with the environment. It's shooter evolution at its absolutely finest, and only aggressively lame people complain about exploding barrels.

good job missing the point of the thread.  way to go.

duckman's repsonse smacks of uncharted fandom to me, rawr

[Van Cruncheon]

um, barrel shooting was mandatory in the first "puzzle" platforming area
 
but after that, they abandoned puzzles for MEXICANS OF WAR

[VALIS]

Playing though Battlefield Bad Company this week, that game has a bad case of Barrelitis. Like, every fucking building on the map is surrounded with explosive barrels. I almost feel bad killing these enemies. It's like picking on the slow children in school.

[Vrolokus]

In the preview for Project Origin they spend like a paragraph going over how you can roll these red barrel things at enemies and shoot them so that they explode. That kinda stuff doesnt deserve a paragraph

I feel bad for the guys who have to write those GI cover stories.  They're all like that - thousands of words of bullshit.  I don't know if it's the editor or the publishers demanding a certain amount of time spent, but it's practically unreadable.