Garbled Tunnel Syndrome: Gateways

By Adam Smith on January 31st, 2012 at 3:54 pm.

Are you adjusting your set? You certainly shouldn't be. I'd wager no one is even looking at this on a 'set'.

I’m going to design a Door Gun. It looks a bit like a normal gun but with some glowing science parts, ut when you shoot it at a wall a door appears. There’s a dial on the barrel that can change the type and size of the door, so if you want a dark wooden veneer, that’s fine, but if you’d rather have some sort of horrible formica-like slab it can handle that too. It’ll mostly be used by architects and joiners. Not like a Gateway Gun, which is a bit like a Portal Gun, and is for the exclusive use of scientists and test subjects. That brings me to Gateways, an upcoming side-scrolling platform-puzzler. The trailer made my brain hurt.

Obviously, walking through a wall and then falling out of the floor weren’t outrageous enough for Smudged Cat Games so they’ve added replication and size-warping into the mix. The visual style doesn’t make me want to jump for joy but the possible complexity of it does.

Rather than being a series of levels, the entire game takes place on one map, with sections becoming available for exploration as new powerups are found. For that reason, I’m going to call it Super Metrortal Braidlevania and I hope you’ll join me in doing the same.

, , , .

26 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. carn1x says:

    I better start stocking up on headache tablets now.

  2. konrad_ha says:

    This trailer begs the question: Has science gone too far?

    • Kdansky says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

      No, it does not. It raises a question, but it’s not a fallacy.

    • wccrawford says:

      Newsflash: ‘beg’ means to ask for something. Just because ‘beg the question’ means something in 1 particular circumstance does not prevent it from meaning something else the rest of the time.

    • PopeJamal says:

      “Begs the question” is a specific phrase that means a specific thing. It is not a group of words thrown together at random. Can you use language however you want? Of course! Can you randomly use language however you see fit and expect random people (who may be on another part of the planet) to understand what you’re talking about? I wouldn’t count on it.

    • Droopy The Dog says:

      Technically “Begging the question” has a particular meaning in one archaic context, the phrasing is quite specific. “Begs the question” is a permutation on that, but the kind of person anal and misguided enough to still use that in modern language would also be anal enough to phrase it “Your arguement is begging the question, good sirrah.” rather than “That begs the question”.

      I especially like your arguement about expecting people to understand, when the literal meaning of the words used were “Asks for the question”. Whilst one esoteric group used the phrase in an entirely more abstract sense. Yet you favour the abstract meaning and act like the litteral meaning is incomprehensible.

      Feel free to cling to a horrible mangling of the english language for tradition’s sake, just don’t act like it’s the sensible thing to do.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Or, you know, you could just use the correct and unambiguous “raises the question”.

    • MD says:

      @Droopy The Dog:

      “I’m not very familiar with the phrase, so it’s an esoteric, archaic, horrible mangling of the language and anyone who uses it is misguided and anal.”

      Also, using ‘beg’ to mean “to take for granted without basis or justification” or “to fail or refuse to come to grips with” is not ‘abstract’ at all, but entirely literal. Sometimes words have multiple meanings!

      It’s highly likely that the ‘modern’ meaning of “begs the question” evolved as a misunderstanding. It’s not really the kind of wording you would choose when starting from scratch, and I would dispute the suggestion that it actually makes much ‘literal’ sense. Certainly less than the original meaning.

      So if you want to pull the old ‘language evolves, get over it’ thing, fine. But get your facts straight, and acknowledge that the ‘new’ version arose from a misunderstanding that has become semi-accepted, and on its face makes no more (perhaps less) sense than the original.

    • MD says:

      PS, sorry if I sounded a bit too angry and wanky there. Usage debates have a tendency to make my head literally explode with self-righteous fury.

    • Droopy The Dog says:

      Dictionary.com might give those definitions for beg, but oxford dictionary doesn’t, nor do many others I expect. That definition has nothing to do with the etymology of the english word and is entirely to do with that single phrase. So yes, it’s abstract if it has nothing to do with the history of the word and the only definition came along after the term to make sense of the concept it represents.

      Yes, the modern useage likely evolved from a mistake, but it doesn’t change that taken on its own it makes more sense than the olde phrase.

      Besides you can hardly hold a mistake being it’s inception against it, since the old phrase comes from a mistranslation from latin that has since fallen out of favour. If they were more literal and used the phrase “petitioning the point” it might not be so contentious.

      So yes, language evolves, get over it. Even that phrase is an evolutionary leap, made by the same pretentious wanky sounding half-scholars who insisted it was spelt “sulphur” suddenly, it’s just a dead end one that needs to hurry up and die already.

      Oh and as for the needling “quote”, I’m quite familiar with the phrase, thank you.

    • Premium User Badge

      Harlander says:

      @MD

      I trust you’ve recovered from the cerebro-detonative effects of this little usage spat.

      Vinegar and brown paper is the ticket, I understand.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      This thread beggars belief.

  3. Ravenholme says:

    Dear god… my head. That’s… actually really clever and hurts my brain-brain too :C

  4. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    Huh. First I thought “Ok, so they made 2D-Portal.” then I thought “Hm. Ok, you cannot do that in Portal.” and a little later, finally, I thought “Bluh?”.

    This game could be really good, if it teaches the mechanics of that gun well.

    • Bishop149 says:

      I thought the same. . . . then. . .arggghh

      I hope valve aren’t looking, the 2D trailer hurt my head, if Portal 3 is like that in full 3D then I think a brain hemorrhage is on the cards. . .

    • Ridnarhtim says:

      But there already IS a 2D Portal game:

      http://portal.wecreatestuff.com/

    • Jahkaivah says:

      Valve had already tried time travelling portals during Portal 2’s development, you’ll be reassured to know they dropped it after deciding it was too confusing.

  5. ajewers says:

    I watched the trailer 3 times to improve the reliability of my results.

    Conclusion? I Want This Game !

  6. PleasingFungus says:

    It is the omni-indie-platformer. Every gimmick every indie puzzle-platformer has ever had, rolled into one.

    Glorious.

  7. Ridnarhtim says:

    At first, I thought it was just another 2D Portal game.

    By the end of it, I couldn’t wait to play it.

    • jamesgecko says:

      Before I watched the trailer, I thought the graphics were some of the worst I’d seen recently. Now the trailer is over, and the game has potential, but it still looks hideous.

  8. lingping says:

    Top sex films, top sex sevice,topSex tool for sell that you will like them ,welcome to http://bit.ly/bwW0Bk