26. February 2016, 23:20:36

#280

JDoranQuote

Quote by voodoo47:

yeah, this has already been mentioned somewhere - in an ideal world, a game would be built for the strongest platform first, and only then cut down as needed for the lesser ones*. unfortunately, this introduces additional costs and development time**, so things usually go the other way around - the game is built for the weakest platform, and then simply ported to the rest, usually with pretty much no changes or enhancements at all.



*I think Doom3 has been done this way, pc first, and then a simplified console port with smaller levels and whatnot.

**it's also a bit of PR problem, as most console gamers hate the thought of getting a cut down version of the game, so by prioritizing the pc release, you are potentially pissing off a fair number of buyers.

Yes, Doom 3 on the original XBox was the PC game, but with more load points in the levels, and some levels cut-down or truncated.

Deus Ex on the PS2 was better, as even though it too had more load points (to compensate for the PS2's relatively minuscule system RAM) and altered/cut-down levels, they improved some levels, plus added some improvements to the gameplay. Well, some were improvements, some were bad decisions, depending on your point of view - you now didn't need to remember passwords as the game typed them for you automatically, the inventory now didn't limit you by item size, and the automatically unlocked doors to which you had the nano-key. Whatever your feelings, though, it was at least great that you didn't now pick up every combat knife that you came across!

26. February 2016, 23:22:20

#281

JDoranQuote

Quote by fox:

I, like many people, say it was not really a bad game in itself but compared to the first DX it was a major step back and it also didn't feel like it belonged in the same franchise. And it was definitely simplified in many ways (universal ammo, the inventory-grid gone etc, etc.). Basically what Bioshock is to SS but far less polished and without any real strenghts that could redeem it.

That's a good description. Invisible War is not a bad game, but it's not too good, and if you consider it as a Deus Ex game then it's awful. But treat it like a non-Deus Ex game and it's OK but nothing special.

26. February 2016, 23:24:02

#282

voodoo47Quote

yeah, IW would be, just like Thief2014, better off with all the references to the original games removed - without them, they would be just mediocre games, and they would not receive all the minus points they've got because they spat on pretty much everything that made the originals great.


//hmm, pretty sure I've also seen a video where Spector and/or Smith admitted that they've screwed up magnificently with IW somewhere.

27. February 2016, 07:20:29

#283

Join2Quote

Why is Spector seemingly pushing so hard for emergent gameplay in SS3? System Shock is meant to be somewhat restrictive and scripted. Will we be able to talk to the monsters now? He's recently said "every game I've worked on has offered more and more player empowerment and choices with each subsequent installment", which is true to some extent, but I don't see how you're going to top Deus Ex in that regard by using System Shock, nor why you should even try to come remotely close. The original System Shock did away with friendly NPCs, RPG systems, magic and the like, which was central to the player telling his/her own story in Ultima Underworld. Usually I'm one to crave complexity but I don't see where high levels of roleplaying comes into the System Shock experience beyond what the first two games already did. Being stuck on a space station, everyone dead or converted to cyborgs, with a benevolent AI that has all the power is not a concept ripe with player empowerment opportunities.

27. February 2016, 08:38:09

#284

foxQuote

Quote by Join usss!:

Why is Spector seemingly pushing so hard for emergent gameplay in SS3? System Shock is meant to be somewhat restrictive and scripted. Will we be able to talk to the monsters now? He's recently said "every game I've worked on has offered more and more player empowerment and choices with each subsequent installment", which is true to some extent, but I don't see how you're going to top Deus Ex in that regard by using System Shock, nor why you should even try to come remotely close. The original System Shock did away with friendly NPCs, RPG systems, magic and the like, which was central to the player telling his/her own story in Ultima Underworld. Usually I'm one to crave complexity but I don't see where high levels of roleplaying comes into the System Shock experience beyond what the first two games already did. Being stuck on a space station, everyone dead or converted to cyborgs, with a benevolent AI that has all the power is not a concept ripe with player empowerment opportunities.

While it's true that SS was not about finding alternate pathways, being able to talk your way out of situations, choosing factions (etc.), all this doesn't fall under the category 'emergent gameplay' as I think he defines it. It does belong under the umbrella of "player empowerment" but those elements are the intentional parts, specifically implemented to offer another route. The emergent part comes from the simulation-aspects of the game's world (including enemy AI) and refers to possibilities that the designers didn't think of. More of that in SS (or almost any game) would be great, in my opinion. That is exactly the reason why I am so keen on deeper world simulation.

It's not necessarily in rivalry with scripted story-events but it has to be managed cleverly.