Papy on 15/8/2009 at 14:04

---

You said "Lighting, sound, physics, AI, object interaction". Lighting, sounds, physics and AI (as in combat AI) are pretty much about the game engine. I don't know much about Id tech 5, but I guess it includes all those. As for object interaction, it was far too limited to make any differences.

To me, immersion is about the feeling of being in a believable world. That's where DX or Thief succeeded and where IW failed.

gunsmoke on 16/8/2009 at 15:10

---

And now you're dick ridin' him!

Macha on 16/8/2009 at 17:07

---

In the future, please make less fucking retarded posts.

Chade on 16/8/2009 at 21:51

---

Well, it's also about the way the game is designed. I wouldn't give a crap about dynamic lighting in DX2, except for the fact that it feeds back into the gameplay. But as I noted above, the way the game is designed doesn't always make it easy to take advantage of this. So really, while the engine enables certain game mechanics, you also need to have a game design which allows you to use the engine to your advantage. For instance, a telekinesis aug would have made it much easier to use dynamic lighting to support stealth, because then you could have manipulated objects while remaining hidden in the shadows.

Also, having a more "advanced" engine doesn't necesarily make the corresponding interactions better for the gameplay. While DX2's physics increased the amount of possible interactions, it also made some pretty basic interactions much less predictable then they were in DX, and hence much harder to take advantage of. Partly this is because they fucked up the physics, but part of it is also an unavoidable consequence of having objects which can, for instance, bounce differently depending on what angle they land.

Anyway, the key thing about DX and DX2 is that both game engine and game design work together to support the player doing cool shit (technical term).



DX2 did a pretty crap job of telling it's own story, which is a pity because I thought the story had a lot of potential. However, DX2 did a better job of allowing me to tell my own story. IMO that's what DX is all about. I got very involved in the world and the characters, because I needed to in order to make the right decisions for my avatar.

Papy on 16/8/2009 at 23:58

---

One thing I wanted to have in IW was a portable light I could attach to a wall (like those led lamp I use in some closets). That way, I could have seen the shadow of a guard before he came into sight. That would have been great for tactical gameplay. But would it help immersion? I don't think so.



In what way did the story had a lot of potential? I will agree the setting could have been used as the basis for a great story, but the story in itself was just really bad. It had no potential at all.



As I said many times, I don't like playing with a Barbie doll. For me, playing a game is about winning, not about "telling my own story". A video game is a very bad medium for that (a pen and a piece of paper are much better in my opinion).