Maximius on 3/5/2005 at 16:51
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. And let me say it again, I think ISA did really beautiful work, this is not ass kissing, the Cradle will take its permanent place in the City for good reason, it has certainly taken up residence in my mind in the form of psychic scarring. Its just sad to see one more thing get warped, especially Thief. Ill bet many at ISA felt the same way.
I will have to read more on the Steam/Valve saga, but I agree, any move away from the influence of the publishers parasites is a positive one. Even if it is not the best situation, its gotta be better than the hustling for some styro-foam publishing house..
SubJeff on 3/5/2005 at 18:15
Quote Posted by rujuro
And yes the lean was bad, but that was the exact decision I mentioned, which is tying third person to first person. Had they been treated separately the lean could have been handled MUCH better.
Or, you know, you could have, errr, leaned? Or did the demon of 3rd person prevent leaning and turn it into sidestepping? Maybe I'm missing something here but I never heard that adding 3rd person activates the universal sidestep hack, I though you could program whatever you wanted. I must be wrong. :tsktsk:
Bumbleson on 4/5/2005 at 00:38
Quote Posted by Maximius
TDS was an attempt to capitalize on a cult favorite and turn it into a McVideoGame. This attempt was doubtless dreamt up in a room full of suits somewhere, far from the computer labs where the real work is done.
That was the best summarization of my feelings about TDS I've read in a long time :thumb:
The game was great in its own way, but it didn't feel the same as the first two parts. It's never a good idea to take away features the fans have enjoyed and gotten used to. Sometimes TDS felt like Star Wars without light sabres. It stands to reason that people want these things back.
Maximius on 5/5/2005 at 13:22
Sadly Bumbleson, the reason I know that's what happened with TDS is because thats whats happening everywhere. See my points about the museums I've worked at. Corporate culture, whatever its field of interest, *craves* authenticity of any kind. One way to achieve that is to hi-jack something elses reputation.
Whether its the reputation of the greatest first person sneaker series ever or the reputation of a great public museum, they want it because they know they can package and sell it. (I think the term is "brand value.") For a limited time, of course, because that very process of wresting value from those things undermines what people valued in them in the first place: uniqueness, creativity, originality, authenticity.
Here's another example: I was a punk rocker in my teens, black mohawk and all. We were different, to say the least. Now, fifteen years later, flip on MTV and the host has a black mohawk, plus thirty tattoos and nose rings. In fact, the argument could be made that appropriating (or creating) authenticity is MTVs +job+, they find it and turn it back out as product. It's why Nike, a slave labor employing corporation, films its commercials in the basketball courts of Harlem and Compton. They're mining for authenticity in the Af. Amer. community.
O.K. Im off the soap box.
