Skol on 7/11/2008 at 11:47
Were the old design documents shredded? We don't want something new, we just want something better (or as good as). Not hard to live up to when you already know what the problems were. And not for a second do I buy the "average gamer" argument. You don't return a game because it's hard; you return a game because it sucked.
I really don't get you guys. You already have brand-name power to begin with. Make a DX clone with changes here and there, market it as such (not the other way around), and wait for all the reviewers to smack 9/10 or 10/10 on the jacket and call it the successor to one of the greatest games of all time.
So I wonder: are you aiming for mediocrity, folks? Interestingly the biggest chance y'all have decided to take was to screw with what already worked... AGAIN! You have two design docs already: one for a game that worked, and one that didn't. Boy, wouldn't that be a sight to behold? This game's design doc? You have one, right? If you look real hard, does it look like more like DX or IW?
Ugh, this much mess from a game whose most aesthetically pleasing attribute was being largely gray.
Hell, while you're making a generic and slapping a brand on it -- augmentations and conspiracy theories notwithstanding, folks -- for a quick and hopeless buck you might as well be innovative: listen to us for a sec. We speak the very simple truth... and what we're mostly telling you is to get rid of overhead like 3rd person perspectives, cover systems, and all these other tired gimmicks. Cripes, give me an RPG with guns and a good old conspiracy.
After IW, this is a risk you're taking. There's no guarantee that this brand will work anymore than it already has. The cool thing? We know why the brand works. The bizarre thing? You, apparently, don't. After IW and T3, I am not giving you folks the benefit of a doubt. You've learned your lesson, and you can sink with the rest of 'em. The only thing you can do is get your ducks in a row and prove us wrong, which you (Eidos) have consistently failed to do. And we've consistently told you it would happen, too. So what'll it be... Even in an imperfect world such as ours does this practically make and sell itself. You just get to do the dirty work.
Chade on 7/11/2008 at 12:21
Quote Posted by Papy
I agree with everything you said (last post only, ;) ), but there is one thing I'd like you to answer : why do people play video games?
How fundamental do you want to get? At heart, it's for the same reason we play anything: because that is the natural way we learn.
Games are just ritualized play, and we make them to structure and guide our play into something hopefully meaningful. Video games ... well, video games are mostly awesome because they enable us to mix games with complex automated systems and large amounts of media/text/whatever.
[Soapbox mode - sorta OT]I would like to think that games are about learning, video is about looking into human souls, and video games may one day involve learning about my own soul. I don't know whether that will be the case, but I think of all the games I have played, DX and DX:IW give me the best glimpse into that future. I remember looking into the dead face of Klara after accidentally killing her because of a distinct cowardly decision I had made a few moments earlier. It was a beautiful example of meaningful agency, and the first time a game or story had made me think hard about my own personality. I want that moment again.[/Soapbox mode]
Quote Posted by Papy
As for board games, Puerto Rico may be a bit too complex for a novice, but Settlers of Catan is great for an introduction. Begin with that and slowly increase complexity. Also board games have an enormous advantage over video games : YOU. You can teach how to play to someone a lot more efficiently than any video game tutorial or hand holding system. You also provide an example, feedback and motivation.
That makes sense. My lack of board game experience shows ...
YuSeF on 7/11/2008 at 13:23
Quote Posted by Chade
How fundamental do you want to get? At heart, it's for the same reason we play anything: because that is the natural way we learn.
Games are just ritualized play, and we make them to structure and guide our play into something hopefully meaningful. Video games ... well, video games are mostly awesome because they enable us to mix games with complex automated systems and large amounts of media/text/whatever.
[Soapbox mode - sorta OT]I would like to think that games are about learning, video is about looking into human souls, and video games may one day involve learning about my own soul. I don't know whether that will be the case, but I think of all the games I have played, DX and DX:IW give me the best glimpse into that future. I remember looking into the dead face of Klara after accidentally killing her because of a distinct cowardly decision I had made a few moments earlier. It was a beautiful example of meaningful agency, and the first time a game or story had made me think hard about my own personality. I want that moment again.[/Soapbox mode]
That makes sense. My lack of board game experience shows ...
Beautifully said Skol. I totally agree with you. DX was a big hit. DX:IW was not. They are remaking DX not DX:IW, why do they want to change DX if it was a hit? Stick with what worked.
heywood on 7/11/2008 at 17:44
Stephane D'Astous' previous work was mostly 3rd person console action games (Prince of Persia series, Splinter Cell) and more recently the console port of Far Cry. We hear there's a lot of former Ubisoft people at Eidos Montreal. They presumably worked on the same games.
I think they're just making the kind of game they like and know how to make, with DX inspired art, story, and combat.
It's time we started thinking of DX3 as a DX-inspired game and not a successor to DX.
YuSeF on 7/11/2008 at 18:58
You are right about DX3 being inspired by DX and not a direct decedent. There are many fools working on the project who don't understand the true feel of the game. The game to them is just a toy they create based on their past work. Like you said... their work is not very similar to DX play style so they are in the mindset of a different type.
Matthew on 7/11/2008 at 19:25
Have you met all these fools to be able to draw such a definitive conclusion about their intelligence?
YuSeF on 7/11/2008 at 21:36
Quote Posted by Matthew
Have you met all these fools to be able to draw such a definitive conclusion about their intelligence?
I never said anything about intelligence. They are where they are because of it. They are never the less still fools. :)
Skol on 8/11/2008 at 01:43
That last message... I didn't mean to imply that this is DOOMED and that everyone working there is a moron. Anything but that.
I am concerned about the direction they've decided to take... Not so much from a gameplay perspective (which, frankly, I can live with... not without complaining endlessly) but from the intention behind the decisions they've made so far. Cover systems? If I wanted a cover system -- and I believe this to be true of any player -- I'd be playing Gears of War. Like ZB said somewhere, the cover system in the original was so good it wasn't even referred to (pretentiously, I might add) as a cover system. And other bitter ramblings...
I do have hope; I have little faith. Prove me wrong. C'mon... :-)
One last thing: this hard-core appeal thing I don't buy either. It's been almost 10 years. We'll get a new batch... marketing can take care of making the game seem simpler than it really is, and I think any reviewer with any history of games will genuinely appreciate a brand-spanking-new DX that doesn't veer wildly from the original.
<crosses fingers>
That doesn't mean I'm just gonna cross 'em and leave it at that. I really hope they take into account our rather deep knowledge. It's been, again, almost a decade. Us die-hard fans know what's best, simply because we've been playing the game for 10 years... and I'm willing to bet that from a sales perspectives, we're doing pretty well with the advice we're already giving.
I just really want this to be something the designers keep in mind. We know the minimum requirements. That is all.
Matthew on 8/11/2008 at 19:36
Quote Posted by YuSeF
I never said anything about intelligence. They are where they are because of it. They are never the less still fools. :)
And you are suitably qualified in game design to know this, I'll assume?
