Jashin on 31/7/2007 at 09:03
I hate it when people dissect a post, so I'm not even gonna read all that.
Besides, it's doesn't matter anymore. Everything's been said and done. The game's already been forgotten unlike its predecessor.
Papy on 31/7/2007 at 12:36
Quote Posted by DaveW
Except the interview where it explains why you're completely wrong.
From the interview, I mostly saw this : "That's another ulcer Harvey gave me. Oh my Gosh!".
So, when I read the rest interview where Warren Spector seemed to be somewhat positive about the game, I couldn't help but think : was this some PR to justify the dumbing down and making DX's fans believe IW was still good (so they go buy it) ? Was this Warren Spector just being professional and not wanting to put down the work and design decision of a friend ? After all, he wouldn't have "ulcers" if he really believed in that design, don't you think ?
Anyway, this interview is really superficial and doesn't say much. It's certainly not a proof consoles didn't play a role in the desire to streamline Invisible War. I have some difficulty believing Invisible War was made as a piece of selfish art. I'm pretty sure they tried to make a better game for their target audience as a whole and they certainly took this target audience's expectations when designing the game. Did they think that streamlining was required because of the X-Box audience ? Or did they think everyone, including PC player, wanted a streamlined game ?
I'm not saying the X-Box audience was why Invisible War was dumbed down, maybe the design team really thought games should be simple pastimes instead of a challenging game, but I'm only saying this interview is no proof at all.
heywood on 31/7/2007 at 16:24
Maybe they decided a rich interface is too difficult to master with a console controller, and maybe they thought that their target market didn't care about RPG elements. Or perhaps they simply thought that making the learning curve easier would help to sell more copies of the game. Possibly the streamlining was dictated by their publisher. Maybe it was debated internally by Warren and Harvey, and Warren trusted Harvey's judgment. Or maybe Warren actually preferred it that way. Maybe they were just lazy and opted for choices that made the game easier to design. Maybe they just lost the knack for making good games. Maybe they were just getting high all the time and didn't care. Who the hell knows what the real reasons are and why do we care at this point?
Matthew on 31/7/2007 at 16:28
Given that this argument already had its own, LARGE thread a short while ago, I have no idea.
heywood on 31/7/2007 at 16:30
By the way, I can't wait until BioShock is released and this same argument starts again with about 10x more people. :grr:
ZylonBane on 31/7/2007 at 17:23
No part of that sentence makes sense.
DaveW on 31/7/2007 at 17:45
Quote:
I hate it when people dissect a post, so I'm not even gonna read all that.
I guess it avoids admitting that you might actually be wrong, so ok.
Papy, with the developer saying
why it was streamlined it's the only evidence there is on the subject (well, there's possibly other interviews saying the same). He explains in detail why they streamlined the game, and since it hadn't been released why would he lie about it "in fear" of people not getting it? If he knew that most of the Deus Ex fans wouldn't like it, they wouldn't have done it. The Deus Ex formula was tried and proven to work with the PS2 release, which was mid 2002. They had plenty of time to add skills and all that stuff back into the game. You can think that he's lying in that interview (which makes no sense), but to say that it's no real proof is illogical.
Edit:
I've actually found (
http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/440/440693p1.html) another interview, this time with with Harvey Smith, which seems to conflict partially with Warren's. Basically, streamlining was a result of
both elements.
'refine the gameplay concepts we, frankly, made up on the fly as we worked on the first game.' [SIC]
'Consoles really force you to think about your interface and make it as streamlined as possible, otherwise your game suffers dramatically.'
'when we started working on Invisible War, we targeted the console from day one. This time it wasn't an afterthought. Every decision we made along the way considered that we would be running on a console. And I think you'll notice the difference. '
'Deep gameplay and simple interface / reduced learning curve are not mutually exclusive options.'
That seems to talk more about the interface though, not the unified ammo, lack of skills system, lack of locational health.
Papy on 31/7/2007 at 19:29
Quote Posted by DaveW
You can think that he's lying in that interview
Lying is a big word... It seems to me it's more like presenting a very limited view on a big subject without saying everything he thinks. What would be interesting are in-depth interviews made now, instead of those made two weeks before the game was released.
heywood on 31/7/2007 at 21:37
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
No part of that sentence makes sense.
:o Whoops, edited.
ZylonBane on 31/7/2007 at 21:42
I think it's funny to pretend ignorance about something so absurdly obvious it makes right-thinking people cry to see me trolling once again.
