heywood on 31/7/2007 at 22:23
I predict that after BioShock is released, once the newness wears off and the hype dies down, there will be similar complaints about how the interface and gameplay were dumbed down compared to SS2, and similar debates about whether the game is inferior because of the console. So we'll be able to revisit these same arguments all over again.
Jashin on 2/8/2007 at 03:23
Quote Posted by DaveW
I guess it avoids admitting that you might actually be wrong, so ok.
I don't think you understand the situation here. There is no
you or
I here, it's superfluous to place a personal stake in something that nobody here was ever a part of to begin with. I'm only conveying what was disclosed to me. I have zero interest in "being right" on some internet forum. What was said was said purely in the interest of
what happened.
You can believe what you like, so long as you've got all the information.
DaveW on 2/8/2007 at 05:58
With all the information suggesting that your standpoint on this issue was not what actually happened. Hence the use of the term "wrong".
The_Raven on 2/8/2007 at 13:07
If you kids don't stop fighting back there, I'm driving this car off the nearest cliff.
Papy on 2/8/2007 at 15:01
Quote Posted by DaveW
With all the information suggesting that your standpoint on this issue was not what actually happened.
The problem in this case is "all the information" is really only one interview... given two weeks before the game was released. Because of this detail, almost no one believe what was said in that interview. I know that you do believe it, but for almost everybody else, it was just some PR.
Here's something Warren Spector said in an interview I read :
Quote:
"Gamers are gamers. I guess the difference is that the PC audience is almost exclusively a "hardcore" audience, and the console audience has a hardcore component, but it also has this much larger "casual" element.
This quote is out of context (he said this when talking about advertising a game, not when talking about game design), but I think it still apply. I certainly think this is how the industry in general view those two markets. So when a game is designed with consoles in mind from step one (as the other interview you linked said), I can only assume the game is less "hardcore" and more "casual".
We can of course debate if Deus Ex gameplay could have been made more accessible for casual gamers without destroying what made it stand apart for hardcore gamers. Personally, as I think a linear game can only be "deep" by complexity, I don't believe it's possible to both simplify and retain the illusion of depth.
BTW, I reinstalled Invisible War two days ago to have another look at it and there is a lot of things I would do differently, particularly in story telling and level design. I view a lot of details as incoherent and I have to ask you something... If you had to polish IW, what would you change ? I'm not talking about the gameplay, but only about story telling and level design.
DaveW on 2/8/2007 at 19:05
Quote:
The problem in this case is "all the information" is really only one interview... given two weeks before the game was released. Because of this detail, almost no one believe what was said in that interview. I know that you do believe it, but for almost everybody else, it was just some PR.
But this makes no sense whatsoever. Had he been in denial or lying about the game and why they did stuff that he would therefore know is "bad", then why would they have done it in the first place? You can't just dismiss proof without a valid reason.
And also, I admitted that I was partially wrong on this before, but that referred mostly to the interface than the rest of the gameplay. And the rest of the gameplay makes no sense why they'd simplify it (Halo, the post popular and renowned game for the Xbox had seperate ammo. Why would they go against that?). As for polishing it, I would fix all the moments they mention the Illuminati and stuff as an "ancient secret society" because it sounds rubbish. And get rid of the loading zones.
Jeshibu on 2/8/2007 at 21:03
Quote Posted by DaveW
But this makes no sense whatsoever. Had he been in denial or lying about the game and why they did stuff that he would therefore know is "bad", then why would they have done it in the first place?
He wanted to let Harvey do the whole thing, right? It'd be pretty shitty of him to criticize the project after he did that. What's more, it'd be marketing suicide. As to why they'd do that, time limitations and adjustments towards a new target audience?
Quote:
And also, I admitted that I was partially wrong on this before, but that referred mostly to the interface than the rest of the gameplay. And the rest of the gameplay makes no sense why they'd simplify it (Halo, the post popular and renowned game for the Xbox had seperate ammo. Why would they go against that?).
Because it's a hell of a lot easier to supply the player with generic ammo and let him figure out how he'll use it than to remember to make it feasible with any handful of weapons. It's not because of the Xbox, it just seems like a shortcut to me. Possibly due to the fact that they were in a hurry to get the game done after being stuck with that engine.
Also, what about the stun baton and the multitools? To me, it looks like they sacrificed their usefulness (stealthiness) to make them look cool, which again would fit the new audience they were hoping to attract.
DaveW on 2/8/2007 at 22:16
Quote:
He wanted to let Harvey do the whole thing, right? It'd be pretty shitty of him to criticize the project after he did that. What's more, it'd be marketing suicide. As to why they'd do that, time limitations and adjustments towards a new target audience?
That's assuming Warren would just let Harvey completely change the game dynamic if he didn't agree with it. That is very unlikely, if he thought it would substantially impact the game's success. And yes, it has been credited to a new target audience, making it more accesible to "casual" gamers - PC and Xbox. And making it less complicated and full of random systems that contradict eachother or are rather useless (there are few augmentations in the original that actually serve much use, which makes the story a bit off).
Quote:
Because it's a hell of a lot easier to supply the player with generic ammo and let him figure out how he'll use it than to remember to make it feasible with any handful of weapons. It's not because of the Xbox, it just seems like a shortcut to me. Possibly due to the fact that they were in a hurry to get the game done after being stuck with that engine.
Also, what about the stun baton and the multitools? To me, it looks like they sacrificed their usefulness (stealthiness) to make them look cool, which again would fit the new audience they were hoping to attract.
Multiple ammo types isn't hard to code. I think they did have it in at one point anyway, but they managed it before with Deus Ex so it's not a time thing. They cocked up the stunbaton, but I don't see what they did to the multitools? They work exactly as before except instead of visible radio waves it has a cool swirly effect.
Papy on 3/8/2007 at 00:47
Quote Posted by DaveW
why they did stuff that he would therefore know is "bad", then why would they have done it in the first place?
As far as I know, Harvey Smith is not someone who talks a lot, but Warren Spector do and he certainly don't hide the fact that he can't really do what he wants. Publishers never write a blank check and developers have to compromise. Maybe Invisible War was exactly like how Harvey Smith wanted it, but most probably he had to make changes because of either some focus groups or some meeting with people from Eidos. This is the reason why I think this interview is not a proof of anything.
Anyway, you don't understand what I mean. Harvey Smith is not lying, he is only presenting one fact about the game in a way that will not alienate people. My point of view, and this is only something I see as a possibility, is that the game was dumbed down because someone thought it was necessary. But instead of saying "yeah, we dumbed down the game", he said something like "we concentrate on the core of the gameplay and trim the fat" (not exact quote, of course). This is what I call PR, and this is something everybody does (even me).
One thing though... I don't think universal ammo was a solution to the dumbing down needs. I believe universal ammo was really because of this desire to put the focus on choice. I guess it was a way to make sure the player could use the weapon he liked, and not being stuck using something he don't like because he is out of ammo. Personally, although I don't like it, universal ammo never really bothered me either. Same thing for lockpicks. I really never cared that they were removed. It is certainly not the reason why I didn't like Invisible War.
To me, the real dumbing down come from other things. First, the game is constantly holding your hand and showing you the way. You rarely find things by yourself, most of the time you have someone guiding you. Choices are explicit or too obvious.
Second, everything is well balanced and there is no fat. Whatever you do, it's alright. You can't go to a useless place, you can't make a wrong choice. There is no punishment for being dumb or not being attentive. Nothing really matters.
Third, the game is simply far too easy. The realistic difficulty of Invisible War is about the same level as the normal difficulty of Deus Ex, particularly with patch 1.2 and the headshots back. There is too much resources and biomod are also far too powerful. The worst is of course the Spy Drone. It was already too powerful with the original Deus Ex, and Invisible War made it even more powerful. It was completely ridiculous. Take the black market canister in the lab at the start, get the two from the Omar in Vox club, and tada ! You are almost in God mode right from the start of the game.
Of course, we already had this conversion before and I know you think all of this is good game design. But to me, it's the opposite of what a game should be. It is not a game, it is an interactive story. This is what I call dumbing down and this is why I was never able to play with Invisible War a second time.
Quote Posted by DaveW
As for polishing it, I would fix all the moments they mention the Illuminati and stuff as an "ancient secret society" because it sounds rubbish. And get rid of the loading zones.
No, that's not what I meant. I'll give you some examples. At the start of the game, we use an holocomm unit to speak with Nassif. The problem is communication is immediate. I think it's a mistake and polishing would mean a one second delay with "establishing communication" or "waiting for answer" before Nassif answers. It's not much, but it would help me to think somehow the world make sense.
After that first communication, Nassif speaks to us directly through our infolink. It's ok, as she certainly have control over it. But when we enter the lab with the three canister, Nassif talk to us through the holocomm unit. Why didn't she use the infolink ? Polishing it, to me, would mean using the infolink again.
Take Chen. At the exit of the lab she speak to us through an holocomm unit. It certainly make sense. But then, a few second later, it's through the infolink. What ? Hey, you ! How did you come into my head !? I could understand that after some time she could take control of my infolink as her people were in Tarsus and could steal the code or whatever, but not after 20 seconds ! Polishing it would mean having the message sent through an NPC and using the infolink only after some time, with Chen saying : I now have access to your infolink.
Again, same thing for the Omar. How the hell could they talk to me through my infolink when I kill their agent in Club Vox only 15 minute after I exit the lab ? The message was unnecessary and could have been said by the next Omar agent I met.
And then it's Chief Morgan ! Damn ! Did someone wrote an entry in wikipedia on how to use my infolink or something ? And again, why not use a WTO guard to give me the message ?
The way messages are sent to me are wrong most of the time.
Another example of this is the datacube from Billie in my room. Ok, I can guess she didn't use the holocomm unit because of fear of spying, but then, how this datacube was in my room ? Did she have my door code ? If so, the message should mention it. it should say something like : "I don't trust the holocomm communication so I enter your apartment and left this datacube to tell you..."
And what about the lack of reaction from the guard in the hallway after the explosion that kills the other one ? Would it have been so hard to make it run to check and then go back to it's place near the elevator while making him look like he's speaking to a radio or something to ask for help ?
What about Billie staring at the door without moving, after she said she had things to do ? What about having her stare at a screen displaying some kind of information, as if she was actually doing something instead ? And would it have been so hard to have her say "take whatever you want" if I take the bread in her kitchen just to make her look like she's not in zombie mode ?
It's like when you are back in your room and Billie says to watch the ceiling while she cut power. We see the two scientists, but they are not looking at us, they are looking at each other ! Don't you think it would have been a lot better it they were actually looking at us ?
But the worst is obviously dialogs. For example, when Billie cut the power, the male scientist says he doesn't know who we are because he didn't read the file, and then, 5 minutes later when we are upstairs, he knows everything about us. I guess he read really, really fast.
The game is full of this kind of things that I don't hesitate to call mistakes. This is what I mean with lack of polish. Do you think all of this is OK ?
DaveW on 3/8/2007 at 04:39
Frankly, all of what you were just listing as 'dumbing down', well, isn't. On top of that I disagree with basically everything you said - there's plenty of hidden areas, different choices you can make, plenty of which outdo those possible in the original game. As for "punishment for being dumb", if you remember I made a short demonstration in the last thread of me working with UNATCO - gunning down innocent civilians and disobeying direct orders, and they still sent me on a mission to the location at which Paul was believed to have turned. The biomods are more poweful because they actually mean more, it's not a "skills/items/augmentation" system anymore, it's just augmentations. And the augmentations in the original were crap anyway.
Regardless of what you think of them, these are just poor decisions on part of design, not the streamlining. The interview with Warren Spector talking about things simply makes sense, and whether you agree that the changes in IW were for the better or not it's clear that the intention was to remove useless and redundant systems, as Harvey and Warren have said in seperate interviews. It makes no sense whatsoever for Eidos to say to Ion Storm "Great success last time, you even won a BAFTA! Right, this time we want you to fuck everything about and change stuff for the sake of it." It makes no sense for Eidos to change it so radically.
'After that first communication, Nassif speaks to us directly through our infolink. It's ok, as she certainly have control over it. But when we enter the lab with the three canister, Nassif talk to us through the holocomm unit. Why didn't she use the infolink ? Polishing it, to me, would mean using the infolink again.'
Because the infolink is not for 2-way communication, and they have a conversation. Also, varying the method of interaction is a surely a good thing since it keeps the game's storytelling methods more interesting.
It's well established in Deus Ex that it's easy to access infolinks. Take Everett in Paris - you send a signal and within seconds he's managed to access your infolink without even knowing who you are. And it's 20 years on with augmentations fairly commonplace - why would it be harder? Maybe Tarsus had some protection against other people or something. Although I agree an NPC would be better (such as having that order woman at the top tell you), it makes perfect sense in the actual world.
I don't think it's a willingness to say things are mistakes, it's a willingness to find them, even when they don't exist. People not reacting to you taking stuff? Commonplace in Deus Ex. Or two people looking at eachother when they're talking? That's fairly common in real life. As for "knowing everything" - he mentions your name. He then makes a joke about his code running protein synthesis or something - which would be common among all the subjects.
