ZylonBane on 31/7/2008 at 15:56
Quote Posted by Goldmoon Dawn
With todays advanced graphics technology, why not just make loot look like loot?
You mean like the advanced graphics technology in the original Thief games?
Beleg Cúthalion on 31/7/2008 at 19:06
I always knew golden vine bottles existed.
Goldmoon Dawn on 31/7/2008 at 19:12
I know it doesnt happen often, but I was being a smartass. Obviously graphic technology means nothing at the hands of untalented designers.
Chade on 31/7/2008 at 21:28
Quote Posted by Melan
the highly theoretical "here is how to have fun" school of designing games that, by thinking in narrow recipes, takes edge, surprise and imagination out of gaming
In my (admittedly extemely limited) experience, the more theoretical game design books usually do a lot less "thinking in narrow recipes" then the practical ones.
I am curious as to what you are basing this post on.
Melan on 1/8/2008 at 05:02
Among other things, Deus Ex: Invisible War and Bioshock.
Chade on 3/8/2008 at 21:29
So those teams are the only people employing the supposed "highly theoretical 'here is how to have fun' school of designing games that, by thinking in narrow recipes ..." which apparantly exists?
And theoretical game design was the primary driver of the streamlining that you don't like? As opposed to economics?
And changing DX to the point where it no longer appeals to its fans is "thinking in narrow recipes"?
You can hate those games if you like, but I don't see how blaming "theoretical game design" works out. Or how you can possibly support the idea that it encourages people to think in "narrow recipes".
jay pettitt on 3/8/2008 at 22:12
I think there's at least smidgen of truth in it. Elsewhere on TTLG someone linked to a series of Lectures given by Warren and friends that happened to look into some of the bits gone bad in Invisible War - a desire to be the leanest meanest example of simple/elegant gaming was cited as a reason leading to the over-removal of complexity that a lot of people happened to like in Deus Ex and to IW's general detriment; ammo types being an example.
I'm not sure 'intuitive' decision making is a magic bullet to the problems of big AAA game making though. That sounds akin to 'common sense' and other recepies for the mass abandonment of reason in favor of stupid. I don't think you can do that kind of creative on such a project on that kind of scale. Rather I think that theory types need to get more sophisticated. And It'd certainly be nice to see more experimental mini titles ala Portal. If I was King publishers would, by law, have to include a wacky mini game from leftfield in with every top dollar title.
Chade on 3/8/2008 at 22:32
It was that theorising which informed the design of games Thief, as well ... which is completely beside the point, but I thought I chuck it out there.
The Ex-LGS types did like to theorise about games, and like all theories, no doubt some hit the mark more then others. What I don't get is how that sort of theorising leads to "thinking in narrow recipes". Precisely the opposite is true, and DX:IW (like thief) broke many previously established gaming paradigms. Unfortunately (unlike thief), they didn't pick popular alternatives.
Bad theory, perhaps. But not thinking in narrow recipes.
Gambit on 3/8/2008 at 22:57
If they make a Thief 4 I hope they don´t bring the head bumping from the TDP and TMA.
Man, I love these games but the head movement that they simulate creates a motion sickness after a time, making me dizzy.
So I prefer a first person view that does not simulate head movement.
Goldmoon Dawn on 4/8/2008 at 04:46
Todays marvelous technological advances couldst surely secure some sort of on/off switch for um, head bob, no? I think so... Some of us have none of these motion problems and actually liked the head um, bob.
