Wille on 4/8/2008 at 08:57
Head bob is nice if it's done right and both T1 and T2 do it JUST right. Without head bob movement feels very robotic. However I understand if some players want to turn it off, in this case a simple checkbox is all that is needed :).
ZylonBane on 4/8/2008 at 15:31
Quote Posted by Chade
Precisely the opposite is true, and DX:IW ... broke many previously established gaming paradigms.
For example?
Chade on 4/8/2008 at 21:20
One has already been bitched about in this thread. Universal ammo.
ZylonBane on 4/8/2008 at 21:54
Quote Posted by Chade
One has already been bitched about in this thread. Universal ammo.
Except that universal ammo is nothing new. It's something that shooters had moved beyond years ago. Intentionally devolving your game design is hardly paradigm-breaking.
Chade on 4/8/2008 at 22:05
It was a gaming paradigm at the time they broke it (and still is, for that matter).
You can nitpick the exact choice of words if you want, but it doesn't change my point, which is that theorising about the game lead them to make a decision which went against the established game design practices of the day.
A bad decision? Maybe. Thinking in narrow recipes? No.
Jashin on 4/8/2008 at 23:10
I spoke to devs on the IW team and, well, IW ended up being the learning phase on "what and how to compromise when transitioning a complex game like DX to the console." Too bad they didn't get the chance to apply it all in another game.
You have to realize that a transition to the consoles is necessary a part of keeping up with the times. Nobody in this day and age, with all of its associated problems (huge cost, cross-platforming), would ever make a game like Thief/2 that provides gradual and cerebral gratification (and consequently minimizes the appeal) as opposed to instant and mass appeal in order to satisfy such a limited audience.
Imagine coming home after a day's work, mentally fatigued, you want to loosen up a bit, would you A.) go for metaphorical and deeply "meaningful" stuff to or B.) go for frivolous thrills and excitement? And if you picked A, you're not in the majority.
Goldmoon Dawn on 4/8/2008 at 23:20
Its funny to me...
Everything you just said reminds me of exactly the way things were back in the 80's computer gaming scene! Nothing has changed. Some companies out there will create things like Looking Glass did, and the majority will continue to try and only make money. All Im saying is that if a Thief IV gets made, hopefully they will *abandon market "trends"* and make a real game that the real fans can sink their teeth into.
Jashin on 4/8/2008 at 23:35
And consequently fail commercially and go out in a whimper...
I shouldn't speak in absolutes. There'll always be a few exceptions here and again, but it's not consistent enough to build a business on. Compromises are in fact here to stay. The flipside to the "privilous mainstream games" is the "masterpiece that nobody plays" followed by the "death of that pedigree".
It's just too damn esoteric to reach a critical mass of participants to keep the wheel spinning.
Goldmoon Dawn on 4/8/2008 at 23:46
Understood, and over the past 25 years or so, I have amassed quite a collection of classic games. If your successful companies never turn out another game worth anything ever again, I should be fine.
Jashin on 4/8/2008 at 23:57
Yeah, well, get used to the idea that companies aren't founded to die just so you can have your collection of classic games.
Real people toiled behind all of them. I want those people to at least be successful once or twice. If that means a title or two catered to the market of "just having fun" then that's what it'll be. Not everyone needs to "live" a game, or needs a game to be that vivid an experience.
