Redfield

I swear, gamers are such hypocrites. Everyone seems to complain that we never see the 60-80+ hour RPGs any more, and the reason they are given by the developers is that so much extra development time needs to go into the SHINY GRAFIX nowadays. So then the fans complain that it shouldn't be about the graphics, etc. But then you see crap like what is going on in this thread. A trailer is released, and the game doesn't immediately have the visual fidelity of a high profile FPS, and so everyone starts slamming it. Developers are screwed either way. Alpha Protocol got these same "looks like crap" responses when the first screens were released.

What Xard said; I was asked that in a thread over there (which was mostly about Storm of Zehir) in a casual manner, so I simply replied over there. No slight intended. So can the community expect to see some gameplay videos at E3, or just more article coverage?

I'm sure any former members of Troika disagree with that statement.

Because when you're designing a game, you have to pick the core features you want your game to focus on--you don't have the time nor the money to do everything. You mentioned BioWare not having used a Z-Axis since MDK2 in their games. As you well know, BioWare's focus is always on their detailed characters/NPCs and the overall narrative. If having a Z-Axis doesn't strengthen their core focus in any way, why would they feel the need to add it? Because other games, that aren't even RPGs (and thus have different areas of focus) do so? That's not a very good reason. If an RPG developer like Obsidian or BioWare, in a future game, included extremely realistic physics interactions, Z-Axis exploration and all other sorts of complex interactivity like we see in other genres, one of two things would probably happen. One, the game would take six or seven years to come out (this is the unlikely outcome). After all, besides all of the features mentioned above, fans would still expect all of the RPG development systems, detailed characters and boatloads of branching dialogue, complete with choice and consequences, right? Second, the game comes out with all of those realistic action game interactions, but it is critically and commercially panned because including all of that stuff made the aforementioned RPG elements, that the company is known for in the first place, suffer. "Yeah, nice physics and stuff, but the story and characters blow, etc." It all comes down to time and money, and the prioritization of that time and money.

"Authorial fascism?" Honestly, when you typed this, didn't you feel just a little bit silly, considering you're talking about a video game?

I personally have no preference whether ammo is unlimited or not. However, it is a bit disconcerting that even the gaming press is acting leary about it. If comments in previews like this keep popping up, it could serve to spread some negative hype about the game that would, at this point, be largely unwarranted (no one knows how everything fits together yet except Obsidian).

I'm of the same mindset as you on this. I've read quite a few of Lovecraft's stories, and never once did I find his writing scary/disturbing etc., as it was no doubt meant to be back in the twenties. Add to that the overly verbose and obtuse writing style that was so prominent back then and yeah...just never did anything for me. Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, though, did an exceptional job at conveying the creepiness that should have been apparent to me when reading the story it is based off of (The Shadow over Innsmouth). I've gotten much more enjoyment out of Dark Corners of the Earth, and the Call of Cthulhu pen and paper game, than I ever did the source material.

So, this has tempted me to make my first post Patrick, I find your statements regarding the lackluster nature of video game storytelling to be a bit odd, considering the company you work for. Doesn't Obsidian strive to make compelling stories and characters (which according to you never really seems to pan out in regards to games)?