response to interview

[Walsingham]

"There won

[mkreku]

The team has still made some potentially controversial choices, however, such as offering unlimited ammo (except in the case of very special weapons), and an inability to pick up guns from enemies. Obsidian is explicit that it really wants players to get to the end

[Tigranes]

Is it really that much of a chore to have to load your weapon once in a while?

 

I thought we still had to reload?

 

But yeah, I do agree with you. Some of the challenges in, say, late 80s-early 90s games were stupid ridiculous (harder than a physics test to figure out), of course, but a blind monkey could finish K1/2 or Jade Empire.

 

I think the controversy over some of Fallout 3's new things has relevance here: the inclusion of the Fatman (miniature nuclear launcher), nuclear cars that explode and make chain reactions, and 'psych' attack guns. Quite removed from whether it's 'Fallout' or not, that kind of thing reveals a particular cultural sensibility that Bethesda are either immersed in or are simply aware of. I think it's the same thing with the jailbait girl, though of course, when we know more about that we might turn out to have been simply paranoid. But the reason I am worried is not so much because of the jailbait girl by herself: but because the kind of PR vibe Obsidian have been giving out seem a lot more attuned to this cultural sensibility than in previous games.

 

I do think that perhaps this is because this is their first original game, and they recognise the need to bring a lot of new fans on board. I think there's still plenty of room for AP to prove our initial fears wrong and we still don't have an accurate grip on the 'feel' of the game, which will be crucial. We'll see. The latest interview (Walslink) and its moniker of 'exaggerated realism' actually reassures me because it's finally giving us something reasonably focused, and it's nothing to cry about (yet).

[random n00b]

I know it's been mentioned before.. but why? I just don't get why people think realism is boring. Why do people need to fight teenage girls with twin handguns to be able to have fun? Is it really that much of a chore to have to load your weapon once in a while? And is it really the goal of every game out there to handhold the player to make sure everyone and his grandmother sees the ending?

 

I remember a time when you felt special because you had finished a game. You had to learn the game, devote time to the game, overcome impossible odds, use your brains and skills, and sometimes not even that was enough to make you complete the game. Now you can't fail. Games are 6-8 hours long and the developers are making sure everyone gets to see the ending!

I don't see how realism ties in with the general decline in the challenge of games. It wasn't realism that made 2D sidescrollers hard.

 

Perhaps the attempt at creating realism coupled with the inability to code a *true* AI to challenge the player has resulted in generally dumb enemies that make some games easier, but I think it's the philosophy of design that's changed fundamentally. You don't spend hours watching the same scene of a movie over and over, and the same for a paragraph in a book. With the development of technology, the ability to immerse the player in a narrative has increased, and with the importance of plot closure taking precedence over gameplay itself, it's only natural that games are intended to be finished once started.

 

That however, can't explain why every game needs to be "streamlined" (dumbed down to hell), though, and that pisses me.

[quicksilver_503]

i don't want to have to spend months on the same part of a game. feeling that you have achieved somethiing is nice but i don't want to feel that i have achieved to get through a game due to tedious hard work. games should be fun, not a chore.

 

p.s: this isn't saying that all the changes in alpha protocol are right, i am merely commenting on complaints about modern games being simpler.

Edited June 24, 2008 by quicksilver_503

[Xard]

For gameplay to be chore it should be monotonic and unappealing - often including clumsiness.

 

That does not equal to complexity and challenge

Edited June 24, 2008 by Xard

[H]

Challenge is fun.

[mkreku]

I don't see how realism ties in with the general decline in the challenge of games.

It doesn't. I was merely asking why realism and providing a challenge has fallen out of style so much in the same post.

 

With the development of technology, the ability to immerse the player in a narrative has increased, and with the importance of plot closure taking precedence over gameplay itself, it's only natural that games are intended to be finished once started.

I don't believe in this philosophy for a second. What you are talking about is an interactive movie. I want to be challenged by a game, not become a semi-active participant in a computer generated story.

[Slowtrain]

[quote name='H

[Pidesco]

Maybe it's mostly due to increasing costs, but it seems to me that many developers are taking an all or nothing approach to game design. It's a design according to which you either appeal to everyone or there isn't any point in trying.

[Slowtrain]

Maybe it's mostly due to increasing costs, but it seems to me that many developers are taking an all or nothing approach to game design. It's a design according to which you either appeal to everyone or there isn't any point in trying.

 

 

Exactly. Its like going out in a sporting match and laying all your money on trying to get the shutout rather than the win. Its a low odds of success sort of thing. You don't aim for the shutout. You go for the win and sometimes along the way you'll get a shutout.

 

Rather than spending gobs of money on cuttign edge graphics and hiring Patrick Stewart and Sean Bean for voiceover work and then having gto sell 2,000,000 copies just to break even, instead just match your budget with the number of copies of a game you think you can sell. Its a pretty basic business approach.

 

Or look at cable tv. Cable doesn't have 300 channels all trying to appeal to everybody. Most channels have a specific focus and audience and they gear their programming to that group. Its a perfectly legitimate way to make good money.

[Tigranes]

With the development of technology, the ability to immerse the player in a narrative has increased

 

The development of technology has widened the various methods available to us for immersion, certainly, but technology = immersion is definitely untrue, and it would be just as nonsensical as 'games need to evolve'. I don't know what inflection rn was aiming at, though. Even worse, with more technology and the cultivation of a market for that technology comes an economic obligation to use technology.

[H]

but technology = immersion is definitely untrue

Sometimes it isn't. I would kill for a Thief game using modern lightning technologies. But yeah, simple increase of polygon count doesn't increase immersion.

[Humodour]

Maybe it's mostly due to increasing costs, but it seems to me that many developers are taking an all or nothing approach to game design. It's a design according to which you either appeal to everyone or there isn't any point in trying.

 

It's what I like to call the '**** approach'.

[Zoma]

I certainly see Galactic Civilizations 2 and Sins of the Solar Empire being profitable games despite selling less than a million copies, since the budget are distributed accordingly to the sales target.

 

Furthermore, these games are developed to please the niche market only. I'm kind of hoping Obsidian would take that direction, but I guess it would seem they are still trying to find their footing in the market.

[Humodour]

Eh, I think they found there footing with NWN2 and subsequent xpacks, really.

 

Unless you mean footing in terms of an original IP.

[Zoma]

Neverwinter Nights is an already an established franchise, the footing and framework of the game already done by Bioware. Obsidian merely improves upon it with NWN2 being the sequel.

 

And yes, I am refering to original IP specifically to AP, which I feel like some posters in the thread, that Obsidian is trying to please everyone in terms several areas of gameplay like action, stealth and movie-like cutscenes. What I am fearful is usually such goals often end up with each aspect of the gameplay being mediocre due to lack of focus. A quite common flaw in many games that attempt to please every casual crowd in the market.

 

Of course, keep in mind my opinion thus far is formed due to still lacking of information regarding of AP. Hopefully E3 will bring some answers that reassures me.

[random n00b]

I don't believe in this philosophy for a second. What you are talking about is an interactive movie. I want to be challenged by a game, not become a semi-active participant in a computer generated story.

I call 'em as I see 'em...

 

 

With the development of technology, the ability to immerse the player in a narrative has increased

 

The development of technology has widened the various methods available to us for immersion, certainly, but technology = immersion is definitely untrue, and it would be just as nonsensical as 'games need to evolve'.

Yes, and that's why I didn't say that greater technology implies greater immersion. I said that advances in technology allow for greater immersion. Take a look at games with such compelling atmospheres as STALKER, AvP2, or VtM:B, and tell me how the same effect could be achieved in 16 colours, 2D, PC speaker. Thus the "ability" part of my statement. Just as with any other resource, it can be used well or not.

 

 

Even worse, with more technology and the cultivation of a market for that technology comes an economic obligation to use technology.

The cultivation of a market for technology in games by and of itself makes no sense - it's the expansion of the game industry as a whole. I don't see how that is a problem, seeing how games offer has increased so much. Sure, very few games truly shine, but to me that makes no difference - I still get one or two great games per year, maybe, I only have to dig deeper.

 

Another victory for capitalism!

[SirPetrakus]

Wow. So many issues being addressed at the same time I have no idea which one to address first. I'll start with a take on the graphics section. I never was one for high quality graphics and bloom effects and "oooh shinnies!" . Though I do care about the texture quality of a game. If it is sand, it might as well look like it too. I can still play Warcraft 2 and have fun with it and not bitch about the graphics. Fallout, BG, IWD, even FFVII still looking good to me. Not looking like Crysis is not a bad thing for me, I am not that obsessed. That graphics have advanced over the years isn't a bad thing but it isn't everything in a game. If the dialogs and the plot sucks, it's going to the waste basket either way, but there are a lot of gfx whores out there that buy games that should be total flukes just for the graphics. Yes, I am bitching about Crysis and it deserves dirt for once! I played Thief and I liked it too, the stealth elements of the game made it very enjoyable and one of my favorites to this day but, as noted by a fellow poster previously, it would look so much nicer if the game was being released again today with modern day lighting effects and a higher polygon count, but it's the gameplay that actually made the game what it is and despite it being an old game, it would still be fun to play today. About a game's difficulty, I don't have much to say. A game should be able for any man to finish at some difficulty. The Silent Hill games for example would grow more complex riddles at higher difficulty levels thus proving more of a challenge not only by generating stronger opponents but by also making riddles that more perplex, however you could only do the "good endings" as the game's difficulty was set to maximum. I remember playing Toki on the Sega Genesis and that game wasn't that hard as far as the last couple of stages. That game would seriously mess you up! It would only be harder if it asked you to grab trouts with bare bum cheeks! I don't want a game to be insanely difficult, but rather a game that would adapt to my capabilities and grow harder the better I played it or easier the worse I played it. Realism is the victim child of the Matrix generation. The more insane something is the cooler t would be to actually be able to do it. Having a jailbait teen with twin handguns isn't exactly my idea of unrealistic. Kids in Africa are forced to fight since the age of 5, with no offense to people of African descent if tis address raises any hate. The fact that a teen could fight with twin handguns isn't that unreal as it is rather highly unlikely. She could have been trained her whole life to do so for the sole reason that who would suspect a teen girl to be an assassin? Purpose is the reason behind the decision to add such a character in the game's roster, would a Desert Storm veteran with a rocket launcher raise as much doubt? No, but why would a 40 year old man go around carrying such a thing in the first place? Let's not be too quick to judge on something like that. Looking forward to more news on AP, keep up the good work guys!

[Tigranes]

Yes, and that's why I didn't say that greater technology implies greater immersion. I said that advances in technology allow for greater immersion. Take a look at games with such compelling atmospheres as STALKER, AvP2, or VtM:B, and tell me how the same effect could be achieved in 16 colours, 2D, PC speaker. Thus the "ability" part of my statement. Just as with any other resource, it can be used well or not.

 

Yep. As I say, I didn't know what kind of inflection you meant, so I resisted attributing you to any single one. Of course, immersion is not just a linear scale of things - immersion is rarely just a technical apparatus with calculable effects. The specific kind of immersion your examples strive to achieve are not possible with older technology, sure, but that is not the only kind of immersion. Not saying newer the game, the worse it is (hah), just saying its more of a stylistic and cultural difference rather than a linear progression.

 

The cultivation of a market for technology in games by and of itself makes no sense - it's the expansion of the game industry as a whole. I don't see how that is a problem, seeing how games offer has increased so much.

 

Why doesn't it make sense? Without going too much into it, much of both technical and stylistic aspects of video games have become lumped into one big 'progress' package, and a certain amount of it is expected of every new game nowadays. Meaning not only a 'basic requirement' to have, I don't know, x amount of pixels, but also gimmicky physics, bloom, etc. There is a cultivation of audience desire in the sense that a certain 'touch base' of technology has become a basic requirement and a potential ace-card for market success. This is the case in every mid/late capitalist industry, and it should be no surprise that it's coming fully into force in this one.

 

How is that a problem? Certainly if you compare, I don't know, Ultima I with MOTB, very few of even us would pick the former (bet you somebody will prove me wrong), but since the turn of the century, and not just in RPGs, I think we've seen both great jumps and advances that have been supported by technology, and great things going into obsolescence when they need not have. There is no "more technology = better games" equation at work: there is no law saying "games have to evolve". That's like telling Charlie Chaplin to get with the times and be remade in colour with orchestral theme music and soap drama camera cuts. They are all a product of their particular circumstances and have their merit: the task of every period is not to forget and shelve away the previous unique periods, nor to employ the ridiculous PR phrase "build on former greats", but to recognise the variety. Yes, it is the market as it exists today that makes this difficult: yes, what I say is naive and unrealistic to a degree. But cynicism and realism has its limits: just because something is a 'necessary evil' doesn't mean you have to forget that it *is* evil. (Not saying new=evil, just using that phrase).

 

Anyway, I am hoping for a more 'dry' graphical look in AP, once lighting and everything is in place. It's good and pretty to have bloom and shadows and whatnot everywhere, but not in every damn game. I'd appreciate a more dry and cut look, and using bump mapping and detailed models rather than whitewash lighting to achieve 'realism'. Probably bleeds computers even more that way, though.

[Cycloneman]

You know why games don't include obnoxiously heavily hidden **** anymore? Two words: Game. FAQs. Bam, your "heavily-hidden, trek across the world fifteen times before you find it" secret item is discovered in the half a minute it takes to check the Codes and Secrets section on the appropriate page on GameFAQs.

 

And you know why they're made so "everyone can beat them"? Because people don't want to spend twelve hours to beat each level. While there is certainly a feeling of accomplishment in being good at a difficult game (I can beat the first three levels of Metal Slug without dying! Woo!), most people who play video games do not belong to the small market share who will do that.

 

Face it: video games cost too much to produce for them to make games for you, person who posts regularly on an internet forum about your favorite video game company. Video games are made for people who play video games a couple hours a week. They aren't designed for people to put a whole lot of energy into before any rewards are reaped. Because most people who buy video games don't have a whole lot of energy to do that, and will just give it back to GameStop.

 

Just play on higher difficulty settings, Christ.

 

As to "why is realism boring," maybe it's because they actually tried making the game realistic and it was boring?

We started real-world. It was boring, so we made it a little more extreme

[Patrick K Mills]

I was just playing the game and it's pretty fun. I totally shot a guy with a rifle and it was all like BANG-THWAP-SLUUUMP. Dude was dead.

 

\m/

[Slowtrain]

seeing how games offer has increased so much.

 

 

ARe you saying games offer more currently? Or have the potential to offer more?

 

In terms of graphics and visuals, yeah, games definitely offer a lot more than they once did. I don't see any other ways in which new technology as raised the bar of what games offer today vs 5 or twn years ago. It seems games are tending to offer less really. AT least ones developed in he US anyway.

[Tigranes]

Face it: video games cost too much to produce for them to make games for you, person who posts regularly on an internet forum about your favorite video game company.

 

So we should just stop talking or doing anything and just buy whatever they produce, or leave? I mean, you are right in terms of an instantaneous analysis, but what are you really suggesting in terms of action?

 

Just play on higher difficulty settings, Christ.

 

I think be they the casual or hardcore gamer, the developer or the analyst, a basic respect and understanding of the motivations and desires of each group is necessary for productive dialogue. Just as you point out quite rightly that there are reasons the industry is going in the direction it is now, nobody's going to be able to summon away people like us with magic.

 

That said, I really do have to say that it's a poor way to champion the cause of older games by mentioning archaic puzzles that take you three years to work out. I was never one to enjoy those kind of things (KGB is killing me right now with its codes). It's a push-pull rope play between indulgence and pointless punishment, but go too far towards indulgence and what you are doing is breeding a market that expects ever higher levels of such indulgence. Just like in real life, iconic cries of 'freedom', 'choice' and 'buyer power' don't always mean good things.

[Patrick K Mills]

ARe you saying games offer more currently? Or have the potential to offer more?

 

In terms of graphics and visuals, yeah, games definitely offer a lot more than they once did. I don't see any other ways in which new technology as raised the bar of what games offer today vs 5 or twn years ago. It seems games are tending to offer less really. AT least ones developed in he US anyway.

 

I think you'll have to back that up with an argument. I'm curious to hear it. A game like GTA4 offers an amazing level of world sim and free-style gameplay that could only be generated in the past with meticulous scripting a la Ultima 7.

 

Advancements in UI and control systems is just astounding- compare System Shock 1 to System Shock 2 to Bioshock, the original is arguably unplayable today, the second is playable but has a pretty clunky interface (with the sheer joy of interface tetris) and Bioshock offers a streamlined and simplified evolution that dispenses with pretty silly logistics (do I carry this bag of chips or the vodka?) in favor of making the *experience* the focus.

 

Look at Half-Life 2 and Portal to see how the technical abilities in the realm of physics allow us to look into wholly new gameplay mechanics that would have been impossible (or impossibly broken, see: Jurassic Park: Trespasser) in previous generations.

 

I'm not saying everything is perfect. Sometimes I do want some logistics- most of the time in STALKER I was really glad to have the inventory management because it didn't dilute the core gameplay, but instead accentuated it. On the other hand, if I had to feed Gordon Freeman every few hours of gameplay I'd be very unhappy.

 

Also, one final word: Spore.