Deus Ex 3

[Humodour]

Whose roots is Eidos Montreal getting back to, exactly ?

 

The roots of the universe/setting whose game they are building a sequel to: Deus Ex 1.

[Thorton_AP]

So FONV should have been more like... FO3?

 

Or are you saying they should just go and make a new Planescape style game with some top down iso game?

[Orogun01]

So FONV should have been more like... FO3?

 

Or are you saying they should just go and make a new Planescape style game with some top down iso game?

You do know that Obsidian is made up from the ex-members of Black Isle the creators of the Fallout series, right?

If anything FO3 should be more like NV.

[Humodour]

So FONV should have been more like... FO3?

 

FO:NV should pretty obviously be more like FO1 and FO2 - its roots.

 

Or are you saying they should just go and make a new Planescape style game with some top down iso game?

 

Basically, yes. I think we've (for better or worse) moved beyond top-down isometric games, but that's an engine mechanic, not what made PS:T amazing. What made PS:T is how things like dialogue, character development, party interactions, atmosphere etc were pulled off.

 

I'm not saying Obsidian shouldn't leave their own unique mark on their games - DX3 isn't going to be a clone of DX1.

 

My unhappiness with Obsidian extends to Bioware. The NWN and KOTOR franchises simply were not on the same level as their IE games. Why did they lose the ability to produce games of that quality?

 

Haven't played MotB yet. I hear it nullifies some of my qualms, but the fact is it was an expansion to a mediocre game in an aging engine. What could they do if they put their full weight and passion behind an old-school RPG with an original IP in a decent modern engine (or just used an old engine and made sure the game was responsive, stable and well-polished)?

[Malcador]

Oh, so you meant Dugas and crew are returning to Spector's roots. Not sure how Obsidian works into that, heh. Also, not sure how DX:HR is returning to that, aside from talk from Dugas.

[Thorton_AP]

So FONV should have been more like... FO3?

 

Or are you saying they should just go and make a new Planescape style game with some top down iso game?

You do know that Obsidian is made up from the ex-members of Black Isle the creators of the Fallout series, right?

If anything FO3 should be more like NV.

 

Yes I'm well aware of Obsidian's history. What I'm confused about is Krezack's post, especially since Eidos isn't going back to its roots at all, especially if people like Crash Girl have anything to say about it (see previous allegations that this game is being made for stupid people).

 

 

FO:NV should pretty obviously be more like FO1 and FO2 - its roots.

 

Never going to happen because of something you later talk fallaciously talk about regarding engine:

 

Basically, yes. I think we've (for better or worse) moved beyond top-down isometric games, but that's an engine mechanic, not what made PS:T amazing. What made PS:T is how things like dialogue, character development, party interactions, atmosphere etc were pulled off.

 

Much of the atmosphere and whatnot are a direct result of the engine. Specifically, that everything needed to be done via text descriptions. Lets face it though, such descriptions aren't going to work as well any more because the bar has been set.

 

Just look at all the people that, while still liking FONV, gripe about Gamebryo and it's poor graphics. Many "old schoolers" live in denial that they don't care about engine capabilities and the graphical details of games today, but their commentary indicates otherwise when it comes down to actually critiquing games.

 

 

I guarantee that if you were to release a game today with either the Infinity Engine or the original Fallout engine, the game will be relegated to niche product immediately. In spite of your claims that the market for such games has grown.

[Humodour]

Oh, so you meant Dugas and crew are returning to Spector's roots.

 

Do I though? Spector was one of the core influences that made Deus Ex 2 so bad. He was obsessed with streamlining and reducing complexity. I think people on his team listened to him to the detriment of their own intuitions as to what makes a good game.

 

Very few members of the original team that made FO remain at Obisidan. I imagine the same is true for DX1 and Eidos.

 

But, you know, DX and FO had a good thing going. Instead of capitalising on that, augmenting it, running with what worked and dumping what didn't, they the Deus Ex 2 devs dumped what worked as well as what didn't. I can't comment on FO3 as I haven't played it.

[Humodour]

FO:NV should pretty obviously be more like FO1 and FO2 - its roots.

 

Never going to happen because of something you later talk fallaciously talk about regarding engine:

 

Basically, yes. I think we've (for better or worse) moved beyond top-down isometric games, but that's an engine mechanic, not what made PS:T amazing. What made PS:T is how things like dialogue, character development, party interactions, atmosphere etc were pulled off.

 

Much of the atmosphere and whatnot are a direct result of the engine. Specifically, that everything needed to be done via text descriptions. Lets face it though, such descriptions aren't going to work as well any more because the bar has been set.

 

No mate, the atmosphere and feel of a game are not direct results of the engine. If you're relying on your engine to produce your atmosphere you're already way off kilter. Atmosphere is music, plot, dialogue, character depth, art style, pacing - it's a huge gamut of things.

 

I guarantee that if you were to release a game today with either the Infinity Engine or the original Fallout engine, the game will be relegated to niche product immediately. In spite of your claims that the market for such games has grown.

 

I at no point recommended or suggested releasing a game today built in the Infinity or Fallout engines, or anything close to those engines:

 

Basically, yes. I think we've (for better or worse) moved beyond top-down isometric games

What could they do if they put their full weight and passion behind an old-school RPG with an original IP in a decent modern engine (or just used an old engine and made sure the game was responsive, stable and well-polished)?

 

My reference to "an old engine" meant "a few years old" not "11 or 13 years old", and I suggested it would be equally as valid to use as a modern, state-of-the-art engine. The engine was a tangential detail in my post which you latched onto.

 

If you're arguing that text is bad to the modern consumer gamer, that's a load of tripe and my entire bloody point is that the market for things like text-dense games has never disappeared - developers just stopped making text-dense games because they had lots of shiney new graphical tools to play with to tell stories and develop novel mechanics and generally experiment with, instead of being constrained by their engines. But it doesn't mean people desire text-dense games any less than they did 10 years ago.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Krezack

[Orogun01]

Yes I'm well aware of Obsidian's history. What I'm confused about is Krezack's post, especially since Eidos isn't going back to its roots at all, especially if people like Crash Girl have anything to say about it (see previous allegations that this game is being made for stupid people).

I think he was referring to the fact that this game is going back to what make the first one great, freedom of choice, great atmosphere, and alternative solutions.

[Tale]

Texas is a stupid country.

Finally something I can agree with.

*runs off crying*

[Maria Caliban]

Texas is a stupid country.

Finally something I can agree with.

*runs off crying*

 

This explains so much!

[Humanoid]

Whose roots is Eidos Montreal getting back to, exactly ?

 

The roots of the universe/setting whose game they are building a sequel to: Deus Ex 1.

 

I wanted to say Daikatana.

[Hassat Hunter]

If you're arguing that text is bad to the modern consumer gamer, that's a load of tripe and my entire bloody point is that the market for things like text-dense games has never disappeared - developers just stopped making text-dense games because they had lots of shiney new graphical tools to play with to tell stories and develop novel mechanics and generally experiment with, instead of being constrained by their engines. But it doesn't mean people desire text-dense games any less than they did 10 years ago.

True. I really liked that Drakensang 1 had no full VO so they could get nice text in without caring about voice-actor cost.

 

So imagine how saddened I was when they announced for Drakensang 2 they now had full-VO and the "walls of text" had been downsized to the "essentials" because "no one likes to read all that stuff" .

[Pidesco]

Closed for length.