leXX Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 ... that's funny, I don't think of myself as *too* cynical, but I see HL2 as the PR move #1 of 2003. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that you think the leaked source code was just a PR move and stunt and the developers staged it? I think Half-Life 2 had enough publicity from the get go as it is and doesn't need a stunt to boost interest in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 I think the biggest disappointment of 2003 was... Doom 3 being even further delayed. Yes, I know how everyone is looking forward to HL2, I am too. There are a million other games people would prefer to see, but not me. The fact is, no-body, and I mean - literally - no-body makes game engines like Carmack. For all of HL2's fancy features, visually, Doom 3 owns it. The atmosphere you can see just from one Doom 3 screenshot is incredible, and the movies equally so. Because it has been delayed, it means we have to wait even longer for the Doom 3 engine licensed games to start coming - something we desperately need. I mean, right up until last month games were being released using modified versions of the Quake 3 engine. And, I think, the truth is no engine will truly grab the market until Doom 3 is released. It is testament enough to Carmack and the rest of id software that Quake 3 has been going for this long - released in 1999, and it's still going in 2004. That is one hell of an achievement. I can see the Doom 3 engine pulling a similar stunt, and Doom 3 itself looks like a damn fine game to boot. People have the misconception it's just going to be a mindless shooter - read the previews, you'll be pleasantly surprised Roll on Doom 3, and roll on the licensed games Jedi Knight 3 anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted January 5, 2004 Author Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by StormHammer 1. The 'streamlining' and 'shortening' of games. 'this doesn't necessarily have much to do with consoles at all.' Consoles, even if I'm not a big fan, get undue blame for what's wrong with the PC game industry. I know this is a poor analogy, but it is somewhat akin to the music industry blaming downloaders for all of its' ills. I think I've made my fairly black & white views on piracy well enough known, but the music industry has no one to blame but themselves for most of what is wrong. And the same is true for PC Gaming. The argument for shortening games is usually that they want the maximum number of purchasers to complete a title - apparently not many people are willing (or perhaps able) to finish a game that might take 30-40 hours. We're told this...but I've never seen any actual proof of this claim. No statistics. Perhaps this is the case...I don't know. There was something in one of the many Jedi Academy interview articles, with Brett Tosti, possibly. It talked about how they had a lot of feedback that JKII was too hard and too difficult to finish. Personally, I think that making games shorter and easier, replacing options with cutscenes and 'cue-scenes' (like JA's Hoth area where you hit a switch and the cutscene shows you the door you opened) is just wrong. My recommendation is to better 'tier' the difficulty levels. Instead of just spawning more enemies who are harder to kill and giving you less health, try making it so that the 'easy' level guides you (e.g. cue-scenes), gives you more feedback, and in general helps you through the game more. Normal would leave much more up to you and make things harder. Hard level would make you find your own way, provide many blind paths and ambush points and so on ... with rewards, of course. And, for RPG-lite games, easy would be cookie cutter development, no customization, normal would give some options, and hard would leave it all up to you. However, does that production of longer games should cease entirely? I think not. I prefer a longer game to a short one. I consider an average game length to be about 25 hours. 5-10 hours is simply far too short, and usually ends up heavily scripted and very linear to boot - which may lead to an intense game experience, but for me it's over before I can properly get my teeth into it. I would consider >12 hours to be an acceptable minimum for a basic shooter with minimal plot. So just about everything is a failure by that standard. Really, 8 hours for MoHAA shows a game that just gets started and then ends abruptly. But now that is considered an acceptable length. Any 'advanced plot' game (i.e. you have a chance of remembering the character's name and influencing behaviour) should be no less than 20 hours. That gives you some time to enjoy the game and time to develop the character's persona. Less is not more. Repeat after me. Less is not more. Simple does not equal streamlined any more than complex equals powerful. Quantity is not quality, you need adequate quantity executed with high quality. A sequel should build on the strengths of it's predecessor - and it should address the weaknesses. This is not accomplished by removing game features altogether. They have pi$$ed on two of the best games ever - Deus Ex and NOLF (1&2). Some consider JKII poor compared to JK1 ... but as you say, compared to some of the dire sequels out there JKII and JA are masterpieces. At a time when the average age of gamers is actually rising... Leave us with the niche markets, so those looking for long and complex games can still have their fill from the gaming cup. Yes the average age is rising, I've seen the studies as well. But look at your local game store. PC games are fighting for shrinking shelf space. That makes things tough for developers. Someone said in a year end review that there are too many games being made. I agree - cut the quantity, spread the resources and ... look at the triangle and see what happens to quality Yeah ... I wish ... what we'll really get is a bright & shiny new MoH game this month that has a wonderful checklist of 'features' like ragdoll, high-poly models, yet lasts ~8 hours and has no plot and is very linear ... at least the AI is improving in some of these games ... 2. Bugs in games. I see two problems: - System compatibility issues: with increasing hardware complexity and driver specific optimizations, these will likely get harder to suss out for developers, rather than easier. Like some people have major KotOR issues, and I've never had a single crash. - Game bugs: the project management triangle includes quality, time and resources. It also assumes a fixed goal. Given that game scope is subject to high profile whims, and that the resources and time are under close scrutiny ... only one variable left. 3. Game balance and decisions. I see this as linked somewhat to 'streamlining' games. Bad decisions made in the 'best interest of gamers'. Don't put in realism for its' own sake by making a guy run at normal human speeds when he can jump 15 feet in the air, carry 6000 pounds of weaponry and is facing spider demons from another galaxy ... play the game. If it feels like crap playing it, get rid of it. It is like the 'lens flare' award for poorly implemented 'bright and shiny' new technology, like ragdoll, or realistic movements or ... whatever stupid new idea they have next ... I just hope that things will improve in 2004. Amen to that ... I know I'll be smarter about my purchases. I figure I wasted ~$100 on games I wish I never bought, and saved ~$150 by either playing bad demos or just waiting. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted January 5, 2004 Author Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by leXX I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that you think the leaked source code was just a PR move and stunt and the developers staged it? I think Half-Life 2 had enough publicity from the get go as it is and doesn't need a stunt to boost interest in it. HL1 got a lot of grief about being much delayed. HL2 devs were making all of these claims about hitting the date. Right up until the week before. Then it became obvious they weren't close to ready. Valve and Vivendi were in public disagreement about release dates, there was some public sniping, but people were still so ga-ga over the rehashed E3 videos they forgave it all. But just as some more critical articles and observations start to surface, all of a sudden the source code is stolen, and the game's release is pushed out 6 months. Everything seems a little convenient to my mind. Again, I hope I'm just being cynical. I like the look of HL2, and very much look forward to it. I don't know what to want - the game world to have been so badly manipulated, or hard-working developers having their hard work trashed and having to go way back into the process again. I look at the comparative stories of HL2 and Doom3. HL2 has stayed at the front page of gaming news consistently since May. Doom3 has come and gone, but never been top news since HL2 was announced. Doom3 is yet another delayed game, HL2 is a game delayed by malicious outsiders and has the sympathy of the industry and gamers everywhere, myself included. There's just a little voice inside of me ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leXX Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Hmmm, it could be an excuse for delay I suppose, but why would the devs give out some of thier code early? Surely that's a huge step back in the wrong direction. There are loads of other excuses they could come up with. That's what stops me thinking it's all just a PR stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Why hasn't War of the Ring been listed? That was a dissapointment to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.