Contents
A New Vocabulary For Development: Chuck Beaver And Dead Space
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [11]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Evnironment Modeler
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [7]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Time Fcuk
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  A New Vocabulary For Development: Chuck Beaver And Dead Space
by Chris Remo
10 comments
Share RSS
 
 
September 29, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 7 Next
 

You were saying earlier that when you make decisions about "no cutscenes", about the integrated UI, one of the hardest parts can be convincing people to do it in the first place.

CB: Yeah. People are really almost religious about their belief in what we should and shouldn't do. It's a big binary switch, like, "Are we going to have cutscenes, or are we not going to have cutscenes?" because it's a big, big deal in design. When we decided in the beginning that we were going to take [the switch], we're like, "Alright, let's go for it. Let's go for it!"

Advertisement

Everyone took a big breath, and they went, "OK! We're gonna do it!" because it impacts everything. With line of sight, you have to design that into the level, so that it becomes part of the fabric of what the experience is. It's much different if you're like, "Ah, now I've got control of the camera, and I've got control of this, and I don't have to worry about anything." So that's a big one.

And then when we started taking the HUD away, and we were going to start making that on the character? People have very specific ideas about what you should be doing with that. Like, as far as camera? If we're taking the camera control, like authored camera, people have very specific ideas about what you should or should not, in a horror film, be doing with camera language, right?

There's a very specific language in the horror genre; we didn't let that happen, because we wanted to stay real. So when you take off into this design decisions and stuff, it's really -- it's really, not new territory, but it's not like you're just aping everything.

It's like breaking dogma.

CB: And it's creating so many [decisions] -- if you are copying stuff, so many decisions are made already for you. Like when you start striking out into these new dial-twists of stuff?

People might think that you're just borrowing from other places, but really, if you're cobbling stuff new together, you have to re-answer all the questions over again, and that makes people really nervous.

It's an internal EA project; do you ever run into difficulties in pitching stuff like that at a company like EA, which ordinarily makes more, sort-of, like...

CB: Not M-rated games?

Not M-rated games, but also, you know, games that are more directly accessible. Not that people won't be able to play this game, but it's more explicitly designed for --

CB: It's the "horror people", it's designed for the horror market, and that kind of stuff. Yeah, for sure, EA likes to make games that have a broad appeal -- that's the commercially viable thing to be doing.

So when we pitched the game we had to figure out a way to say that we weren't just a tiny niche market that's just, you know, torture porn, or all these other things that are even more nichey than not.

So, yeah, it's harder, but once they let us do the M rating, that became the ability to be really hardcore about it.

And so if you don't go too far off the edge, you can actually appeal to a wide bunch of people; and when we were putting the slices together, all the executives were looking at it and going, "Yeah, I think this is going to work for you guys; it's actually a pretty good idea, and I think it's going to be good."

This is a bit out there, but I wonder if, also, the existence and success of EA Partners had any influence on that, in terms of how a lot of that stuff is M rated, and more targeted, and I wonder if they were sort of saying, "Well, this stuff is working..."

CB: Oh. Yeah... I don't know if that's it. That's a good point; I don't think it has. I think that EA wanted to go with M because Godfather, the first one, was an M.

We'd been really family-friendly, and so we figured out that, well, it's harder to be innovative and be creative with so many restrictions -- and not necessarily just the M, but so many other restrictions, in terms of licensed games -- to do new IP.

So EA is trying to stretch out and get more and reactivate the creative core of these projects, so they said, "Alright. You want to be M? We'll let you be M; see what happens." And, it turned out, it's been a really wise decision in the end.

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 7 Next
 
Comments

Chris Melby
profile image
The point about horror and realism gave me allot of confidence in this game.

Real is how System Shock felt to me and to this day it's still one of my most memorable experiences in gaming. System Shock 2 failed in this sense, because of poor decisions on the developer's part. Things like unrealistically fragile weapons and re-spawning monsters from thin air took away from that sense of it being real -- and it ticked me off. The choice of different classes also made the game worse, because it made the game feel incomplete and unbalanced.

I thought this game looked like a cross between RE4 -- loved the Wii version -- and System Shock and now I know that it is to a degree. :)

I look forward to this game. I hope it's story is truly immersive like System Shock, where I feel an actual sense of accomplishment after completing it, but I also hope that it's as re-playable as RE4 Wii, which is easily one of my favorite console games. I didn't play System Shock again, because it probably traumatized me. Shodan's voice was scary as hell.

Anyways, I'm playing this on the PC, so for the love of all things good, I hope this isn't another focus-group-jacked console game like BioShock.

john McCreadie
profile image
" I hope this isn't another focus-group-jacked console game like BioShock."
What do you mean?

Anonymous
profile image
He probably means that Bioshock is a clone of SS but dumbed down for the masses. If so, it sure worked for me, I couldn't stand SS but loved Bioshock (the first 3/4 of it).

Chris Melby
profile image
As Mr. "Anonymous" pointed out, it was dumbed down for the masses. I guess an inventory system would have been too difficult for these newer gamers... Why even call this a Shock game if they're not going to respect the sophistication of its predecessors?

I couldn't stand the first part of System Shock BTW. I almost wrote the game off completely, but decided to give it another go when they released the enhanced CD version. Unlike BioShock which became a repetitive Disney ride, SS evolved into a complex and suspenseful game that was actually worth finishing.

BioShock was "FUN" for a period time, but here lies one of its biggest faults. I know these are games, but BS shares its name with two of the "scariest" games I've played. It shares its name with a lineage of sci-fi horror games. Why on earth did they call this game a Shock, if the game wasn't scary, but FUN? The kind of enjoyment I got from the first two Shocks wasn't fun, it was suspense and in some cases horror -- especially in the first Shock. They evoked emotions that can be equated to viewing a really scary movie, but they brought it to a much higher level, because they were able to instill that I was that guy saving the day -- more so in SS than SS2.

At no point in BioShock did I feel any real concern. It was like any other FPS, I'll just re-spawn if I get killed. There was never any real sense of danger in this game, so it became a why even bother, it's not what I paid to play, it's not what I was expecting based on my experience with the other two Shocks.

Anyways, loving a game like BioShock over the other Shocks, would be like loving a sequel to "No Country for Old Men" directed by Michael Bay and it's now a typical Holllywood action movie.

Anyways, back to Dead Space. I want this game to be thrilling. I'm looking for that level of suspense that SS conveyed so well. If everything these guys are saying is true, I'm going to love this game.

Tim Carter
profile image
"Anyone can write a cutscene..." LOL Kind of like what amateurs say in the movie industry: "Anyone can write a screenplay... After all, it's just writing... I know MS Word, I can write."

Chris Remo
profile image
Mr. Gamemaster,

You consider Ken Levine an amateur?

Anonymous
profile image
Amateur or not, he's wrong. Writing a GOOD cutscene takes talent. Don't believe me? Suffer through MGS4's plot. If your brain hasn't fled your skull, play through a second time. No skipping allowed. I think you'll find that cutscenes take some skill to write well.

Chris Remo
profile image
I agree regarding Metal Gear 4's cutscenes. However, I think it's fairly evident that Levine's point was not "All cutscenes are good because anybody can write a cutscene." Rather than saying "It is easy to write," full stop, he was saying "It is easy to write a cutscene compared to conveying a story without cutscenes." The point was raised in that context, both in Levine's original statement (in an interview I did), and in being quoted here.

Anonymous
profile image
the problem here is that there are non designers who want to do cutscenes all the fucking time. Why? Because they can't come up with something more creative to put in. SOOO

Lets do a cutscene and FORCE the player to watch our WORK!

The majority of hte time it comes off like a masturbation for wannabee hollywood types...im sick of it...

Bad company was a great example, a couple of the cutscenes I had no idea who the 4th guy in the screen was...then I realized "oh sometimes me, my avatar is in the movie and sometimes its in 1st person" seemed like a pretty poor decision.

Simeon Rice
profile image
> And we had to make the pause not be in the inventory system

Wow, what an appalling decision, lead by ideology, trying to maintain the horror suspense, but one which ultimately can only affect the end user gameplay to its detriment.

I can understand the reasoning for it, but in practice i've yet to find game where it doesn't cause more grief than suspense. So whats the point? I'd rather lose a little of the sense of 'dread' than frequent dying due to a poor game mechanic designed solely to prevent on the fly reactive adaptation to events.

Take for example the recent 'Alone in The dark 5', that had all manor of wonder contraptions to build, but you were often exposed to danger in doing so. As the player you then have to adapt to avoid this, meaning reliance on tried and trusted combinations, pre-building specific combinations, running away and hiding etc.

Unfortunately without the foreknowledge that the game designers have you never know what or if you'll need a specific tool. All too often this can lead to having something equipped that you don't need or is the wrong tool and to top it all you're now in close courters fighting and don't have the time to re-equip. So you spend far too much time dead or disadvantaged, due to decision to take away control from the player.

Conversely BioShock does pause the game, especially useful for switching weapons when dealing with multiple enemies, requiring different ammo types. I'm sure they deliberately added this after testing with the 'no pause' option, but can't find a link to back that up atm. Anyway, a simple change it empowers the player to be far more productive and react dynamically to events as they unfolded, with impunity. Giving a far better game experience.

Now obviously having yet to play the game or a demo i've not seen the full context that the 'no pause' inventory system is used within. It may be that the use of the inventory doesn't implicitly mean encountering the issues i've outlined above, in which case all will be well. However I suspect from the type of game and similar games from the past that this will end up being frustrating, but thankfully not to the point of killing the game. Perhaps one of the first calls for being patched though ;)

Still even with this slight dampener, I'm so looking forward to its release at the end of the month. I was enthralled after I saw the first released video demo as it instantly brought back memories of System Shock 2. It may have looked similar to Doom 3, but unlike that game I suspect this will have real jump out of your seat moments. I have to say I like the concept of no cutscenes and the use of environment along with audio/video logs to tell the story should be perfect, after all it worked so well in SS2.


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment