|
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!"
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.
|
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.
What do you mean?
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.
You consider Ken Levine an amateur?
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.
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.