|
| T O P I C | |
|
The stone that the builder refused...
May 25th 2000, 08:58 CEST by Seth Looking Glass technologies has shut down. Looking Glass, developers of a large portion of the most epic and atmospheric games the world has ever known, is gone. Is Romero to blame? Should I have used some quippy title like "Romero makes Looking Glass his bitch"? If you were to read the following story, I know it would lead at least some of you to thinking that I should have. Click here for the article at the Avault. The story made this curiouser and curiouser point. A source at the studio indicated the company is in dire financial straights despite robust sales of Thief II. In a message received from the source moments following the conclusion of a company meeting, the Adrenaline Vault was told, “LGS no longer exists. We are done. Everyone is out of a job tomorrow.” Eidos was slated to be LGS’s senior partner, but it is speculated at this time that the deal fell through due to their own financial problems. Eidos had not commented on the situation prior to this news brief going to press. I'd like to see a picture of what those words just did to ION Storm's reputation. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The stone that the builder refused...
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
<b>#69</b> "Jeremy" wrote... <QUOTE>#62 "Prodigy" wrote... They certainly don't compare, in my mind, to games like the Final Fantasy series, the Ultima series (yes, there WAS Ultima before UO), the Fallout series, the Sim games, Actraiser, Chrono Trigger... As for Half-Life... I just couldn't get into it. Go kill aliens, come back, go kill humans, kill kill kill kill kill. There wasn't really an interesting story, there were no interesting characters, just scripted sequences to try to get you to kill more stuff without giving up out of total boredom. </QUOTE> Hmm, let me point out that in all but ONE of those games you mentioned, your primary focus is kill, kill, kill, kill, kill. Just because it's not a first person shooter doesn't mean you're not killing things when you have Cloud Strife use his megaslash technique on a dragon. And, if you were paying attention, there was a *very* intersting story behind it all - perhaps it wasn't fully explained what was going on, but that was part of the game's charm. It may not have been as complex as a Final Fantasy game, but hell, neither was System Shock 2's story. It didn't have to be.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#29</b> "Desiato" wrote... <QUOTE>I think I'll go shop my newest game idea to Eidos, it will be called -- "Touch The Titties" a sexy-action packed romp with a CTF twist!! I have a full press release describing the number of polys in each nipple, etc. Why the hell not, obviously precedent shows Eidos is an easy target. </QUOTE> My gosh, I had to litterally hold my mouth shut to keep from laughing out loud on that one. In my opinion, this has far, FAR, FAARRRR more to do with Eidos than ION Storm. People are forgetting, those checks that ION cashed and deposited were written out by Eidos. Ok, I'm not good at analogies. Joe Gamer has 2 kids, one is his own, the other is adopted (or a half brother/sister). Come allowance time, the dad gave both of their shares to kid a: who had a broken bicycle, so he could fix it. So kid a: runs off to the bikeshop to have it fixed, and the other kid b: is left standing there with his dad, asking his dad, "I suppose that was my share you gave to him?" "yep" replied the dad. End of analogy. Geh, typing while on Sonata is tough. I take too many prescription drugs. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
BTW, Eidos didn't publish SS2, it was EA. |
|
I'd like to compliment <a href="http://www.ttlg.com">Through The Looking Glass</a> on their dedication and the decision that they've decided to stay open for business. Thanks for sticken around, guys. You have a really nice site.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<quote>It fell through because Eidos were in their own financial troubles. Ion Storm has sucked up 26 million, and their 4th Tomb Raider game which they were heavily relying on was a flop.</quote> And Eidos is the only publisher around? They could have made a deal with other publisher. |
|
<b>#70</b> "Seth Krieg" wrote... <QUOTE>Yeah, Iikka was at LG (at least I'm pretty sure he was, I didn't hear about him moving on from LG, anyway), so was Rich Carlson, another level designing 'master'. </QUOTE> Rich Carlson has been with Rogue for some time now, not with Looking Glass. Although I understand he parted on good terms with them. -jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#66</b> "MCorleone" wrote... <QUOTE>So there we were. Plenty of long-term income potential in the briskly selling Thief 2, and signed deals. No short term operating capital. Can't pay the bills, can't pay salaries? Can't keep the doors open. </QUOTE> That's the killer right there. Most of the time when one of these developers shuts their doors, its because they can't afford to keep paying their employees. -jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#76</b> "Evildude" wrote - <QUOTE>It fell through because Eidos were in their own financial troubles. Ion Storm has sucked up 26 million, and their 4th Tomb Raider game which they were heavily relying on was a flop. And Eidos is the only publisher around? They could have made a deal with other publisher. </QUOTE> But it doesn't mean jack if; Eidos has exclusivity rights or, bought the name quite a while ago (Like GT did with Unreal). Which appears to be the case, because in that open letter Randy Smith said something to the effect of 'if you see Thief 3, probably none of us will be involved with it.' There you go.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#78</b> "loonyboi" wrote - <QUOTE>#66 "MCorleone" wrote... So there we were. Plenty of long-term income potential in the briskly selling Thief 2, and signed deals. No short term operating capital. Can't pay the bills, can't pay salaries? Can't keep the doors open. That's the killer right there. Most of the time when one of these developers shuts their doors, its because they can't afford to keep paying their employees. -jason</QUOTE> D'oh, sorry about that, didn't remember hearing. Which is another good thing, I suppose. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<quote>Seems that the unwashed masses want football sims or shoot em ups, if it doesnt fall into those fields, its not worth it. </quote> No, they want RollerCoaster Tycoon, SimCity 3000 and The Sims... all fabulous games, by the way, and the three best-selling games in the last couple of years. |
|
<b>#72</b> "asspennies" wrote... <QUOTE>Hmm, let me point out that in all but ONE of those games you mentioned, your primary focus is kill, kill, kill, kill, kill. </QUOTE> It's PART of most of those games, and it's part of almost all games. I'm not going to dispute that; but there are OTHER parts to most of those games as well, and those are the parts I find more interesting. You honestly think Fallout2 is about just killing? There is a LOT to that game, a bunch of things you can (or cannot, depending on what you want) do, interaction with the NPCs... Chrono Trigger was, simply, different. It wasn't like typical console RPGs, it was open ended to a degree, with multiple endings, interesting characters. Final Fantasy is much the same way, albeit more restricted in how you can progress. There is some pretty common stuff to almost all RPGs: you do your share of killing, but you are in a world that you can explore, and the scripted sequences/movies reveal things about the characters and the world; which is what makes them interesting. ActRaiser, I liked because it was different; kill kill kill sidescroller, but then after that there is a rudimentary sim game on top of it. Any Maxis sim is well... a totally different beast. I'm assuming that's the one exception you refer to. I've got no problem with killing in games, and most games just don't work on any level without it; but if that's basically all there is to a game (which is how I see most FPS games), I'm just left thinking that there could have been a lot more done. Sure there IS a plot to Half-Life; but there are no people to get to know, no characters, no real sense of exploration, no alternate gameplay. In my view, a game like that is best played online against other players, instead of alone trudging through AI controlled monsters. Jeremy<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<quote>Why couldn't Looking Glass have got funding from elsewhere? Does anyone know if they tried? Perhaps there's more to the story that we haven't been told yet? </quote> Well, Looking Glass made critically acclaimed games that were often late and didn't exactly burn up the sales chart. I did an interview with Doug Church a few months ago, and this was one Q/A" <b>Why haven’t the games from Looking Glass been huge sellers?<b> Who knows? I’m sure some people at Looking Glass would be happy to hear some simple answers. Most have sold well or better, but not huge numbers. It’s probably a combination of complexity, accessibility, marketing, timing and luck. Some people have pointed out that the games often require a fair amount of investment from the player to get maximal enjoyment, and are hard to just pick up and start playing. In Thief we specifically worked on that, though obviously I’m not the one to say how well we did on it…. But I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished. Better sales would mean more money, with which we could experiment more and be less beholden to publishers, which would be awesome. If our only goal was sales (or profit) we would probably do different games. But we are here and releasing titles we are proud of. Given that we write games for a living, it’s hard to complain too much. |
|
I think loonyboi mentioned it somehwere in this thread, but LGS <i>didn't make</i> System Shock 2. Irrational games did. And they're still together. I feel kind of bad about LGS myself, but the team that made System Shock 2 is still around. So rejoice, I guess. Erik |
|
<b>#84</b> "erik" wrote... <QUOTE>I feel kind of bad about LGS myself, but the team that made System Shock 2 is still around.</QUOTE> I've never played through System Shock 2, and all this talk about how great it is makes me want to finally sit down with it. I'm going to pick it up tonight more than likely so I can bask in its glory everyone talks about. -- Dethstryk Damage Gaming |
|
Memories: I was playing Thief II a month or so ago. It was about eight PM or so, I was alone in my apartment, waiting for a few friends to show up -- we were doing movie night on the DVD player. It was the spying mission, the one where you need to spy on a conversation between Truart and the Mechanist leader. I had damned near completed the mission -- I had listened to the conversation, found the key, made a mold of the key, and returned the damned thing. All that was left was to acquire 1200 in loot. I had about 1100. I scoured the entire cathedral, and my heart was *really* starting to sink with dread -- the only unexplored area of the cathedral was the catacombs, in which I knew lurked terrible undead Hammer warriors. I had seen one earlier and ran like the coward I was. Swallowing my bile, I finally descended into the catacombs. A few winding passageways took me to a dead end, dominated by a sarcophagus. I opened it, and voila! 200 loot, putting me well over my goal. As I turned, I heard in my ears (it was actually in my 5.1 surround speaker setup) a terrible moaning. From the corner of my vision I glimpsed red, the tattered rags of one of the hammerite death-knights. I ducked his fearsome hammer swing, which rebounded off of the sarcophagus behind me (the clanging sound nearly made me scream). Swiftly I ducked past the monster and begin my escape. The winding corridors had me lost for a few moments, and I could hear the moaning and howling of the thing as it gave chase. Finally I came to a door, I was saved. Spinning, I began to close it, but it was too late! The thing had gotten through the doorway and was winding up for a swing. I burst into motion again, running across the cathedral toward the main antechamber, the thing still hot on my heels. Another door, and the results were the same. Genuinely panicked now, truly afraid I was about to be destroyed, I dashed through the brightly lit cathedral, vaguely hoping that no patrolling guards were nearby. Up the stairs I ran, and I saw my salvation: In the chamber ahead was a ladder, surely the monstrosity could not climb it. With the death-knight still hot on my heels, I made a mad dash for the ladder and leapt.... and missed! My vision went read and from far away I heard myself moan as the things hammer slammed into my side, surely breaking a few of my ribs. My gaze going black around the edges, I leapt once more for the ladder, heart pounding in my ears, breath held behind clenched teeth.... and I made it! I heard the clanging of the thing's hammer rebounding off the wall beneath me! I scrambled up the ladder and looked down, watching as the monster impotently raged at being deprived of its prey. Scurrying down the rope arrow I had left on the balcony, I finally exhaled. I was safe. This whole episode lasted maybe thirty seconds, a minute at most. Yet those thirty seconds got more of an emotional reaction out of me than all of Half Life and Baldur's Gate combined. I was genuinely afraid. Not afraid because I'd have to reload, but afraid because there was an undead on *my* ass! Not Garret's ass, mine. My memories of Thief I/II and Shock II are filled with such anecdotes -- The revulsion I felt upon reading the log of the first Cyborg Midwife's creation, the terrible awe I felt at my first view of one of the Mechanist automatons, the triumph I felt upon escaping Truart's fortress without any difficulty... the tension of sneaking into my house, surrounded by the local guards. I can honestly say that no game company has ever so consistently provoked an emotional response from me -- when I heard of the two lovers escaping the doomed Von Braun, I was genuinely happy. Even Half Life, with its amazing AI and wonderful design never came close to the kind of tension that Thief and Shock created. The closest anything has ever come is Metal Gear Solid, and even that pales by comparison. I can confidently say that there is no developer out there who has the capability of provoking such responses in me. I know id and Epic can't, nor can Raven for all their talent. Black Isle and Bioware are good, but not that good. Blizzard isn't that good. Maybe one of the newcomers -- Nihilistic, or perhaps Troika. The PC gaming industry and scene is, a day later, a pale shadow of what it once was. Melodrama? Perhaps. But for me, it's quite true.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
As much as people want to blame ION Storm or Eidos for Looking Glass' closure, and as much as everyone needs a scapegoat, let's not forget the simple truth that had things been managed better, Looking Glass probably shouldn't have needed Eidos (or anyone) to bail them out in the first place.... |
|
<b>#87</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote... <QUOTE>As much as people want to blame ION Storm or Eidos for Looking Glass' closure, and as much as everyone needs a scapegoat, let's not forget the simple truth that had things been managed better, Looking Glass probably shouldn't have needed Eidos (or anyone) to bail them out in the first place.... </QUOTE> Acctauly most of the smaller developers I've talked with run so far on the edge short term capital comes strate from the publisher. On a side note any one know any place selling used copies of System Shock 1?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I also find it interesting that in a lot of the comments people are condemning the conservative state of the industry while at the same time saying things like we'll never see, and I quote this from Through the Looking Glass: "Thief 3, System Shock 3, Underworld 3, Terra Nova 2... " Hmm... Personally, I'm not that upset we won't see those sequels, since we'll have the originals to remember. (Sequels are part of the problem with the industry... eventually, there will be live five franchises driving the entire game industry.) As good as those sequels may be, I'm upset we won't see what original games the Looking Glass people could do with the time and money of a large publisher. Or maybe we will, just not under the LG moniker... |
|
JeffD : I feel your pain. The undead freak me out too, although I've been able to avoid them thus far in Thief2. Have to see if I can maintain. ;) All : To those who bash Half-Life : come on. I played through that game twice, and OpFor 1.5 times ... I'm considering going back for more. Half-Life was awesome for creating fear, and the action was intense! I don't like listening to "hardcore" gamers who want to recite a list of old titles that are better than any of these "damn modern games that favor graphics over substance", in a lame attempt to give themselves credibility. Half-Life was a great game. A great achievement. Thief2 is right up there with it. Give great games credit where it's due ... And, hey, I've been playing games as long as you have. Don't even try it. :) |
|
[87] Steve Bauman: Thank you! My feelings exactly. [68] Chris (kanaeda): cool, glad you like it... I was but a cog. |
|
Saw this great post on Slashdot about Looking Glass' closure: <quote>Thanks to the magic of software piracy, you'll still be able to get all the games they've released, at the same price you've always paid. Remember, software piracy doesn't hurt developers, crappy and overpriced products do. Keep repeating it, maybe someday you won't feel guilty anymore. (Disclaimer: I know full well most pirates don't feel guilty anyway.) </quote> |
|
<b>#86</b> "JeffD" wrote... <QUOTE>I can confidently say that there is no developer out there who has the capability of provoking such responses in me. </QUOTE> Oh yes, the first game that actually made me *scared* (not amused, or disgusted, but genuinely scared like I was a 6 year old child left alone in a dark room with *something* scratching the door outside) - that game was System Shock 2. I could not play it at night when I was alone, even though I felt very stupid, I was simply afraid to. I have a nice sound system and a huge monitor - these are my excuses - but nevertheless, I have yet to see a game as deeply interactive as SS2 was (is!)... Genius people often, if not always, end up their days in powerty, unappreciated by the crowd. Unless you fuck pride and do something that sells :(<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Come on you guys. Ion is in no way responsible for Eidos' situation and thus is in no way responsible for LGS' shutdown. Yes Eidos dropped a ton of money into Ion, but <b>it was Eidos' decision.</b> They had the ability to say no at any time. The whole shutdown is more than just "oops, no money from Eidos." LGS had to have some mismanagement or mistakes made in their business practices in order to be in such a situation. It's ludicrous what we see people posting in this thread and what we saw them posting in the Eidos titties thread. Funny how the same people who were condeming "sexism" in games are now bitching about how Killcreek's silicone jubblies have cost LGS it's life. Come on, if you want to bitch about the ineptitude that is Ionstorm, then bitch about their skills or lack there of, not about their big boobs or long hair. (Not to mention that Johnny R. has enough money to buy boobies for his girlfriends [ if in fact he did...]. He was a part owner at id so they had to buy him out. Odds are he was pretty flush with cash, probably in the order of 5 to 10 million in personal liquidity.) |
|
[#91] guf: ... I was but a cog. 'tis true, but even the lowliest gear plays a part in the grand scheme of the machine. I just noticed the new email addy. Ya move across town? ;p |
|
And I bought Thief three days before Thief Gold was announced. For full price no less. They should've made it a download for peeps who already had the game. |
|
<b>#96</b> "Seven Tacos" wrote... <QUOTE>And I bought Thief three days before Thief Gold was announced. For full price no less. They should've made it a download for peeps who already had the game. </QUOTE> Um...they did. -jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
#97 loonyboi - <quote>Um...they did.</quote> Where? It's not up on their site now. All that's up there is info about a $10 rebate for purchasers of the original. And where's my t-shirt dammit! |
|
From post #60 <quote>What is up with all The Half-Life bashing? In a thread where we're talking about some of the greatest games ever made, why do you feel it's neccesary to bash yet another one of these select few? </quote> On most days I would let such a post slide. But I'm in an extra bitchie mood today. So for a change I'm going to speak my opinion about this topic even though it makes me seem like a three headed geek. Tearful confession, I just don't get Half life. I don't think it's the greatest game ever made but it is the most over rated. There is nothing siginficantly better about the game play then any other FSP. Yeah it had cinimatics. Cool scripted stuff. But all that is just candy and in my opinion it's accepting stuff like that as "Quality gaming" is a large part of the problem. I have played a good deal of Half life. I got to the place you Jump in to Xen from. The reason I stopped there was I was just not having fun any more and did not want to bother with it any longer. I understand the Xen part of the game is the worst part, so I doubt if I pressed on I would have a higher opinion about the game. Please don't read this and think I'm bashing Half life. I'm not. It's as good if not better then any other traditional "kill the monster, find the card key" First person shooter. But is it a great game? I don't think so. Is it the best game ever? No. Happy Cow<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Not to offend, but I tend to mentally file people who don't like Half-Life in the "never satisfied" folder. |
|
Re: Half Life bashing. I think the biggest problem with Half-Life was that it's more of an interactive movie than a game. It did a <b>great</b> job of keeping the tension up throughout most of the game (Xen fell apart) and the commando AI was just insidious. However, Half Life lacked a few things. 1) A truly strong plot: Half Life had a doom-clone for a plot. Portals to other world are opened up and aliens start invading, yadda yadda yadda. Not bad, just not as revolutionary as everyone claims. Half life didn't have a revolutionary plot, but it executed that plot better than any other game. In contrast, the Thief and Shock games all had revolutionary plots. The story of the City, with its Hammerites, Mechanists, Pagans, Keepers, and the Vine was a truly innovative and original plotline. The rogue AI Shodan wasn't terribly original (think Skynet), but the idea of her giving birth to the Many and them warring against one another was tremendous. Half Life had tremendous plot execution; Shock / Thief had both innovative plot *and* tremendous execution. 2) Character identification: Gordon and company don't have any personalities. Gordon himself never says a word -- what do we know about him. Is he shy? Outgoing? Cynical? Does he get laid regularly? The characters in Half Life were almost nonexistant, the focus of the game was overwhelmingly on the plot and action. Without strong characterization, the plot was less interesting. On the other hand, the LGS games all had tremendously detailed characters. Garret is a wonderful character - he's got a detailed personality. You don't even need to be told he's Garret -- you can tell because he is a detailed character. Likewise, the many characters in Shock 2 all have distinc personalities, and stories to tell. In Metal Gear Solid, part of the coolness in the game is that Snake has a personality -- he's a bit of a lech and a flirt, but that's all an external shell surrounding what is, apparently, a cold killer. 3) Gameplay: Half Life didn't offer much in the way of innovative gameplay - you went from point A to point B using violence. That's the core gameplay: Blast your way from point A to point B. Oh sure, ostensibly you had objectives, but that's rather pointless, objectives add more to the plot than gameplay. The core gameplay premise is the same as every FPS since Wolfenstein. In Thief, the focus is no longer on violence, but on stealthiness. Thief wasn't the first game to do this -- near as I can remember, the original Fallout had this feature. In fact, if you were good enough and crafted your character properly, you could go through the *entire* fallout game without causing a whit of damage to anyone. Oh, it was hard (I've only managed to get about halfway through before I bungle), but you can sneak or talk your way through the whole game. In Thief, the focus is on stealthiness, not violence. Hell, one mission in Thief II disallowed even *blackjacking*, which is one of Garret's mainstays (who else here deliberately blackjacks *everyone* they can simply for the hell of it? Furthermore, Thief and Shock 2 force you to carefully decide how your character and / or his inventory goes. In Thief, you start your missions by choosing an equipment loadout, based on what's available and the amount of money you have. Given these constraints, you have to carefully choose what you bring, as there's usually very little equipment in-game. Should I buy another 4 water-arrows, or splurge on some extra rope arrows? Decisions like this increase the depth of the game. Likewise, Shock 2, with its limited inventory, forces you to decide what weapons and equipment you really need. Sure, you can take some huge powerful weapons, but you won't have enough room in your inventory for the other equipment you need. Likewise, ammunition management becomes an issue, as there's not *nearly* enough ammo in game to blast your way through everything. Character growth is another issue -- is it better to concentrate in one discipline (weapons, tech, psi) or be a jack of all trades? More decisions are involved, and this adds to the gameplay by 1) Making the player feel he's more involved in the game and 2) giving the player a sense of satisfaction for a good decision. The point of this long rant? Half Life is a great game. Its execution of the pure FPS premise (go from point A to point B, using violence to get there) is still unmatched. However, there was no true gameplay innovation, merely the use of well crafted scripted sequences to convey a plot. The LGS games, on the other hand, pioneered some innovative gameplay. In addition, the storytelling was on par with Half-Life's with regards to the plot, and far surpasses it with regards to characterization. Finally, LGS games provide far more depth than Half Life did. Does this make HL bad? No. But it does make Thief / Shock better.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<quote>Not to offend, but I tend to mentally file people who don't like Half-Life in the "never satisfied" folder. </quote> I'm not offended. I'm mature enough to understand people that "mentally file people" due to taste in games are not worth being offended by. Just stating an opinion that is not stated very often. I just my opinon and nobody in the world has to agree with it. Those that don't agree with me are still file free. Happy cow<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#101</b> "JeffD" wrote... <QUOTE> 3) Gameplay: Half Life didn't offer much in the way of innovative gameplay - you went from point A to point B using violence. That's the core gameplay: Blast your way from point A to point B. Oh sure, ostensibly you had objectives, but that's rather pointless, objectives add more to the plot than gameplay. The core gameplay premise is the same as every FPS since Wolfenstein. </QUOTE> Hmmph. I consider quite a few things about Half-Life innovative: the incremental level-loading, weapon selection, graffiti/logo-spraying, use of NPCs such as the "Barneys", moving lips synchronized with speech, immersive audio. How about the Training area, for those of us too impatient to RTFM? How about weapons such as the hornet gun, gauss rifle and snarks? <QUOTE> Half Life is a great game. Its execution of the pure FPS premise (go from point A to point B, using violence to get there) is still unmatched. However, there was no true gameplay innovation, merely the use of well crafted scripted sequences to convey a plot. </QUOTE> I respect your opinions, but do not agree with them. I think there is one <I>hell</I> of a difference in gameplay between HL and Wolfenstein; the level where Freeman must get the fuel and oxygen flowing to the rocket-testing silo (and repeatedly sneak past the blind but sharp-earned monster) is light-years ahead of the "get red key, open red door" motif.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
What message does this send to other companies? Good games cost too much? |
|
<b>#104</b> "RzE" wrote... <QUOTE>What message does this send to other companies? Good games cost too much? </QUOTE> Well, Daikatana cost way too much.. and from what I hear it isn't a good game. :-P<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Happy Cow <quote>I'm not offended. I'm mature enough to understand people that "mentally file people" due to taste in games are not worth being offended by. Just stating an opinion that is not stated very often. I just my opinon and nobody in the world has to agree with it. Those that don't agree with me are still file free.</quote> *sigh* OK, I'm immature, beneath you and you're a better person than me. Let's move on. *rolls eyes* |
|
<b>#103</b> "Rantage" wrote... <QUOTE> Hmmph. I consider quite a few things about Half-Life innovative: the incremental level-loading, weapon selection, graffiti/logo-spraying, use of NPCs such as the "Barneys", moving lips synchronized with speech, immersive audio. How about the Training area, for those of us too impatient to RTFM? How about weapons such as the hornet gun, gauss rifle and snarks? </QUOTE> Granted, those are some innovations.... I was referring more to pure gameplay -- I'll grant that half-life pioneered several gameplay and technological features (esp. the training area, allthough that's also a mainstay of the LGS games). These are added on features, however, and to me they don't represent anything along the way of revolutionary gameplay. <QUOTE> I respect your opinions, but do not agree with them. I think there is one hell of a difference in gameplay between HL and Wolfenstein; the level where Freeman must get the fuel and oxygen flowing to the rocket-testing silo (and repeatedly sneak past the blind but sharp-earned monster) is light-years ahead of the "get red key, open red door" motif.</QUOTE> In the interests of being understood, let me elaborate on this point: In the example you quoted, the goal is to go from point A (silo) to point B (fuel) to point C (O2) and back to point A. All you're doing is running around and pushing buttons, something that's been done since DOOM. Granted, your reasons for pushing the buttons were better (instead of just opening a door, I'm getting ready to blow the smithereens out of a monster), but as I said in my previous post, this is more of a plot feature than a gameplay feature. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#90</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote... <QUOTE>Half-Life was a great game. A great achievement... I don't like listening to "hardcore" gamers who want to recite a list of old titles that are better than any of these "damn modern games that favor graphics over substance", in a lame attempt to give themselves credibility. </QUOTE> And I think HalfLife is simply another small step in the FPS gaming ladder, not any sort of revolutionary game in general. That's an opinion that I'm entitled to, in the same way you're entitled to yours. It's <B>my</B> opinion, the opinion of one gamer, that the gameplay in many (single player) first person shooters isn't as entertaining as that of many other genre. Just because you have different tastes than I do doesn't mean that you need to take cheap shots at the rationalle behind my opinion. Jeremy<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#107</b> "JeffD" wrote... <QUOTE> In the example you quoted, the goal is to go from point A (silo) to point B (fuel) to point C (O2) and back to point A. All you're doing is running around and pushing buttons, something that's been done since DOOM. </QUOTE> Perhaps -- perhaps not. In certain areas of Half-Life, stealthiness <I>is</I> key (the aforementioned area being one of them)....something that you commended <B>Thief II</B> for. Also, in Doom (and Wolfenstein), the goal was merely to make it to the end of the level. In Half-Life, this goal changes...first to get to the surface, then to escape the enemy troops, then to make it to the other end of Black Mesa, and finally to escape from Xen. By the way, I'm ashamed to admit that I've never played any of the Looking Glass games. After this thread, however, I'm determined to go out and purchase Thief II. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#100</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote... <QUOTE>Not to offend, but I tend to mentally file people who don't like Half-Life in the "never satisfied" folder. </QUOTE> Oh good, let's file people! By your logic, maybe I should just mentally toss the comments of Half-Life fanboys into "file 13" then. Jeremy<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#109</b> "Rantage" wrote... <QUOTE>By the way, I'm ashamed to admit that I've never played any of the Looking Glass games. After this thread, however, I'm determined to go out and purchase Thief II. :)</QUOTE> The same here. I played SS2 for a short while, until I ran into that spawn bug (which was fixed by a quick patch, but I got hit over the head with some other game that was much less frustrating and never got back to it). I also received Thief with one of my (numerous) video or sound cards. Still, I think I'll go out and buy Thief Gold and Thief 2 this weekend (hopefully TFC won't swallow me up again before I get the chance to play through them). The main point, though, is that my internet connection completely sucks right now, and a good single player game is just what I need (having already played FFVII, Fallout 1/2, etc. etc.). As far as Half-life goes, I don't really care either way what people say about it. I enjoyed the multiplayer portion (specifically TFC) a great deal, and fell asleep every time I tried to play the single player. If the single player of HL worked for you, that's great, as everything I saw pointed towards a well polished piece of work. It simply wasn't something that called to <i>me</i> to continue playing. -PainKilleR-[CE] |
|
Fallout itself wasn't an original, but rather an updated WASTELAND with a makeover. (I still have my 1sqrft by 1sqrft original copy of Wasteland for the C64 with the orange cover). That game was so remarkable and has such a warm and neigh-untouched pinnacle of gaming that it demanded a remake. Thankfully, the remakes lived up to the original. Black Isle is scaring me, though. They licensed Lithtech to do their future games. I can't imagine a well-detailed or great engrossing game based on the lithtech engine. It's like asking for a mansion being built out of tar-paper. BlackIsle may have forsaken me, that is yet to be known, but it's very unfortunate that like movies, publishers (studios) are removing creative control from the developers (filmmakers) and forsaking original and thought-provoking movies for cut-and-dried formula games/movies that have a proven payoff. Think of Thief2 as Being John Malkovich. An excellent work of art that was largely ignored due to almost-zero marketing. |
|
OK! Everything I've said in this thread, is my opinion. Just like everything you said is your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, your entitled to yours. Now bugger off. :) |
|
I used the wrong "your" again. God I suck. :) |
|
This thread has got me all fired up to go play SS2 now as well. I started it before, but didn't get very far. Being mostly a 'twitch-game' junkie, I wasn't expecting that type of game. Who knows, if this goes well, maybe I'll go pick up Thief 1 or 2. (-)Ions <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I'm calling out to all of you readers that have not played SS2: It's a phenomenal game and it will drastically increase your empathy to the feelings expressed over the topic of this thread. |
|
<b>#112</b> "MCorleone" wrote... <QUOTE>Black Isle is scaring me, though. They licensed Lithtech to do their future games. </QUOTE> Hey, I LIKED Shogo! I don't really know much about the engine, but I thought that game felt pretty good at least. I'm kinda into the anime thing though... so maybe I'm biased there. Aside from that, I doubt anybody would recommend FO 1/2 based on show-stopping graphics. Even if they don't end up with the best looking game in the world, I have faith that Black Isle will work some of that same magic that I remember, regardless of what engine they use. Well, I'm hoping at least :) (I'm also hoping that they don't have to patch this one after I've already gotten a decent way into it, causing me to start over...) Now, I need to go buy Thief 2 and see just how brilliant LGS was... Jeremy<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Increased empathy and increased feelings... Speculation spectacles on: Why do you guys think that developers pump out sequels? I think it's mostly money. Why don't we see game makers make something fresh and new every time? Obviously the tried and true has failed a major player, despite the gracious nods from the community. Is it a lack of originality? It seems that the game makers are building a house, and just adding to it, remodelling rooms over time with each new release, rather than moving to a whole new neighborhood. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#109</b> "Rantage" wrote... <QUOTE> In certain areas of Half-Life, stealthiness is key (the aforementioned area being one of them)....something that you commended Thief II for. Also, in Doom (and Wolfenstein), the goal was merely to make it to the end of the level. In Half-Life, this goal changes...first to get to the surface, then to escape the enemy troops, then to make it to the other end of Black Mesa, and finally to escape from Xen.</QUOTE> How is this any different than Wolfenstein? Gameplay wise, the goal is the same: Go from point A to point B. It's just that point A and B are more interesting than the entrance / exit of a level. The core gameplay is the same: Progress on a fairly linear course from point A to point B. <QUOTE> By the way, I'm ashamed to admit that I've never played any of the Looking Glass games. After this thread, however, I'm determined to go out and purchase Thief II. :)</QUOTE> And you call yourself a man. ;) Seriously, all of the games -- Thief Gold, Shock II and Thief II are worth a buy. And you'll understand the difference between Half-Life "stealth" and Thief stealth. It's a whole other ballgame. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<quote>Why do you guys think that developers pump out sequels? I think it's mostly money. </quote> Well, yeah. It's mostly marketing costs. You need to spend a lot more money to make people know about, say, Half-Life than Half-Life II, because the latter already has a built-in audience. But it's also a safer investment. See, a lot of people greenlighting games have to think of their own jobs. If they fund a bunch of wildly original projects and they fail, they're fired. So they greenlight safe sequels to protect their own asses. It's a fairly typical management mindset. <quote>Is it a lack of originality? </quote> Well, there's very little originality in 3D gaming, in terms of design. Someone talked about original features in Half-Life (incremental level-loading, graffiti/logo-spraying, moving lips synchronized with speech, immersive audio), but they were mostly technological innovations (or things like logo spraying that were really made more feasible by technology). Thief has a fairly original gameplay concept, in that it is a sort of anti-shooter, a first-person sneaker. But you know what? When a lot of people talk about the game, they complain about the engine and the stiff and ugly player characters. Those same criticisms were leveled at System Shock 2 as well. So the answer is... there is no answer. Oh, and to those that would complain about keycard designs, can you think of a single conflict/resolution game encounter that couldn't be turned into a keycard analogy? Go for it. It's a fun exercise. |
|
I would offer you a reply on your exercise, but I get the feeling you guys don't lump 3D flight simulators into '3D gaming'... whatever that means. ;) <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The stone that the builder refused...
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|