pathetic sell-out (was Re: Warren Spector -Dev Diary at IGN ("only thebest parts"))

Eep² wrote:
>
> "True confessions time - I'm not just a PC gamer. Never have been and
> doubt I ever will be. I've always owned every gaming platform
> available, always played both console and PC games. What's more, I've
> always wanted to work on a console game. There. I said it."
>
> <blink>

That doesn't make someone a "sellout," unless you define "sellout" to mean
"someone who designs on more than just PCs." Personally I think that would
be a poor definition, and I don't think it's your definition either. For
the record, what is your definition of "sellout?"

> "We decided that some of the complexity associated with the UI in the
> first Deus Ex game actually didn't contribute to our core gameplay AT
> ALL. And we decided to eliminate what we considered to be unnecessary
> UI complexity.

Sounds like making something efficient, not selling out at all. Of course,
there's the question of whether you and Warren would describe the changes in
the same terms. He asserts that various UI complexities were unnecessary to
gameplay. Do you feel they were necessary? What specifically were they?

> we made no decisions that we thought would
> compromise our core gameplay.
>
> <blinkety-blink>

And you feel differently on what particular points?

> "We rolled the augmentations and skills systems of the first game into
> a single "biomods" system, eliminating the UI subscreen associated
> with skills (and all the classic-RPG number-crunching associated with
> that system). Yes, we did this to make the game more accessible."
>
> ...to attention-deficit-disorder-suffering consolers.

So, on this point apparently. I'll leave it to others to argue about this
one, I haven't played the game. At least it's a specific discussible point.

> "Among the more controversial decisions we made, one some players see
> as making the game more consoley and less PC-ish, was to go with a
> single ammunition type (rather than unique ammunition for each weapon
> type). This eliminated the need to track "shots" and "clips" for each
> weapon, individually. It also had the added benefit of ensuring that
> players have to manage their ammo resource throughout the game,
> instead of blasting through all of their ammo for one weapon, secure
> in the knowledge that they have a max loadout for every OTHER weapon
> in the game to fall back on! Some people have assumed that this change
> 'simplifies' strategic gameplay. In my experience, it actually makes
> the game more difficult, maybe even more hardcore!"
>
> Um, no it doesn't. It makes it more mindless.

I haven't used such a system. I don't think trying such a system makes
someone a sellout. Personally, I don't think there's anything "mindful"
about running around looking for separate ammo clips. For the most part, I
don't think the act of obtaining ammo in most FPS games is in any way
"mindful" at all. If anything my experience of it has been visceral.
Either I'm in single player mode and being chased by a big bad monster, and
I need a powerup *now*, or I'm in a deathmatch and I'm just running to get
the stuff to stomp my friend with. The "mindful" part of the latter drill
is adapting to the strengths and weaknesses of your friend.

I suppose, however, that it does make it much harder to run out of ammo for
a particular weapon. Often if your friend has a rocket launcher, you can
try to dance around to empty his clip, then move in for the kill. I suppose
that would still happen as long as rocket ammo is very very expensive. In
practice I've always had a gazillion rounds of ammunition for pistols,
shotguns, and machine guns, so I don't see an impact on play mechanics
there. Grenades, on the other hand, are often in short supply. Wouldn't
want to make those too plentiful. (My most recent point of reference was
Halo.)

I suppose if someone thought the pinnacle of level design was to give each
player 1 bullet, i.e. *really* restrict the available ammo, then indeed
you'd have a somewhat "mindful" problem to contend with. But that's a
fairly specific level design, not core gameplay for most FPS games out
there. I think dispensing with it in the interest of simplicity for 95% of
the level designs is ok. You could still always have the "pistols only, and
only 10 shots" level even within the DE2 system.

> "Fundamentally (and not to sound like a broken record), we WANTED to
> offer players the same game on both platforms. We embraced the
> limitations of the Xbox, focused on the player experience and, yes,
> made some compromises."
>
> So obvious a sign of a sellout it hurts, Brandon...

A compromise is not a sellout. If you want 100% of something, but only
manage 90%, that's just life.

> You may not be deaf, but perhaps you're blind?

I'm a working Game Designer, spending my own money to tangibly deal with
problems like this. Somehow I think your definition of "sellout" has no
budget attached to it.

>>> <shrug> Fuck if I care if you or others here (or anywhere) don't
>>> like my opinions.
>>
>> Then why do you bother discussing your opinions with anyone?
>
> Cuz I can. :P What's YOUR excuse?

My mission with you has always been to try to steer you towards becoming a
real Game Designer. You have the potential, but you still aren't one. You
don't do any tangible game design work expressed in code, and consequently
you have an unforgiving, unrealistic perspective on the various design
compromises people inevitably have to make to Get Things Done. It's easy to
say everyone else is a sellout when you yourself don't sell anything.
Where's your product, Eep? At least I'm *trying* to make a product...

As to why I post in general, not specifically talking to you: I aim to
improve the Art and Science of Game Design. Part of that means dealing
successfully with production realities. Budgets, finance, marketing, that
sort of thing.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:
>
> Eep² wrote:
> >
> > "True confessions time - I'm not just a PC gamer. Never have been and
> > doubt I ever will be. I've always owned every gaming platform
> > available, always played both console and PC games. What's more, I've
> > always wanted to work on a console game. There. I said it."
> >
> > <blink>
>
> That doesn't make someone a "sellout," unless you define "sellout" to mean
> "someone who designs on more than just PCs." Personally I think that would
> be a poor definition, and I don't think it's your definition either. For
> the record, what is your definition of "sellout?"

Stop limiting your comprehension of a "sellout" to a single example, Brandon. Patience, young grasshoppah...

> > "We decided that some of the complexity associated with the UI in the
> > first Deus Ex game actually didn't contribute to our core gameplay AT
> > ALL. And we decided to eliminate what we considered to be unnecessary
> > UI complexity.
>
> Sounds like making something efficient, not selling out at all. Of course,
> there's the question of whether you and Warren would describe the changes in
> the same terms. He asserts that various UI complexities were unnecessary to
> gameplay. Do you feel they were necessary? What specifically were they?
>
> > we made no decisions that we thought would
> > compromise our core gameplay.
> >
> > <blinkety-blink>
>
> And you feel differently on what particular points?

All of them that make DE2 more consolish: larger fonts, dumbed-down UI/controls, universal ammo, etc. Have you even PLAYED the demo or full game yet, Brandon--or, for that matter, the first DE? <buh-link>

> > "We rolled the augmentations and skills systems of the first game into
> > a single "biomods" system, eliminating the UI subscreen associated
> > with skills (and all the classic-RPG number-crunching associated with
> > that system). Yes, we did this to make the game more accessible."
> >
> > ...to attention-deficit-disorder-suffering consolers.
>
> So, on this point apparently. I'll leave it to others to argue about this
> one, I haven't played the game. At least it's a specific discussible point.

Ah, right, you haven't then. Why are you bothering arguing with me then? Sheesh...troll.

> > "Among the more controversial decisions we made, one some players see
> > as making the game more consoley and less PC-ish, was to go with a
> > single ammunition type (rather than unique ammunition for each weapon
> > type). This eliminated the need to track "shots" and "clips" for each
> > weapon, individually. It also had the added benefit of ensuring that
> > players have to manage their ammo resource throughout the game,
> > instead of blasting through all of their ammo for one weapon, secure
> > in the knowledge that they have a max loadout for every OTHER weapon
> > in the game to fall back on! Some people have assumed that this change
> > 'simplifies' strategic gameplay. In my experience, it actually makes
> > the game more difficult, maybe even more hardcore!"
> >
> > Um, no it doesn't. It makes it more mindless.
>
> I haven't used such a system. I don't think trying such a system makes
> someone a sellout. Personally, I don't think there's anything "mindful"
> about running around looking for separate ammo clips. For the most part, I
> don't think the act of obtaining ammo in most FPS games is in any way
> "mindful" at all. If anything my experience of it has been visceral.
> Either I'm in single player mode and being chased by a big bad monster, and
> I need a powerup *now*, or I'm in a deathmatch and I'm just running to get
> the stuff to stomp my friend with. The "mindful" part of the latter drill
> is adapting to the strengths and weaknesses of your friend.
>
> I suppose, however, that it does make it much harder to run out of ammo for
> a particular weapon. Often if your friend has a rocket launcher, you can
> try to dance around to empty his clip, then move in for the kill. I suppose
> that would still happen as long as rocket ammo is very very expensive. In
> practice I've always had a gazillion rounds of ammunition for pistols,
> shotguns, and machine guns, so I don't see an impact on play mechanics
> there. Grenades, on the other hand, are often in short supply. Wouldn't
> want to make those too plentiful. (My most recent point of reference was
> Halo.)
>
> I suppose if someone thought the pinnacle of level design was to give each
> player 1 bullet, i.e. *really* restrict the available ammo, then indeed
> you'd have a somewhat "mindful" problem to contend with. But that's a
> fairly specific level design, not core gameplay for most FPS games out
> there. I think dispensing with it in the interest of simplicity for 95% of
> the level designs is ok. You could still always have the "pistols only, and
> only 10 shots" level even within the DE2 system.

And make it not so over-the-top difficult, focusing mainly on stealth, evasion, and strategy--something console games are HARDLY known for...

> > "Fundamentally (and not to sound like a broken record), we WANTED to
> > offer players the same game on both platforms. We embraced the
> > limitations of the Xbox, focused on the player experience and, yes,
> > made some compromises."
> >
> > So obvious a sign of a sellout it hurts, Brandon...
>
> A compromise is not a sellout. If you want 100% of something, but only
> manage 90%, that's just life.
>
> > You may not be deaf, but perhaps you're blind?
>
> I'm a working Game Designer, spending my own money to tangibly deal with
> problems like this. Somehow I think your definition of "sellout" has no
> budget attached to it.

Wow, you're good..."sell"..."budget"...they ARE related, you know. If you compromise things in order to make more sales, you're a sellout--it's QUITE simple.

> >>> <shrug> Fuck if I care if you or others here (or anywhere) don't
> >>> like my opinions.
> >>
> >> Then why do you bother discussing your opinions with anyone?
> >
> > Cuz I can. :P What's YOUR excuse?
>
> My mission with you has always been to try to steer you towards becoming a
> real Game Designer. You have the potential, but you still aren't one. You
> don't do any tangible game design work expressed in code, and consequently
> you have an unforgiving, unrealistic perspective on the various design
> compromises people inevitably have to make to Get Things Done. It's easy to
> say everyone else is a sellout when you yourself don't sell anything.
> Where's your product, Eep? At least I'm *trying* to make a product...

I'll probably NEVER have a product for the simple reason that I can't stand coding and, hence, will most likely be the only one who could bring my game ideas to fruition. <shrug>

> As to why I post in general, not specifically talking to you: I aim to
> improve the Art and Science of Game Design. Part of that means dealing
> successfully with production realities. Budgets, finance, marketing, that
> sort of thing.

Man, you think too much...really. You say so much yet say nothing at all...

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bralf5$17ue9$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Eep² wrote:
> >
> > "True confessions time - I'm not just a PC gamer. Never have been and
> > doubt I ever will be. I've always owned every gaming platform
> > available, always played both console and PC games. What's more, I've
> > always wanted to work on a console game. There. I said it."
> >
> > <blink>
>
> That doesn't make someone a "sellout," unless you define "sellout" to mean
> "someone who designs on more than just PCs." Personally I think that would
> be a poor definition, and I don't think it's your definition either. For
> the record, what is your definition of "sellout?"

Dx 2 has been designed solely to meet the Xbox limitations, that's a fact.
So, DX 2 is a console game which has been ported to PC. But WS has been
claiming over a year now that DX2 would be the same game with or without
Xbox i.e. it's a pure PC game. And that's an outright LIE! So I think
that "sellout" is quite a kind experssion of him.

mace

"mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e7aa252f.0312111928.152ed41c@posting.google.c om...
> "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:<bralf5$17ue9$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Eep² wrote:
> > >
> > > "True confessions time - I'm not just a PC gamer. Never have been and
> > > doubt I ever will be. I've always owned every gaming platform
> > > available, always played both console and PC games. What's more, I've
> > > always wanted to work on a console game. There. I said it."
> > >
> > > <blink>
> >
> > That doesn't make someone a "sellout," unless you define "sellout" to
mean
> > "someone who designs on more than just PCs." Personally I think that
would
> > be a poor definition, and I don't think it's your definition either.
For
> > the record, what is your definition of "sellout?"
>
> Dx 2 has been designed solely to meet the Xbox limitations, that's a fact.
> So, DX 2 is a console game which has been ported to PC. But WS has been
> claiming over a year now that DX2 would be the same game with or without
> Xbox i.e. it's a pure PC game. And that's an outright LIE! So I think
> that "sellout" is quite a kind experssion of him.

But on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is the damage to the game? Where 1 is
"hardly any damage" and 10 is "this game has been rendered completely
unplayable by the design compromises."

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<brc1j8$1m5n1$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e7aa252f.0312111928.152ed41c@posting.google.c om...
> > "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:<bralf5$17ue9$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > Eep² wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "True confessions time - I'm not just a PC gamer. Never have been and
> > > > doubt I ever will be. I've always owned every gaming platform
> > > > available, always played both console and PC games. What's more, I've
> > > > always wanted to work on a console game. There. I said it."
> > > >
> > > > <blink>
> > >
> > > That doesn't make someone a "sellout," unless you define "sellout" to
> mean
> > > "someone who designs on more than just PCs." Personally I think that
> would
> > > be a poor definition, and I don't think it's your definition either.
> For
> > > the record, what is your definition of "sellout?"
> >
> > Dx 2 has been designed solely to meet the Xbox limitations, that's a fact.
> > So, DX 2 is a console game which has been ported to PC. But WS has been
> > claiming over a year now that DX2 would be the same game with or without
> > Xbox i.e. it's a pure PC game. And that's an outright LIE! So I think
> > that "sellout" is quite a kind experssion of him.
>
> But on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is the damage to the game? Where 1 is
> "hardly any damage" and 10 is "this game has been rendered completely
> unplayable by the design compromises."

Well, I would say 3 or 4, perhaps, but the point here is not how bad
the game is per se but how bad it is RELATED to the original which of
course is a classic.

mace

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> "mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e7aa252f.0312111928.152ed41c@posting.google.c om...
>> "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in
> message news:<bralf5$17ue9$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>>> Eep² wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "True confessions time - I'm not just a PC gamer. Never have been
>>>> and doubt I ever will be. I've always owned every gaming platform
>>>> available, always played both console and PC games. What's more,
>>>> I've always wanted to work on a console game. There. I said it."
>>>>
>>>> <blink>
>>>
>>> That doesn't make someone a "sellout," unless you define "sellout"
>>> to mean "someone who designs on more than just PCs." Personally I
>>> think that would be a poor definition, and I don't think it's your
>>> definition either. For the record, what is your definition of
>>> "sellout?"
>>
>> Dx 2 has been designed solely to meet the Xbox limitations, that's a
>> fact. So, DX 2 is a console game which has been ported to PC. But WS
>> has been claiming over a year now that DX2 would be the same game
>> with or without Xbox i.e. it's a pure PC game. And that's an
>> outright LIE! So I think that "sellout" is quite a kind experssion
>> of him.
>
> But on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is the damage to the game? Where
> 1 is "hardly any damage" and 10 is "this game has been rendered
> completely unplayable by the design compromises."

Is it me, or does it not seem childish, to relate to PCs as some sort of
gaming holy grail, endangered by "console contamination"?

g

"G.I.L" <not@all.com> wrote in message news:3fd9faf5$1@news.012.net.il...
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > "mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:e7aa252f.0312111928.152ed41c@posting.google.c om...
> >> "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote in
> > message news:<bralf5$17ue9$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >>> Eep² wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "True confessions time - I'm not just a PC gamer. Never have been
> >>>> and doubt I ever will be. I've always owned every gaming platform
> >>>> available, always played both console and PC games. What's more,
> >>>> I've always wanted to work on a console game. There. I said it."
> >>>>
> >>>> <blink>
> >>>
> >>> That doesn't make someone a "sellout," unless you define "sellout"
> >>> to mean "someone who designs on more than just PCs." Personally I
> >>> think that would be a poor definition, and I don't think it's your
> >>> definition either. For the record, what is your definition of
> >>> "sellout?"
> >>
> >> Dx 2 has been designed solely to meet the Xbox limitations, that's a
> >> fact. So, DX 2 is a console game which has been ported to PC. But WS
> >> has been claiming over a year now that DX2 would be the same game
> >> with or without Xbox i.e. it's a pure PC game. And that's an
> >> outright LIE! So I think that "sellout" is quite a kind experssion
> >> of him.
> >
> > But on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is the damage to the game? Where
> > 1 is "hardly any damage" and 10 is "this game has been rendered
> > completely unplayable by the design compromises."
>
> Is it me, or does it not seem childish, to relate to PCs as some sort of
> gaming holy grail, endangered by "console contamination"?

It's not some abstract ideal or formless philosophy; PCs are considered
superior for a reason. Better graphics and control schemes are concrete
features in video gaming, to dumb them down is to lose the benefits that a
more powerful and versatile platform has to offer.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, [iso-8859-1] Eep² wrote:

> Wow, you're good..."sell"..."budget"...they ARE related, you know. If
> you compromise things in order to make more sales, you're a
> sellout--it's QUITE simple.

I'm just curious, Eep², if the designers of KOTOR added a fix that enabled
someone to remap the controls to the arrow keys, would they be
"compromising things in order to make more sales," or would they be
"listening to comments of their customers and responding accordingly"?

-Dennis

Holden wrote:
> "G.I.L" <not@all.com> wrote in message
> news:3fd9faf5$1@news.012.net.il...
>> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>> "mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e7aa252f.0312111928.152ed41c@posting.google.c om...
>>>> "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote in
>>> message news:<bralf5$17ue9$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>..
>>> But on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is the damage to the game? Where
>>> 1 is "hardly any damage" and 10 is "this game has been rendered
>>> completely unplayable by the design compromises."
>>
>> Is it me, or does it not seem childish, to relate to PCs as some
>> sort of gaming holy grail, endangered by "console contamination"?
>
> It's not some abstract ideal or formless philosophy; PCs are
> considered superior for a reason. Better graphics and control schemes
> are concrete features in video gaming, to dumb them down is to lose
> the benefits that a more powerful and versatile platform has to offer.

...as if they're crucial...
Listen, "better", as Mr. Eep would say, "is relative". It's still childish
to consider one superior over the other. Especially for the wrong reasons.
Larger fonts, dumbed-down interface, even less polygons are hardly reasons
to cross out a game, when a lot of people would agree even old console
games, or pre-pc games are still considered excellent. There are certain
games which benefit from the existence of keyboards/mouse, but even that can
be taken care of quite easily. It's perfectly fine to compare the same game
between platforms and say which one plays better, but to say "yechh" just
because the designer took both platforms into consideration...

g

Dennis M. Reichhold wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, [iso-8859-1] Eep² wrote:
>
>> Wow, you're good..."sell"..."budget"...they ARE related, you know. If
>> you compromise things in order to make more sales, you're a
>> sellout--it's QUITE simple.
>
> I'm just curious, Eep², if the designers of KOTOR added a fix that
> enabled someone to remap the controls to the arrow keys, would they be
> "compromising things in order to make more sales," or would they be
> "listening to comments of their customers and responding accordingly"?

This reminds of people who love alternative music. Once their favorite band
made anything beyond complete cacophonic noise (did anyone say "Metal
Machine Music"?), they would scream "sellout".

Childish. Did I say that already?

g