| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
I don't recall anyone saying Ion Storm was wrong. ... They didn't do it for "selfish reasons," they did it for commercial reasons... there's this small thing called revenue that's so necessary for the survival of a company... yes, even a company which makes video games. It would be naive to state otherwise.
It would indeed, so I'm glad I didn't. But thanks for pointing that out. 
What I did state was in reply to bora's implication that Deus Ex 2 was a "unique creation... sacrificed on the altar for One And Only God - WEALTH." From this remark, I made the assumption that bora regards their motivations as selfish - that they "sold out." I think I was correct, but bora can set me straight otherwise.
And I think it's pretty clear from this thread and others that many people regard Ion Storm's design decisions as wrong. Don't you? But I admit that I didn't clarify what I was driving at: many players who dislike this game are claiming that it's due to Ion Storm "selling out," "dumbing down," losing all their design talent or whatever (if you really want to be pedantic and insist that I dig up quotes to support this I will, but you and I both know it's true; examples exist in this very thread). None of these players seem to have considered the possibility that Ion Storm genuinely tried to make a better game, and that the result is simply not to their tastes. Doesn't that seem more plausible?
quote:
Spector was the project lead for DX2. He gave the post of lead designer to Smith, because, as he said, he did not want DX2 to be a carbon copy of DX1; he wanted some new ideas. That's mistake #1, because a sequel is supposed to be similar, in several aspects, to its prequels. If not, then why even bother calling it a sequel? Name brand recognition? The Deus Ex name is not worth that much. Yes, there can be new elements added and old elements removed, but DX2 basically stripped the core gameplay of DX1, and this, this, is what the criticism is all about.
I totally disagree with that last point. What do you think was the core gameplay of Deus Ex? For me, it was the wide range of available playing styles and actions, support for player freedom and some ethical decision-making. IMO the RPG conventions and game mechanics were secondary. Deus Ex would still have been a great game if they were diluted to the extent they are in the sequel, it just wouldn't have been a great RPG.
Therefore, your comment about sequels is redundant, since there are many similarities between both games. You've disregarded them simply because they weren't the similarities you wanted to see, or maybe you just failed to identify them. But examine the game honestly and you will see that they exist. And this issue is totally subjective anyway: just how similar does a sequel have to be? Which aspects must be similar? There are no true answers to those questions, it's just personal taste. To suggest that a game is not a valid sequel because it's not the sequel you expected... don't you think that's a little unrealistic, perhaps even egotistical?
And not wanting a sequel to be a carbon copy of the first game is a mistake? I find that statement backward in the extreme, but if it's your honest opinion, so be it.
quote:
However, Spector, for some reason or other, was afraid of giving complete freedom to Smith. That's mistake #2, because if you don't trust someone, then why assign them to a position of authority (in this case lead designer)? So Spector demanded that every design decision taken by Smith to be approved by him first... and he approved them all. This results in mistake #3, as Spector himself admitted that he was somewhat doubtful of some design decisions taken by SMith, but for some bizarre reason decided to approve them anyway. Does that make sense to you? It sure doesn't to me. Either he agreed with the decisions and gave full power to Smith, or he didn't and assumed the role of lead designer. His indecision was everybody's loss.
OK, sorry for quoting so much, but I think this would make less sense if I snipped it. Firstly, "his indecision was everybody's loss." Not true. I like the sequel and I'm not the only one. Therefore, not "everybody" lost out. Don't assume that everyone shares your opinion. Secondly, consider this possibility: Spector decided to give his trust to Smith, but retained the right to overrule him in case of catastrophic problems. Even when he had reservations he decided to trust Smith's decisions - wouldn't you be inclined to give a respected and experienced colleague the benefit of the doubt? Whether he was right or wrong is a matter of taste, nothing more. Now... doesn't that seem less far-fetched than the prospect of a great and proven designer and project leader suddenly turning into a bumbling incompetent? I think so. Put aside your disappointment with the game and think about it rationally. Thirdly: you know that other players like this game; you know it's received mostly favourable reviews. So (assuming the target of your insult was appropriate) how can you justify the "lousy designer" comment? Do you honestly believe that your personal taste is the true gauge of design talent, in the face of any conflicting opinion? No offense, I'm just asking.
quote:
I'll assume you called my post ridiculous because of the Spector part.
That's correct. And I must apologise: you're right, it's not the most ridiculous thing I've read on these forums. But it's still ridiculous. You provided the explanation yourself with your breakdown of IW's design responsibilities. You stated that Spector had no design input on the game (you want proof? scroll up), and you also claimed that the mistakes you think he made were due to his reluctance to overrule Smith, rather than any of his own opinions on design - so how on earth can that game prove his lousiness as a designer? Utter nonsense. And frankly, the prospect of Spector simply "forgetting" the skills he honed while creating some of the PC's best games is ludicrous. It sounds like the knee-jerk reaction of a fan unwilling to attribute his disappointment with the sequel to anything as mundane as personal taste. |
Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:53 am |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
many players who dislike this game are claiming that it's due to Ion Storm "selling out," "dumbing down," losing all their design talent or whatever (if you really want to be pedantic and insist that I dig up quotes to support this I will, but you and I both know it's true; examples exist in this very thread). None of these players seem to have considered the possibility that Ion Storm genuinely tried to make a better game, and that the result is simply not to their tastes. Doesn't that seem more plausible?
Ion Storm admitted, from the beginning, that they had to "streamline" (to use their words) some aspects of the game because of the XBox. I'm not making this up; let me quote Spector: "yes, (we) made some compromises." Compromises. That's what gives it away.
quote:
I totally disagree with that last point. What do you think was the core gameplay of Deus Ex? For me, it was the wide range of available playing styles and actions, support for player freedom and some ethical decision-making. IMO the RPG conventions and game mechanics were secondary.
For you, those elements were secondary. But there's a reason why we're discussing Deus Ex in a RPG forum. To many people, those aspects were of primary importance. Dig up some (or, should I say, most) of the reviews on Deus Ex 1 if you don't believe me.
quote:
Therefore, your comment about sequels is redundant, since there are many similarities between both games. You've disregarded them simply because they weren't the similarities you wanted to see, or maybe you just failed to identify them.
I did not disregard them. I said the core gameplay of Deus Ex was gone. Deus Ex 1 was an action/RPG (check with any source you want). In Deus Ex 2, those same RPG elements are practically gone (to put it mildly).
quote:
And this issue is totally subjective anyway: just how similar does a sequel have to be? Which aspects must be similar?
Similar enough so that I can't make a first person shooter and call it "Civilization 4." There's a reason why "Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel" isn't called "Fallout 3." There's a reason why "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance" isn't called "Baldur's Gate 3."
quote:
There are no true answers to those questions, it's just personal taste. To suggest that a game is not a valid sequel because it's not the sequel you expected... don't you think that's a little unrealistic, perhaps even egotistical?
Not any less egotistical than you stating that it is a sequel because all the elements you wanted to see are there.
quote:
And not wanting a sequel to be a carbon copy of the first game is a mistake? I find that statement backward in the extreme, but if it's your honest opinion, so be it.
As I said, not a carbon copy, but not a totally different core gameplay either.
quote:
OK, sorry for quoting so much, but I think this would make less sense if I snipped it. Firstly, "his indecision was everybody's loss." Not true. I like the sequel and I'm not the only one. Therefore, not "everybody" lost out. Don't assume that everyone shares your opinion.
It's pretty safe to assume that there are far more people disappointed with the sequel than with the original one. But, as you point out, of course there are those who like it.
quote:
Secondly, consider this possibility: Spector decided to give his trust to Smith, but retained the right to overrule him in case of catastrophic problems.
Then he didn't really trust him, now did he?
quote:
Even when he had reservations he decided to trust Smith's decisions - wouldn't you be inclined to give a respected and experienced colleague the benefit of the doubt?
Then why maintain the right to overrule him? Again, if he thought Smith was capable of "catastrophic problems," as you put it, then why did he trust him in the first place? It's like saying "doctor, you know you can completely mess up this operation and kill me in the process. But hey, I completely trust you!" It's one thing to expect small mistakes -- we're all human anyway -- but it's quite another to expect "catastrophic failure."
quote:
Whether he was right or wrong is a matter of taste, nothing more. Now... doesn't that seem less far-fetched than the prospect of a great and proven designer and project leader suddenly turning into a bumbling incompetent? I think so. Put aside your disappointment with the game and think about it rationally.
Spector turned into a bumbling idiot? Quote me where I said, or even implied, that.
quote:
So (assuming the target of your insult was appropriate)
What insult? I didn't call him names, I just gave my opinion on his current work. Just because that opinion is negative does not make it an insult.
quote:
how can you justify the "lousy designer" comment? Do you honestly believe that your personal taste is the true gauge of design talent, in the face of any conflicting opinion? No offense, I'm just asking.
If one can't judge a designer based on his own personal taste, then, pray tell, what should I base it on? Is there some set of universal laws and axioms that dictate who the talented designers are? Should I base my opinions on a game, and the design team, on some set of logical rules that completely rule out my opinion? That's nonsensical, this is an entertainment product we're talking about, and a relatively new field at that(video games); of course all opinions are subjective, mine and yours.
quote:
You provided the explanation yourself with your breakdown of IW's design responsibilities. You stated that Spector had no design input on the game (you want proof? scroll up) and you also claimed that the mistakes you think he made were due to his reluctance to overrule Smith, rather than any of his own opinions on design
Which he admitted several times that he was "reluctant" to completely embrace....
quote:
so how on earth can that game prove his lousiness as a designer?
When one fails his duties at any profession, then it's pretty safe to say said individual is a lousy [insert profession here]. Not any mistake, of course, but mistakes in the magnitude of those I described.
quote:
And frankly, the prospect of Spector simply "forgetting" the skills he honed while creating some of the PC's best games is ludicrous.
I said he forgot his skills? Quote me where I said, or even implied, that. If he was aware of Smith's rather dubious design decisions, that proves he still maintains his skills. Ever heard of singers or actors who did a great job in the past, but currently aren't at their best? It's the same with Spector now.
quote:
It sounds like the knee-jerk reaction of a fan unwilling to attribute his disappointment with the sequel to anything as mundane as personal taste.
Personal taste is mundane? Then how is one supposed to evaluate a game? Is there some set of axioms that must be used instead of personal opinion? My side of the argument is based on "mundane" personal opinion, but yours is not?
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:31 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
Ion Storm admitted, from the beginning, that they had to "streamline" (to use their words) some aspects of the game because of the XBox. I'm not making this up; let me quote Spector: "yes, (we) made some compromises." Compromises. That's what gives it away.
Gives what away? Are you suggesting that to make compromises is a bad thing? I think that's untrue and unrealistic. I think it's good to see this kind of game spreading out to a wider audience, and can accept the compromises that have to made for this to happen. I myself compromise with other gamers by not expecting an anticipated game to be made perfect for my chosen platform and no others, or that it should meet my preconceptions.
I'm not going to quote the whole thing about sequels and what should or should not have been retained, as it all boils down to one thing:
quote:
For you, those elements were secondary. But there's a reason why we're discussing Deus Ex in a RPG forum. To many people, those aspects were of primary importance.
That's exactly my point. It's a matter of personal taste, nothing more. I have no problem with people stating their personal opinions, and I have not challenged you on any matters of taste. I am challenging you because you made an inaccurate and unjustifiable remark. I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else why they should like this game, I am simply pointing out to you the flaws in your statement.
quote:
To suggest that a game is not a valid sequel because it's not the sequel you expected... don't you think that's a little unrealistic, perhaps even egotistical?
quote:
Not any less egotistical than you stating that it is a sequel because all the elements you wanted to see are there.
Did I say that? No, I did not. The game is named, sold and regarded by most of the gaming public as the sequel to DX1. I agree with this notion, simple as that. My ego has nothing to do with it.
quote:
As I said, not a carbon copy...
But you didn't say that. As you said:
quote:
...he did not want DX2 to be a carbon copy of DX1; he wanted some new ideas. That's mistake #1...
I can only work with the words you give me. If you mean something different to what you type, how am I to know?
quote:
quote:
Secondly, consider this possibility: Spector decided to give his trust to Smith, but retained the right to overrule him in case of catastrophic problems.
Then he didn't really trust him, now did he?
Maybe he didn't. I don't know, and neither do you. I was just pointing out that things may have (and probably did) happen differently to how you imagine them. That they didn't make mistakes and bad design decisions, but simply made a competent game that you don't like.
quote:
Spector turned into a bumbling idiot? Quote me where I said, or even implied, that.
OK: you said he is a lousy designer and his indecision was everyone's loss. I don't think that's a million miles away from calling somebody incompetent. If you find this unacceptable, replace the words "bumbling incompetent" with your words "lousy designer" and my argument is still intact.
quote:
What insult? I didn't call him names, I just gave my opinion on his current work. Just because that opinion is negative does not make it an insult.
Do you honestly think that's realistic? If you called me a lousy designer, I would be take offence. I believe you would too if someone said you were lousy at your job. It's possible (and sensible) to express dislike of somebody's work without suggesting that they are lousy at their job.
quote:
If one can't judge a designer based on his own personal taste, then, pray tell, what should I base it on? Is there some set of universal laws and axioms that dictate who the talented designers are?
I wouldn't go that far, but there are established techniques in creative media: there is science in writing, filmmaking and yes, game design too. Whether or not you like a game is a matter of taste, and I would defend to the death your right to express your opinion. Whether or not a game exhibits good or bad design is not a matter of taste - design flaws are things that break the game or make it universally unappealing, and they either exist or they don't. A decision that took the game in a direction you don't like is not a design flaw, it's a difference of opinion.
quote:
When one fails his duties at any profession, then it's pretty safe to say said individual is a lousy [insert profession here]. Not any mistake, of course, but mistakes in the magnitude of those I described.
You're sidestepping the question - I asked how you could justify calling Spector a lousy designer based on your opinion of a game he did not design. And, at the risk of repeating myself, you yourself said that the alleged mistakes were due to poor management, not poor design skills, thus removing any support for your original comment, the one I said (and have proved) is unjustifiable.
quote:
I said he forgot his skills? Quote me where I said, or even implied, that.
This is getting tedious, but here you go:
quote:
Spector would have to be a lousy designer and a genius at engine writing. Currently Spector is only the former.
quote:
As for Spector's past: yes, I'm aware of some games he designed.
I'm making the assumption that, since you are aware of Spector's past work, you know that he has proven himself on several occasions to be an excellent designer. You claim that now he is a lousy designer. A clear implication that he has forgotten his skills. If you think that Spector has always been a lousy designer, then you did not imply loss of skill, and I apologise. But from what I've read, I don't think that is your belief.
quote:
Ever heard of singers or actors who did a great job in the past, but currently aren't at their best? It's the same with Spector now.
Another completely unfounded comment, for the same reasons as the first. I'll try and be as concise as possible: 1. Spector didn't design this game, so if it were full of poor design decisions, that would still have no bearing on his ability as a designer; 2. you have so far failed to identify any of the claimed poor design decisions. I freely admit that IW is not a strong RPG, and that it has moved in a direction that may not match the personal tastes of some DX fans, but that does not equal flawed design. It is my opinion that the quality and standard of design are fairly high (not as an RPG, but simply as a game), and that accusations of flawed design are distorted expressions of disappointment from fans who wanted an RPG and can't/won't/don't appreciate it in another form. I wouldn't challenge a simple statement of opinion; I will challenge accusations of poor design from people who are unwilling/unable to understand design principles outside the RPG genre.
quote:
Personal taste is mundane? Then how is one supposed to evaluate a game? Is there some set of axioms that must be used instead of personal opinion? My side of the argument is based on "mundane" personal opinion, but yours is not?
You've misunderstood me. Mundane is not a dirty or bad word. It means "normal," "everyday." Of course, you should evaluate a game based on personal taste. You and I have done so and disagreed, which is fine... but when the game you were looking forward to did not match your taste, you accused the creators of non-existent errors in judgement, rather than simply accepting it as a matter of taste, which is all it is.
In response to Dhruin, I can see where you're coming from, you and I have opposing opinions of this game, and of what should/shouldn't have been retained from the prequel - you (and goshuto) believe the integral components were dropped, I believe they are still there, and slightly improved. In general, the game has received a mixed (not purely positive or negative) response which proves that the issue is entirely subjective.
It also proves the main point I'trying to make: that you can't claim that a game's design is fundamentally flawed just because you don't like it, or because it doesn't obey conventions of a particular genre. Accurate analysis of a game's design requires an understanding of that discipline, not just a strong opinion or familiarity with a limited portion of the medium (such as RPGs). |
|
Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:23 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Gives what away? Are you suggesting that to make compromises is a bad thing? I think that's untrue and unrealistic.
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. My apologies if I sound a bit patronizing, but I need this to get my point accross: let's look compromise up in the dictionary. "A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions." Concessions, that is, somebody had to give up an idea which they previously believed in. Which basically means there were aspects of the game they wanted to implement but couldn't because of the console platform.
quote:
I think it's good to see this kind of game spreading out to a wider audience, and can accept the compromises that have to made for this to happen.
As I mentioned before, you don't need to change the mechanics of the game as much as they have to get it to a wider audience. And if you do need to change the mechanics, then why not at least name it differently, such as BG: DA and FO:BOS?
quote:
I myself compromise with other gamers by not expecting an anticipated game to be made perfect for my chosen platform and no others, or that it should meet my preconceptions.
All of us gamers do that, except not all of us consider it a good thing.
quote:
I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else why they should like this game, I am simply pointing out to you the flaws in your statement.
Let me try to get the point accross in a diferent way, lest I keep repeating myself over and over. The majority of RPG elements of Deus Ex were removed in the sequel. Take a look at genre classification of Deus Ex in mobygames. Now take a look at the genre of the sequel. The sequel is not classified as a RPG anymore. What we have here is a sequel of a RPG that is not a RPG. This is what annoys the fans so much. It has little to do with the quality of the game itself.
quote:
Did I say that? No, I did not. The game is named, sold and regarded by most of the gaming public as the sequel to DX1. I agree with this notion, simple as that. My ego has nothing to do with it.
Admittedly, you did not say it. But you agreed with it, did you not? Aren't you, then, willing to say it?
quote:
I can only work with the words you give me. If you mean something different to what you type, how am I to know?
Reread what I wrote. I meant that giving the post of lead designer to someone else just because you need new ideas is a mistake.
quote:
aybe he didn't. I don't know, and neither do you. I was just pointing out that things may have (and probably did) happen differently to how you imagine them. That they didn't make mistakes and bad design decisions, but simply made a competent game that you don't like.
Who said I did not like the game? All I did was to imply it was a mistake to deviate from the original Deus Ex formula, that's all. Second, I did not "imagine" that; all my information was obtained from interviews of Spector himself. I don't need to make things up to justify my position, as you imply.
quote:
Do you honestly think that's realistic? If you called me a lousy designer, I would be take offence.
That's your personal opinion. Unless you're Spector himself, that statement is irrelevant.
quote:
I believe you would too if someone said you were lousy at your job. It's possible (and sensible) to express dislike of somebody's work without suggesting that they are lousy at their job.
Now you put words in my mouth. I said Spector was considered lousy because he commited errors of great magnitude. I'm not merely "expressing dislike," i'm expressing horror at what he did. Your condescending tone is unnecessary, I don't need to be taught how to express dislike, despite what you may think.
quote:
I wouldn't go that far, but there are established techniques in creative media: there is science in writing, filmmaking and yes, game design too.
There's science in interface design, in graphics programming, in sound and other related areas. But science in design that's related to gameplay? News to me. Where are the theories, the empirical evidence to support them, the paradigms, the study of gameplay itself that goes beyond "that game did well so I'll make a clone?" Is not the goal of gameplay to provide fun? How does one measure fun objectively, without resorting to personal opinion?
quote:
Whether or not you like a game is a matter of taste, and I would defend to the death your right to express your opinion.
Good, because the point I'm making here has nothing to do with Deus Ex 2 being a good game or not.
quote:
A decision that took the game in a direction you don't like is not a design flaw, it's a difference of opinion.
I said that was a design flaw? Where?
quote:
You're sidestepping the question - I asked how you could justify calling Spector a lousy designer based on your opinion of a game he did not design.
Did he not have to authorize the design decisions of Smith? Then he designed the game, in an indirect way, by allowing those ideas to be implemented, even when having doubts about them.
quote:
And, at the risk of repeating myself, you yourself said that the alleged mistakes were due to poor management, not poor design skills, thus removing any support for your original comment, the one I said (and have proved) is unjustifiable.
Read the above. When he forced Smith to get his approval for design decisions, Spector put himself in a designer role, whether he wanted -- or was willing to admit -- it or not. Thus, you have proved nothing.
quote:
This is getting tedious
I agree. I do not like to repeat myself, have words put in my mouth, being accused of writing stupid posts, or being told what is a sensible way to "express dislike." This is taking too much of my time, and I tire of your implied ad hominem attacks.
quote:
Im making the assumption that, since you are aware of Spector's past work, you know that he has proven himself on several occasions to be an excellent designer. You claim that now he is a lousy designer. A clear implication that he has forgotten his skills.
I stand by my actor/singer example. Being in a career low has nothing to do with forgetting skills.
quote:
Another completely unfounded comment, for the same reasons as the first. I'll try and be as concise as possible: 1. Spector didn't design this game, so if it were full of poor design decisions, that would still have no bearing on his ability as a designer; 2. you have so far failed to identify any of the claimed poor design decisions. I freely admit that IW is not a strong RPG, and that it has moved in a direction that may not match the personal tastes of some DX fans, but that does not equal flawed design. It is my opinion that the quality and standard of design are fairly high (not as an RPG, but simply as a game), and that accusations of flawed design are distorted expressions of disappointment from fans who wanted an RPG and can't/won't/don't appreciate it in another form. I wouldn't challenge a simple statement of opinion; I will challenge accusations of poor design from people who are unwilling/unable to understand design principles outside the RPG genre.
All that was addressed previously, so I'll just restate my position: DX2 may be the game of the century, for all I care. But it deviates too much from the formula of the original. I never stated the game had design flaws in a sense that made it a bad game. Those mistakes I referred to regarded the gameplay mechanics, and the exclusion of RPG elements, and how that invalidated the claim that DX2 was a true sequel.
quote:
but when the game you were looking forward to did not match your taste, you accused the creators of non-existent errors in judgement, rather than simply accepting it as a matter of taste, which is all it is.
Again, I'm not disputing whether DX2 is a good game or not. I'm disputing the fact that they set out to make a sequel, and ended up with something that I would not consider a sequel.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:50 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
OK... I don't know what ad hominem means, but this seems to be getting unpleasant and I would like to avoid that. So rather than nit-picking every single one of your responses, I'm going to stick to the salient points.
A game's name, genre or sequel status is not important. They have no bearing on the integrity of that game's design. They clearly do affect some people's perception and enjoyment of that game (although not mine, since I judge each game only on its own merits), but again, that is purely subjective, and an entirely seperate issue to that of design. It's therefore irrelevant to this discussion. IMO, those arguments are helping no-one and should be abandoned.
I have not put words in your mouth, I've responded honestly to your comments. If I've made an assumption, I've said so, and when asked I have pointed out quotes from you that make such assumptions logical (and will do so once more: by calling the person you believe is responsible a "lousy designer," you clearly imply that you find fault with his design, therefore you have alleged design flaws).
I have on my desk a white paper on writing and design for games composed by the IGDA. Here's a quote from it that you might find interesting: "Game writers (and designers) need to be game-literate, which is to say, they must understand how games function. This requires more than just playing games; it involves deconstructing them in a critical and objective fashion." Every major console manufacturer and publisher conducts regular scientific surveys into everything from sales to psychology, as do other bodies as diverse as ELSPA, NASA, the US Military. The results contribute to the continuing evolution of game design theory. There are thousands of books on game design, not simply describing the authors' opinions on how it should be done, but examining the form in a scientific way, like any textbook should. Game Design degrees are now taught in a dozen or so UK universities, probably more in the US, and I believe the first such course in the UK (at Dundee) began 6 years ago. Game design lectures would be pretty difficult to conduct without any observed theory on which to base them, and indeed the same goes for the discipline itself. Thankfully, that's not the case. It may be news to you, but it is a fact that professional game design is not just the development of ideas according to personal taste, there is science and sound theory behind it, just like every creative/artisitc discipline in existence. You asked for evidence, you will easily find some using Google; maybe you'll find some interesting journal articles on design here, or perhaps even at your local library. You can decide for yourself if their references are reliable.
This is not an insult, just an unbiased and logical observation based on your words: "But science in design that's related to gameplay? News to me." This is a clear indication that, while you are obviously enthusiastic and no doubt knowledgable about games, you probably do not have an active interest in game design specifically, and are definitely not an authority in that field (otherwise you definitely would not have made that statement). This notion is further backed up by the fact that, while you have cast aspersions on the quality of design of IW, you haven't made a single criticism of anything that affects that quality. You've only bemoaned dissimilarity to the prequel, platform-based compromises and the fact the game doesn't satisfy RPG genre conventions. You can base your personal opinion of the game on anything you like, but not one of those issues is a result of poor design - your criticisms only express your (entirely acceptable) reasons for disliking the game, and have nothing to do with quality of design.
So... we come back to the reason this sub-thread started - I maintain that you were wrong to call Spector a lousy designer. You have yet to justify the claim or support it with any evidence relevant to the discipline you commented upon, and I don't believe you can. |
|
Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:19 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
while you have cast aspersions on the quality of design of IW, you haven't made a single criticism of actual design features. You've only bemoaned dissimilarity to the prequel, platform-based compromises and the fact the game doesn't satisfy RPG genre conventions.
Why, that's exactly my point! You put it best than I could, no doubt because of your better language skills. (no, I'm not being sarcastic)
quote:
Originally posted by piln
You can base your personal opinion of the game on anything you like, but not one of those issues is a result of poor design - they only express your (entirely acceptable) reasons for disliking the game, and have nothing to do with game design.
Never said they did. But when a designer sets out to do a sequel to a game, and ends up (because of certain compromises and other factors) with a game that's in another genre, that's a mistake of gargantuan proportions (hence the "lousy" part). This is my opinion; you have yours, and I believe we both pretty much stated what had to be stated. Anything more will just cause both of us to keep repeating ourselves, and that is both annoying and unnecessary. I think that DX:IW, as a sequel to DX1 fails, though not necessarily as a game per se. You disagree with me. Fine. Anyone interested in knowing the why of our positions can read the posts above.
As for the entire gameplay science thing, I should have been more clear: I consider mechanics just a subset of gameplay itself. The mechanics of a game, by itself, does not generate the fun. Gameplay itself will build on those mechanics, they're the base on which the designer implements the game. Mechanics tell the how; gameplay tell the what, so to speak. For example, we could consider the d20 system to be mechanics. That's certainly open for scientific study, interpretation, and improvement. In fact, you can have a whole lot of fun pairing statistical science and d20. But the d20 system alone will not make a game, there's much more to it.
Those sources you mention deal, in their vast majority, with game mechanics. The few ones that I've read that try to dabble in more than game mechanics certainly did not look "scientific" enough to me, because fun, as I said, can be rather subjective. As can the "fun part" of art, or music. Those theories you describe do indeed exist, but they are all related to the mechanics of the medium. For instance, in painting you have theories describing the proper way to implement perspective and lighting, but you will not find a (credible) theory on what makes a painting "art." You can apply all the theories you want to a painting, and it will never match a, say, Mona Lisa (yes, I exaggerate, but only to help exemplify my point).
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:48 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
|
|
Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:48 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
