PDA

View Full Version : Developer Commentary



Serendip1ty
3rd Jan 2014, 02:20
Have other people been listening to the developer commentary? Great insight & anecdotes.

It's really a shame though the game design was hurt to some extent just by the engine's technical limitations. Not having the proper tools to develop. It just keeps coming back. We couldn't do this or that because the engine didn't support it or it required too much work & effort to get it working properly. Sometimes 'simple' stuff you don't really expect.

It's a pity how such a good game got hampered by "poor" engine development tools...

No surprise the new thief is running on the unreal engine. Wouldn't surprise me if the HR team gave them the advice not to make the same mistake. Makes me wonder though what HR would have been like with unreal technology...

CyberP
3rd Jan 2014, 02:37
It's a pity how such a good game got hampered by "poor" engine development tools...

I disagree. It was hampered by it's design direction and perhaps it's publisher, but even the publisher is innocent until proven guilty (whether they interfered with design or not). Ion Storm/Eidos did great things back in 2000. EM/SE chose not to do great things, just good things. Still an outstanding, unique game, but the problems I see were not a result of the engine.

I should listen to that commentary in full though so I can get better insight. I only listened to 1/10, which I don't think is fair.
I'll browse youtube for the full commentary, cause I'm not coughing up for the Directors Cut on console. The commentary is all I'm interested in but I wouldn't want it in my playthrough anyway. Youtube is where I found that 1/10.

I really hope they go all-out with DX4. GOTYAY.

Serendip1ty
3rd Jan 2014, 03:29
I disagree. It was hampered by it's design direction and perhaps it's publisher, but even the publisher is innocent until proven guilty (whether they interfered with design or not). Ion Storm/Eidos did great things back in 2000. EM/SE chose not to do great things, just good things. Still an outstanding, unique game, but the problems I see were not a result of the engine.

I should listen to that commentary in full though so I can get better insight. I only listened to 1/10, which I don't think is fair.
I'll browse youtube for the full commentary, cause I'm not coughing up for the Directors Cut on console. The commentary is all I'm interested in but I wouldn't want it in my playthrough anyway. Youtube is where I found that 1/10.

I really hope they go all-out with DX4. GOTYAY.

Listen to it some more. You'll see. What do you mean by design direction? The game design got hampered. They actually say it. If you want to implement something & the programmers go like: "sorry it might sound like an easy thing but I can't do it..."

One small thing that comes to mind right now: The first guards who kill the scientist in "the prologue" & run downstairs... almost didn't happen. They couldn't get them downstairs properly... It took ages to get it right.
The container in The Missing Link you can move around in all directions. They couldn't have done this without the scripting experience they've acquired while developing HR. It's just a box moving up, down, left & right. I mean: WTH?

Franubis
3rd Jan 2014, 10:54
One small thing that comes to mind right now: The first guards who kill the scientist in "the prologue" & run downstairs... almost didn't happen. They couldn't get them downstairs properly... It took ages to get it right.
The container in The Missing Link you can move around in all directions. They couldn't have done this without the scripting experience they've acquired while developing HR. It's just a box moving up, down, left & right. I mean: WTH?

Ok, that sure is worrisome... Are they the same devs preparing the (yet to be confirmed it even exists) Second Screen app for the Steam version, or is it entirely up to Intel?

If so, I can see clearly where did this incredibly high amount of lacking content and bugs come from... Can't see them working with the SSAO when they had that much trouble making a box move in an axis.

CyberP
3rd Jan 2014, 12:59
Listen to it some more. You'll see. What do you mean by design direction? The game design got hampered. They actually say it. If you want to implement something & the programmers go like: "sorry it might sound like an easy thing but I can't do it..."

Design of RPG systems (Aug system, no skills, xp system, way too many credits), takedowns, energy system, prioritizing clutter over interactivity (even if it's static interactivity), level design (in places), health system (though it's not terrible), lack of colour variety and the theme itself is OTT, lack of simulation design, overuse of third person. These are the serious issues that come immediately to mind. All were design choices, conscious or not.


One small thing that comes to mind right now: The first guards who kill the scientist in "the prologue" & run downstairs... almost didn't happen. They couldn't get them downstairs properly... It took ages to get it right.
The container in The Missing Link you can move around in all directions. They couldn't have done this without the scripting experience they've acquired while developing HR. It's just a box moving up, down, left & right. I mean: WTH?

Huh? I am definitely going to have to hear this for myself.


Ok, that sure is worrisome... Are they the same devs preparing the (yet to be confirmed it even exists) Second Screen app for the Steam version, or is it entirely up to Intel?.

Extremely unlikely to be either. A third party would be contracted for something like that.

Serendip1ty
3rd Jan 2014, 14:54
Design of RPG systems (Aug system, no skills, xp system, way too many credits), takedowns, energy system, clutter over interactivity (even if it's static interactivity), level design (in places), health system (though it's not terrible), lack of colour variety and the theme itself is OTT, lack of simulation design, overuse of third person. These are the serious issues that come immediately to mind. All were design choices, conscious or not.



Huh? I am definitely going to have to hear this for myself.



Extremely unlikely to be either. A third party would be contracted for something like that.

Btw... I'm not saying they are incompetent. It's the engine itself that has weird quirks.

CyberP
3rd Jan 2014, 15:35
Btw... I'm not saying they are incompetent. It's the engine itself that has weird quirks.

I don't believe they are either, just that their opinions on what a Deus Ex game "should be" needs to be swayed. :cool:

roger1724
3rd Jan 2014, 15:36
Yeah, I'm loving all the info they talk about on the commentary. Some great stuff there, and the team is really fun to listen to. But I also had no idea the development was THAT complicated, and how a lot of stuff almost never made it to the game and all that. You can definitely see how some things gave them a big headache. Poor people.

Anyways, I'm satisfied with the final product (DXHR has to be one of my favorite games ever), but hopefully things will run more smoothly during the production of the next game

Serendip1ty
4th Jan 2014, 16:07
I don't believe they are either, just that their opinions on what a Deus Ex game "should be" needs to be swayed. :cool:

If you listen to it some more i think you will start to realise things aren't so black & white. They are very proud of their game but they also know there are some problems. Alot of the stuff they initially wanted actually didn't make it into the game or got cut down because they were working against the clock.

They wanted (alot) more sidequests. The "flow" is not right in the beginning. The art director also isn't too happy with how some things came out to be. When they did playtests they sometimes saw alot of people were missing (important) stuff. The overall map design definitely suffered due to the engine/AI setup. (& a deadline also ofc)

The RPG systems: I think you will never see a DX1-styled system again just because the idea is too "hardcore" for the regular gamer. You already saw a drastic change in Deus Ex 2. Remember: They have to sell millions.

I think it must be very frustrating when you design something & you find out in playtest 80-90% of the people just are confused, not doing it right/complaining. What you & me might consider great could be annoying/confusing to most other gamers. Finding a good overall balance must be very hard & time-consuming to get it right.

CyberP
4th Jan 2014, 16:31
If you listen to it some more i think you will start to realise things aren't so black & white. They are very proud of their game but they also know there are some problems. Alot of the stuff they initially wanted actually didn't make it into the game or got cut down because they were working against the clock

No. I understand perfectly well. As I said, all I listed were decisions made. The engine does not restrict them from making decent game mechanics and systems.


They wanted (alot) more sidequests. The "flow" is not right in the beginning. The art director also isn't too happy with how some things came out to be. When they did playtests they sometimes saw alot of people were missing (important) stuff. The overall map design definitely suffered due to the engine/AI setup. (& a deadline also ofc)

Stuff that would have been nice, I'd have very much liked to experience it all, but content is cut and milestones and deadlines must be met. It's how it is and is unrelated to my complaints.


The RPG systems: I think you will never see a DX1-styled system again just because the idea is too "hardcore" for the regular gamer. You already saw a drastic change in Deus Ex 2. Remember: They have to sell millions.

Nonsense. "hardcore" games such as Dark Souls and Fallout: New Vegas outsold DX:HR. New Vegas significantly so.


I think it must be very frustrating when you design something & you find out in playtest 80-90% of the people just are confused, not doing it right/complaining. What you & me might consider great could be annoying/confusing to most other gamers. Finding a good overall balance must be very hard & time-consuming to get it right.

**** this way of thinking. Dark Souls and New Vegas give DX:HR the middle finger. It's simple, if a game is outstanding then people will not stop talking about it, and that will help sell your game. DX:HR was good but it's not very often when you see someone creaming their pants over it on the net, and even then I just assume they don't value decent systems and mechanics etc and are blind fanboy types/relatively fresh gamers. I still recommend the game to people on the odd occasion, 'cause it's still pretty great, but if it was top-tier I would be referencing and recommending the game all the time.

If art is designed to appeal to all then it loses it's value and credibility nine times out of ten. Should all music album produced from this point onwards have to have 1 song of every genre just to appeal to all? Should potential 18+ rated movies have to have adult content cut to appeal to all (this is common, actually).
If Square Enix is taking this path I'd rather they leave DX out of it.

As for playtesting reactions, all games have a learning process unless they are extremely simple, perhaps the devs just expected people to adapt right away? Took me a couple of tries to understand the hacking, and this is good.

roger1724
4th Jan 2014, 16:58
Oh my god. There's a Zoolander reference on the commentary.
I'm dead

Serendip1ty
4th Jan 2014, 18:47
No. I understand perfectly well. As I said, all I listed were decisions made. The engine does not restrict them from making decent game mechanics and systems.



Stuff that would have been nice, I'd have very much liked to experience it all, but content is cut and milestones and deadlines must be met. It's how it is and is unrelated to my complaints.



Nonsense. "hardcore" games such as Dark Souls and Fallout: New Vegas outsold DX:HR. New Vegas significantly so.



**** this way of thinking. Dark Souls and New Vegas give DX:HR the middle finger. It's simple, if a game is outstanding then people will not stop talking about it, and that will help sell your game. DX:HR was good but it's not very often when you see someone creaming their pants over it on the net, and even then I just assume they don't value decent systems and mechanics etc and are blind fanboy types/relatively fresh gamers. I still recommend the game to people on the odd occasion, 'cause it's still pretty great, but if it was top-tier I would be referencing and recommending the game all the time.

If art is designed to appeal to all then it loses it's value and credibility nine times out of ten. Should all music album produced from this point onwards have to have 1 song of every genre just to appeal to all? Should potential 18+ rated movies have to have adult content cut to appeal to all (this is common, actually).
If Square Enix is taking this path I'd rather they leave DX out of it.

As for playtesting reactions, all games have a learning process unless they are extremely simple, perhaps the devs just expected people to adapt right away? Took me a couple of tries to understand the hacking, and this is good.

You are absolutely right. Square Enix should give the middle finger to "mainstream". But New Vegas also gave the middle finger a bit too much in the wrong way. You remember how buggy this game was? Crashes & game breaking buggy.

DX got postponed for 6 months if i remember correctly. They needed more time, asked eidos & they got the green light. This extra time ultimately proved to be necessary. Some game mechanics only really came together in those critical last 6 months. Sorry if i can't give a direct source to this 'claim' but i hope you think i'm not lying. I believe it was in an interview with Harvey Smith & Warren Spector together. I could be wrong though.

Ofc you can't compare game development at that time with nowedays but I personally do believe extra time may have solved some issues/offered a better experience all depending where they would have been focusing on. But we will never know ;)

On another note: It would sometimes be interesting to see a chart how good a game sells compared to people actually finishing it. Definitely for a game like Dark Souls ;)

roger1724
4th Jan 2014, 19:14
Statistics are interesting. I remember reading years ago that only 40% of players completed Assassin's Creed II. Might not be super accurate, but it's kinda shocking. BioWare also likes to show off statistics:
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/111/1117896/crazy-mass-effect-2-stats-and-what-theyre-used-for-20100903105831289-000.jpg

I wonder how would the stats for DXHR look like

Serendip1ty
4th Jan 2014, 20:21
This is what i meant by its probably very tricky finding a good balance for a game like HR. If you go too "hardcore" alot of people will call it quits, probably early on. Playtests are very important.

Whats the point offering a 30ish hour campaign when people stop after 5-10 hours or so because they are annoyed? Plus, a DX game is all about choice. The sad thing is most people will never get to see all of your hard work to begin with. But it has to be there or it's not DX-worthy.

CyberP
4th Jan 2014, 20:38
You are absolutely right. Square Enix should give the middle finger to "mainstream". But New Vegas also gave the middle finger a bit too much in the wrong way. You remember how buggy this game was? Crashes & game breaking buggy.

Yes, correct, but it was mostly all subsequently fixed- huge patch notes across all three platforms.

It was released in that state because of deadlines/contracts. Either way its fixed up and an excellent experience, and sold well.


Ofc you can't compare game development at that time with nowedays but I personally do believe extra time may have solved some issues/offered a better experience all depending where they would have been focusing on. But we will never know ;)

What, DX:HR? It would have been a better experience definitely, but mostly just in more content, longer game, and polish of things like convo animations.
Dev time already spanned 3-4 years not including pre-production and got delayed once or twice for which I am thankful to Square Enix and the devs who fought for it (may be inaccurate info)


On another note: It would sometimes be interesting to see a chart how good a game sells compared to people actually finishing it. Definitely for a game like Dark Souls ;)

I remember reading an article that claimed on average across all games 90% of customers never finish any given game. Obviously this data was gathered with extremely limited scope though. I'd think it's more like 70%. There's ways to track this data these days though, so some devs/pubs would know for sure for their particular games.

Edit: Oh, there above, 50% of players for Mass Effect. There you go, more than reasonable.


This is what i meant by its probably very tricky finding a good balance for a game like HR. If you go too "hardcore" alot of people will call it quits, probably early on. Playtests are very important.

Whats the point offering a 30ish hour campaign when people stop after 5-10 hours or so because they are annoyed? Plus, a DX game is all about choice. The sad thing is most people will never get to see all of your hard work to begin with. But it has to be there or it's not DX-worthy.

That's what just a few truly optional hand-holders as well as easy mode are for.

68_pie
5th Jan 2014, 08:55
But New Vegas also gave the middle finger a bit too much in the wrong way. You remember how buggy this game was? Crashes & game breaking buggy.

F:NV had 18 months from start of development to release. DXHR had roughly 4 years.

CyberP
5th Jan 2014, 09:24
F:NV had 18 months from start of development to release. DXHR had roughly 4 years.

I don't think that's a valid comparison because NV recycled a plethora of assets- loads of code and art assets already setup. Though all the level design, writing and voice acting is new content as well as gameplay expansions and more. But the FO3 base must have let them skip at least a year's work. But hey, I'd have done the same. FO3 wasn't perfect but it was definitely a good base to work on and improve.

Miyavi
4th Oct 2014, 18:10
Statistics are interesting. I remember reading years ago that only 40% of players completed Assassin's Creed II. Might not be super accurate, but it's kinda shocking. BioWare also likes to show off statistics:
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/111/1117896/crazy-mass-effect-2-stats-and-what-theyre-used-for-20100903105831289-000.jpg

I wonder how would the stats for DXHR look like


LoL very interesting stats, it would be cool if they had something like this for DXHR. Stuff like shows why games are made the way they are.

LoL just got the boner to redo ME, lol, my first play through of all three I was of course soldier, as I like to take cover, and flank A.I. and be all tactical in stuffs.

So after I installed it, I looked at all the classes lol, couldnt bring myself to try another class, just didn't seem fun to use things like throw, when I could be moving around, while not relying on the npc's to do much even when they are placed in good spots. I basically use them as decoys, and get all tactical on the a.i. I like trying to head shot double tap in every game lawl lawl(although you can't really doubletap mobs in this game)

lol but the thing is, I went soft, and uninstalled ME1 the other day lol, now I started ME2, as I liked it better, and didn't really get that far into ME3.

I just found it interesting to see that soldier was chosen so much, its like when first playing street fighter II as a kid and learning the basic game mechanics w/ Ryu or Ken, as the other characters require advanced play styles. I understand why though, people like simple, shoot shoot bang bang, skip the dialogue, big cinematic cut scenes.

And wow, playing the game 20 times plus is insane, I mean HOW? What? Makes no sense at all, I just couldn't do that. Twice, or maybe three or four times over a long period maybe, but 28 times.

Jito463
4th Oct 2014, 22:00
Wow, talk about thread necroing.

Moving on, I'm a little surprised to see so many people played the male Shep. Jennifer Hale was the best part of the ME series. Her performance was so much better than Mark Meer's. His was just too flat for me. While he did improve as the series progressed, I still prefer Hale's over his.

And as far as AC II is concerned, I'm one of those who still haven't finished it. I've bought Brotherhood and Revelations and even picked up III (all on sales), but haven't played any of them because I'm still working my way through II. I just didn't find it as compelling as the first game. So why did I buy the other ones? Beats me. I guess I'm holding out some form of hope that I will eventually finish II and find the others more enjoyable. Yeah, I'm a dope.

Miyavi
6th Oct 2014, 01:19
Wow, talk about thread necroing.


New to forums. Should I have started a new thread to reply to a comment that was only 9 months old? >.>

Like many other forums admins, Id rather not clutter the board w/ topics that already have been discussed. Why make a new topic unless it has tons of pages and its hard for new readers to get into, and even though sometimes thats still acceptable.

Didn't read anything else you typed.