View Full Version : New Warren Spector Interview Dx2

Beagle Boy
12th Feb 2003, 19:35
Here (http://www.gamespy.com/interviews/february03/spectordx2/)

12th Feb 2003, 22:20
Excellent. Thanks for the link!

Munin the Raven
13th Feb 2003, 00:37
That's one of the better interviews with Spector that I've read. Thanks.:)

Beagle Boy
13th Feb 2003, 15:58
And here (http://pc.ign.com/articles/385/385757p1.html) is a Dx2 preview. I think it is for insiders only.

14th Feb 2003, 16:55
Nope, I got in just fine.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

(We noticed that the player character doesn't cast a shadow at all. The team seems to be hiding something about this feature but they did mention that a player shadow would be incompatible with the AI. Otherwise the team would have to design AI to notice shadows.)

I'm wondering if this is different than what is being done for Thief. I'm certainly hoping it is, but it sounds less like a design decision and more like a technicial limitation the way they described it. Hopefully they kept quiet because of the Thief media blackout ^_~

14th Feb 2003, 19:30
I'm puzzled by the bit on page 4 about "dumbing down" games. He says that he never wants to dumb down a game, but then proceeds to talk about the controls/interface. But what most people mean by "dumbing down" is that the appeal of the game becomes more directed to immature people. In other words, a "dumbed down" Thief III would not be a game in the controls are easy to figure out and use; it would be a game where the player needs less imagination, less cunning, less guile. it would be a linear game which is won by pounding on controller buttons, not by using brains and figuring things out.

Did I miss something?

Munin the Raven
14th Feb 2003, 21:35
I noticed that too, Bat-mite. I'm left with the impresion that he didn't answer that question with his usual thorough reponse. It's probably an area that bothers him as much as other veteran game designers and players.

20th Feb 2003, 19:30
Originally posted by Bat-mite
I'm puzzled by the bit on page 4 about "dumbing down" games. He says that he never wants to dumb down a game, but then proceeds to talk about the controls/interface.

There's a subtle difference between streamlining and dumbing down. What he's talking about stems from the experience they had porting Deus Ex to the PS2. It's the same game, with a much simpler interface.

They learned a big lesson from making the PS2 version of DX. Warren is a great designer, but his games in the past have been bogged down by unneccessary complexity (and, in my opinion, a lack of polish in certain areas, especially interface). The kind that doesn't affect the depth of the gameplay, and sometimes even hinders it. It'd be like if every different move in Mario 64 had a different button for it--that sort of thing just isn't necessary, and can be streamlined into an easier-to-grasp method.

20th Feb 2003, 19:40
Ah, that puts it in perspective.

As a case for the "other" side, the makers of Nocturne (Terminal Reality, Inc.) were shopping for a publisher for a sequel. Nocturne, while many people complained a great deal about the controls and cameras, was not a "dumb" game by any means. I rate it right up there with the Thief games in terms of adult appeal, replayability, realism, etc.

When Majesco agreed to build a game around TRI's new Nocturne engine, they wanted to divorce themselves from the Nocturne name, since it didn't make a lot of money and it was famous for bulky controls.

Instead of asking for an adult, intelligent game with streamlined controls, they asked TRI to make the new game appeal to juveniles. Every effort of TRIs to make the game appeal to adults (like puzzles, things that require thought and effort, etc.) was shot down by Majesco. Majesco wanted a dumb kid's game.

So it frightens me whenever anyone talks about "dumbing-down" games.