Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spector Talks Deus Ex Sequel

Posted by simoniker on from the a-side-order-of-deuce-eggs dept.

Thanks to GameSpy for their interview with Deus Ex creator Warren Spector regarding the eagerly-awaited FPS sequel, Deus Ex: Invisible War. Spector discusses the equal co-development of the different DX2 versions ("We started right at the outset wanting to make a game simultaneously for both the Xbox and the PC"), the state of the US games industry ("The costs of doing business and the risks are so high that everybody's getting super conservative"), and what needs to evolve in the future ("I think that the challenges for us, the places where we really didn't even try, are in the areas of non-combat character interaction.")

38 comments

  1. eureka! by noitalever · · Score: 2, Informative

    ("I think that the challenges for us, the places where we really didn't even try, are in the areas of non-combat character interaction.")
    and as soon as fps games figure this out, all other games will fade to grey...

    Seriously, if we could get a game that had the good character development of and online world, and the fun and past pace of a fps, and the strategy of a star/war/redalertcraft type game... well... isn't that what all game developers try to do? then they fail because they run out of money, and all three areas suck... hmmmmmm...

    1. Re:eureka! by skyknytnowhere · · Score: 1

      Hasn't that game already been made?

      skye

    2. Re:eureka! by ziggles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Combining good ideas doesn't mean the result will be good. I like pickles and I like peanut butter.. but I wouldn't want a pickle and peanut butter sandwich. Or just because I like peanut butter and jelly doesn't mean I stop liking peanut butter by itself.

    3. Re:eureka! by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      FYI, Peanut butter and pickle is actually quite a good sandwich.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  2. I'm still pissed by M3wThr33 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    At E3 this year, 4 stations were running the XBox and 2 on the PC. I ain't getting no FPS for the console when it's on the PC, too, it's just stupid. I'm just praying it was like that because it needed optimization at the time, but the hands-on review for GameSpy I saw was the XBox version.

    Don't people care about real gamers anymore?

    1. Re:I'm still pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real gamers? What, pray tell, is a real gamer?

    2. Re:I'm still pissed by bigman2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm buying it for my Xbox-

      Warren Spector said it himself- that the game was going to be based on the Xbox capabilities, with a little bit of resolution enhancement on the PC.

      Play through Halo one time, and you will probably get used to the controls. A mouse and keyboard IS better, I admit. But, the combination of a mouse/keyboard and my desk/workchair is not better than a console controller and couch.

      Plus- my Xbox has never crashed, games will frequently crash on my computer- which sucks.

      So- I'll buy the Xbox version - doesn't mean you have to- but there are those of us out there who would rather play games on our consoles.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    3. Re:I'm still pissed by noitalever · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of people say, "Well I don't want to play a game that isn't designed specifically for my platform." I never really understood that. What we really wanted to do was provide a particular kind of experience that we think players, regardless of what kind of hardware they have, will enjoy. I think we can do that very effectively. The Xbox is a pretty decent piece of hardware. I don't think PC players will feel cheesed [cheated] in anyway.

      Did you read the article? The game developer obviously wants it to be as broad an event as possible, selling to every possible environment.

      Take a look at splintercell. AWESOME game. If they make enough money from branching out to the different platforms, they'll realize that it was a good seller, and develop more games like that. I have it for X-box, and will NOT purchase it for my computer. Someone who doesn't have an x-box should still enjoy the game, and buy it to support the developer/game company/middle men/etc.

      I use my computer for work, and so don't like installing a bunch of games on it. My x-box doesn't share that burden. I am very much a "real" gamer, and have specific hardware for such. I also own board games, and a deck of cards. 8-)

    4. Re:I'm still pissed by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Nope.

      If you are a linux/mac user you should be used to this. The same as everyone always assumes that your desktop is windows everyone assumes that the gaming platforms are Gamecube/PS2/X-box. For some reason the most powerfull and expensive gaming console, the PC is always left out.

      This despite the tact that big companies make their entire living out of providing hardware for this gaming platform without subsidie. Or do you think ati and nvidia could sell the latest video cards to desktop users? Same with Creative Labs. What desktop needs 7.1 audio? I am lucky I am allowed to wear headphones at work.

      Don't even start with that the gaming video cards can also be used for 3D apps that are not games. For these purposes other far more expensive and powerfull cards exist. Radeon and NV30 are there for the single purpose of making the PC the HIGH-end gaming platform.

      Sadly only a few companies seem to have the balls to publish for this platform.

      The PC as gaming platform has ofcourse some obvious advantages.

      1. Open, you can produce any game you want without a platform owner demanding a say or a cut in the profits.
      2. Games can be patched. Yes of course it is annoying when a game needs a patch but at least it is easily possible. Granted consoles are probably also getting this option as they are getting net access.
      3. Powerfull hardware. The cheaper platforms have pathetic hardware companred to even a cheap gaming PC. 64mb? Please my vid card alone got more memory. Of course the price is more expensice but that is apperantly an accepted tradeoff for many customers.
      4. User development. Look at games like Half-Life, Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, the quakes etc etc. These games really shine because a lot of the most expensive part of creation are done for free by idiots ehm dedicated fans who spend their own time and resources making the game a better product. Free infinite monkeys are bound to create gems like Counter Strike and They Hunger.

      But now the disadvantages.

      1. An unknown installed base. Exactly how many gaming rigs are there? No one knowns for sure. How many of them will be able to meet your hardware requirements is an even bigger guess. Nothing stops a user from putting the latest vidcard in an P3 celeron PC after all.
      2. Countless hardware configurations. All of the cheaper platforms share an exactly the same architecture. With PC's the only thing you can assume is that the users PC will have differerent hardware from anything you got.
      3. No copy protection. Granted only the gamecube platform seems to succeed so far but the PC is after all well known to be used only by pirates. But console owners need access to a PC to pirate games. PC owners already got a PC for this for reasons I hope are obvious.

      There are probably many other pros and cons to the PC as a gaming platform for developers. As a user it saddens me when I see what happened to Halo. (for those who don't know a press beta is being played and while the game is okay it has obviously taken severe damage during the collision witht the X-box.) Now HL2 may get an x-box lobotomy and DeusX 2. Great two games I really enjoyed made to run on hardware 2 yrs old. Yes I am a graphics junkie and yes I am elitist. But I think games require the Horse power a decent PC can give to create intresting worlds. Not just because of graphics but for the AI and physics.

      Oh well. All we can do is hope for the best. Perhaps they really are making two seperate game engines just using the same story. You know sorta like you got Tomb Raider for the GBA as well. Right? Yeah, lets hope for that.

      Oh and please don't get me wrong. Cheaper console games can be fun. I do own a GBA after all. My taste in games just seems better served with a PC then any console so far. Sometimes crossovers even work. Tombraider 1 was fun. And then stalled because the PC kept getting upgraded and the game engine did not. Splinter cell was okay as well but mainly because of execellent execution then any breakthrough in gaming technology.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    5. Re:I'm still pissed by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I will ask you a question. Have you played morrowind? It is available for both the x-box and the pc.

      The game was great but it had a lot of loading as you walked through the world. It is a continues world with new areas being loaded in as you move along. This actually went through the point of being annoying as you got spells to move faster. Although it was beautifull to just walk from one city to another the constant loading made it a pain.

      Then a expansion came out. The expansion was PC only. Suddenly the areas were much much larger. You could now move in a city without any loading whatsoever. Even in between areas the loading became much much faster? The reason? Well they made use of the PC's far greater memory. Mine got a very convervative 512mb with a further 128mb for the vidcard. Sure I pay a hefty price for that, probably 3-4 x-box'es. But I find it worth it.

      So yes play the game on the x-box if you want. The crashes are indeed annoying, not annoying enough for me, but you have your own choice.

      Just don't fucking cripple my game. And that is the real problem I have. When I read the interview my heart froze. They made the levels to fit on the x-box? Oh shit. You see level size does make a difference. It make the diffrence between a fake skyline and a skyline that is actual 3D buildings. It means you really can walk multiple routes even routes that are the wrong way.

      You say you prefer the x-box version, that is your good right. But we don't get the same choice. DX2 is an X-box game wich will also run on a PC. Hell if the interview is correct we don't even get better textures. So there is only 1 version of the game. Just if you happen to run it on a PC you can choose the mouse and increase the resolution. Big fucking deal. Oh well another game I won't buy.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    6. Re:I'm still pissed by DaveCBio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Console gamers are real gamers. There were games in most homes on console long before they were on the PC.

    7. Re:I'm still pissed by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      "The game developer obviously wants it to be as broad an event as possible, selling to every possible environment."

      Ever heard the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none"? Well, it's the same with games - if you make them multi-platform, you have to make them for the lowest common denominator. This will inevitably result in the experience on more powerful machines being significantly worse that it could be had the game been written for it specifically.

      Every single time a game has been designed to work on a console as well as a PC, the resulting game has been less than optimal for both. If anyone can be the first to get it right, WS can. But if he doesn't he better pray to the Builder that Thief 3 isn't similarly hobbled, or he's going to have to deal with a lot of very angry taffers.

    8. Re:I'm still pissed by PeteyG · · Score: 1

      Console gamers are real gamers. There were games in most homes on console long before they were on the PC.

      Console gamers can be real gamers, for console games are real games. But they are often only attracted by the entry-level price of consoles, and don't have the dedication that a real PC gamer has. Do the mindless console playing masses have any concept of frames-per-second or screen resolution? Have they ever known the joy of having the latest and greatest hardware... something none of their friends has yet? Do they have any idea of the many wonderful and diverse genres of PC games? Do they really care about control and precision?

      No. They sit on their couch and play a game or two, then go back to doing whatever they do when they're not playing their console.

      --
      no thanks
    9. Re:I'm still pissed by mugnyte · · Score: 1

      Well, just getting into console is a suckers game anyway. the PC was supposed to be a generic computer for multiple purposes. You can configure such a box towards any level of sophistication, including game speed.

      However, by pumping NTSC polygons at higher rates than ever, consoles are a fools enticement, IMO. 2 years down the road, one has to drop such hardware for the newer. Also, consoles are now adding on telephony/networking to mimic the components PC have already enjoyed. And nary a higher resolution than "across the room" pretty. Play an older engine on a newer machine. I loaded up Thief recently and played on a high res/depth and was just amazed (again) from 12inches away.

      Don't get me wrong, I love games and gaming. I'm just resolved to not pumping those 2-300 every two years into a new console and games. I'll upgrade the PC, especially when sweet video cards are coming out each year. Plus, I can enjoy that memory/speed for other applications.

      Game Houses need to keep in mind that the market is wide, but for sheer beauty, >= 1200x1024 32bit >=30fps screens are going to make game immersion much stronger than blowing up 320x240 60htz into a 52inch blurbox. I know some have tried sticking to PC and missed a huge market, but spend the money there on quality and they'll find my wallet.

      mug

    10. Re:I'm still pissed by drewmca · · Score: 1

      You don't make any sense at all. "I'm not resolved to pumping those 2-300 every two years into a new console and games." You follow that with "I'll upgrade the PC, especially when sweet video cards are coming out each year." So you prefer paying $300 every year instead of every two years? How does that make an argument against consoles?

      Besides, the ps2 came out 3 years ago. GC and xbox 2 years ago. There are no plans for new consoles anytime before 2005. Console generations have always been around 4-5 years or more. So your argument against shelling out console upgrade money is doubly flawed.

      If you don't like consoles, fine, don't play them. I happen to enjoy games on my PC and my consoles. Something you said describes why I am leaning more and more towards console games as time goes by: "I was just amazed (again) from 12 inches away". Sorry, but after sitting in front of my computer all day, the last thing I want to do is relax with a CRT 12 inches from my face.

    11. Re:I'm still pissed by drewmca · · Score: 1

      You missed the biggest con against PCs. To get a PC with better graphics than my xbox, I'd need to pay at least $1000, preferably $2000 and up for a real hard-core gamer machine. That's not including the monitor. Sure, you can get a PC for cheaper, but not a hardcore gamer PC with all of the bells and whistles you describe. There's a big difference between that and the $200 consoles cost (less for GC). I think it officially qualifies as an order of magnitude.

      Just a little pro for consoles that rarely gets mentioned: how many times have you played head-to-head against one or more friends in your living room on the PC? Probably not many; it's hard to fit two people on a keyboard, let alone 4. I know that online is bigger and better with PCs, but there's a big difference between that and the direct social experience of console multiplayer games.

    12. Re:I'm still pissed by Mar1boroMan · · Score: 1

      Not quite true - to get graphics anywhere near PC-quality, you'd need to shell out some cash for a HDTV - and the HD AV pack for your console.

      As stated previously - 480x320 != 1600x1200

    13. Re:I'm still pissed by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Ever heard the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none"? Well, it's the same with games - if you make them multi-platform, you have to make them for the lowest common denominator. This will inevitably result in the experience on more powerful machines being significantly worse that it could be had the game been written for it specifically.

      Let's see, the game was designed for a ~P3-700 + ~GeForce 3. When was the last time you saw that on the system requirements of a game (I wonder what the PC version of this game will say for system reqs)?

      On the other hand, you have the memory and resolution limitations of the console. The resolution isn't a problem if your system can handle it. Larger textures: it would be nice to have the option, but really isn't needed if the game is good.

      As for Deus Ex specifically, the first game was a slideshow on my PC until a few patches came out (got 3dfx? Well, by the time it came out no one with a decent video card did). I'm going to avoid the second one on the PC like a plague for just that reason, even though it's not likely to be a problem.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    14. Re:I'm still pissed by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I love games and gaming. I'm just resolved to not pumping those 2-300 every two years into a new console and games. I'll upgrade the PC, especially when sweet video cards are coming out each year. Plus, I can enjoy that memory/speed for other applications.

      Considering the age of the current consoles, the planned release of the next generation consoles 2 years from now, and the life of the previous generation, even if you only spend 200-300 upgrading your PC every 2 years you'll be a bit behind on both sides.

      I managed to buy every current major console available in the US just by slowing my PC upgrade process to an annual purchase instead of buying something every 6 months. The number of games I've bought slightly increased, but that's mostly because I have more systems available to play games on when the PC hits it's usual summer slump (and there are plenty of older console games to buy that are just as good as the latest greatest games, even though graphics improve throughout the life of a console as people improve their programming methods for that console). My PC is only slightly behind the curve compared to where it would normally be if I had continued upgrading it every 6 months, at 2GHz w/ 512MB RAM and a GeForce 4 Ti 128MB video card. Another 512MB RAM, upgrade one of the hard drives, wait for the next generation of cards to see if nVidia's going to wake up, and if the 2GHz CPU starts showing it's age, do another overhaul of the motherboard/RAM/CPU.

      Game Houses need to keep in mind that the market is wide, but for sheer beauty, >= 1200x1024 32bit >=30fps screens are going to make game immersion much stronger than blowing up 320x240 60htz into a 52inch blurbox. I know some have tried sticking to PC and missed a huge market, but spend the money there on quality and they'll find my wallet.

      Sorry, something about the fact that I can take the HDTV that I will buy anyway for movies and play games on it at 720i makes me wonder if I really need the hassle of playing games on my PC's 19" monitor just for the sake of 1600x1200@32bpp, or 1280x1024. Considering how many people will play Q3 at 640x480@16bpp just to try to maximize their framerate, I no longer care how comfortable my computer chair is, I'm going to go sit on the couch with my WaveBird or my XBox ControlBrick and play something besides Half-Life, WarCraft, and Diablo.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    15. Re:I'm still pissed by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 0

      # Powerfull hardware. The cheaper platforms have pathetic hardware companred to even a cheap gaming PC. 64mb? Please my vid card alone got more memory. Of course the price is more expensice but that is apperantly an accepted tradeoff for many customers.

      The average graphics intensive PC game is still developed for a P3-600 w/ a TNT card w/ 16MB RAM on the video card and 32-64MB in the PC, and assuming that the person using the PC is running the game from cache because the OS and the crap running in the background ate the system RAM. That's why (in addition to the low resolution), console games can often push the boundaries of graphics capabilities beyond what most PC games will even try to do. That being said, we're in the tail end of the current consoles' lives (being 2-4 years into this generation, depending on the console, and 1.5-2 years away from the next generation), so PC-only games are going to start catching up and passing the consoles on this end.

      ATI and nVidia make most of their money selling chips to OEMs. This is why ATI survived when 3dfx and a dozen other graphics chip companies died, because ATI held the OEM market almost entirely to themselves, and this gave them the resources to combat nVidia in the 3D space when nVidia came after the OEM space (and took most of it away). nVidia and ATI are also both selling a lot of chips in the console space at the moment, which is very lucrative in the long term because the same technology is in the consoles for much longer than they could ever hope to sell any one chip for anything other than bargain basement prices in the PC world.

      Creative Labs is only concerned about holding their near-monopoly on the consumer desktop, even if it means selling 7.1 audio (hello, where's the 7th speaker? 6.1 gives you center front & rear already...). Their drivers are almost completely non-functional on any NT-based OS, and in most cases their older cards are completely non-functional on newer Windows OSs. That's not even getting into their compete by litigation strategy which has killed any company that went after the gamers with solid sound cards for game PCs. My on-board audio almost works better than my Audigy 2.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    16. Re:I'm still pissed by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Console gamers can be real gamers, for console games are real games. But they are often only attracted by the entry-level price of consoles, and don't have the dedication that a real PC gamer has.

      That's why there are so many PC gamers out there with overclocked Athlon and Celeron rigs, right? I bought my first PC for gaming, and have performed the majority of upgrades on my PC strictly for gaming. That being said, it doesn't take much these days to get and keep a gaming rig up to snuff for the latest games. In fact, until Doom 3 comes out, there won't even be anything out there taxing systems over a year old. When the most used benchmark for video cards produces 300 fps on current generation chips, you either spend a boatload of money to get 300 fps or you stop caring. (Note: I was going to add Half-Life 2 as well as Doom 3 up there, but since HL2 is supposed to adapt the graphics quality to the system to maintain 60 fps, I don't think people will start worrying about it for a little while, except in the rare cases (especially rare for PC gamers that are trying to squeeze 2 more fps out of their rigs) where they want better graphics quality).

      Do the mindless console playing masses have any concept of frames-per-second or screen resolution?

      The majority: no. But then this is the case in PC gaming as well, and is why many of the top-selling PC games of all time are games that aren't in my (rather large if I do say so myself) collection of PC games (ie Myst, the Sims). At the same time, how many of the mindless speed-cranking, overclocking, must-get-100-fps game players out there understand that 100 fps isn't about getting more than your neighbor, but about capping that framerate lower and getting a consistant framerate. How many understand that v-synch is turned off in benchmarks to get raw video card numbers, but needs to be turned on when you play a game in order for that game to look good?

      Have they ever known the joy of having the latest and greatest hardware... something none of their friends has yet?

      Yeah, I had that joy when I bought a P2-400 w/ 256 MB of RAM, a Sound Blaster PCI64, a Diamond Viper V330 (yes, a truly bad video card), and 2 (not ONE, but TWO!) 12MB Voodoo 2 cards. Guess what happened? The Voodoo 2 cards generated so much heat that I spent a fortune on fans and still had to send 1 of the cards back for replacement. The system also had 2 of the earliest 7200 rpm IDE hard drives in it, and one of those drives failed about 3 months after moving it to a different system. The only thing I still own from that original bulk of 'nobody else has it' hardware is the floppy drive, which I never use but still keep in my systems. The only thing that was really great was that I bought the CPU last out of all of that stuff, and not only had a faster CPU not come out yet, but the price dropped $400 in the time it took for me to acquire the $900 worth of video cards and the $650 monitor and the $400 worth of RAM.

      Do they have any idea of the many wonderful and diverse genres of PC games?

      FPS. RTS. PC-RPG. MMO-RPG.
      That accounts for 95+% of the PC games worth buying, did I miss something? Maybe flight sims, turn-based strategy, city-builders, adventure games, all of those that have dwindled down to a handful of core titles which rarely generate much of a bubble on the PC gamers awareness radar these days?

      Do they really care about control and precision?

      Considering the state of PC game pads, I'd say that the question goes right back to you. I can get a USB adapter for my XBox that handles the keyboard. It'd be nice if I could the mouse would work as well, because I really can only use certain trackballs and keyboards anyway, whereas the only console gamepads I've had any problems with in the current generation are the Dreamcast controller and the XBox Controller S (yes, the smaller one).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    17. Re:I'm still pissed by il_diablo · · Score: 1

      I play games on both my PC and PS2. That being said...

      But they are often only attracted by the entry-level price of consoles
      No, I'm attracted to games I can get only on one or the other. Square doesn't release the FFs on PC (reliably, witness the craptastic FF VII port). Same thing as to Kingdom Hearts, Dark Cloud 2, .hack, etc. (Yes, I'm generally an RPGer. I'm not twitchy enough for FPSs most of the time, but I do enjoy RTSs. On my PC.)

      and don't have the dedication that a real PC gamer has
      Right. And by dedication, you mean the desire to find exactly the right patch for DirectX, the video mode tweaks that have to be made for each and every game, the patches that need to be downloaded because "Hey, we're releasing on the PC! Damn Q/A for the first round, we have to release NOW! Let the players be our beta testers!"? Just to be able to reliably fire up my copy of a game because I have a few hours during which I'd like to unwind?

      Right. That's not my idea of relaxing.

      Of course, the counter argument is that certain game genres are made for a mouse/keyboard type unit. Imagine Starcraft without a mouse, hot keys, or anything else that even hopes to allow you to manage your units.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  3. It's Sarah Paestch, not Page... by Dimwit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just so you know...the "other" writer is Sarah Paestch, not Sarah Page.

    Yes, yes, I'm dating a video game writer. And she's a *girl*! How cool is that?

    --
    ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
    1. Re:It's Sarah Paestch, not Page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A girl what?

  4. Cost of doing business by trajano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its too bad the cost to make these kind of games is quite high. Imagine in the old days when small groups of people can build games like Doom, Ultima or Warcraft.

    I guess in the end it is all about money.

    Though there are still some games out there in sourceforge that are done quite wellm but most of them don't look as good as the commercial games.

    Wonder when they are going to make a combination of Quake and NetHack ... QuakeHack.

    --
    Archie - CIO-for-hire :-)
    1. Re:Cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quack?

    2. Re:Cost of doing business by bigman2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if it is "all about the money".

      You can still make games cheap, or even free.

      But people don't want that anymore. Big budget games CAN be so much better. Yes, there is a lot of big budget crap too, but most of the really good games have really good budgets.

      I want good voice acting. I want gameplay that has been tested like crazy, and tweaked to (hopefully) perfection. I like eye candy, and I like big-time on-line support that works.

      So, I wouldn't say that the game studios are all money-grubbing pigs- doing it for the money, instead of the art. I would say that most of them are just responding to the consumer demands. And it takes big teams, and a lot of talent, and a lot of time to create a game now.

      --
      No reason to lie.
  5. GTA3, Halo, Splinter Cell, KOTR, oh my! by Milktoast · · Score: 1
    Grand Theft Auto 3? The game rocks on PC, better than on the PS2. Yes the graphics reflect the original platform, but that doesn't in any way hobble the fantastic gameplay.

    You can also look at Halo, the latest Mechwarrior game, and Splinter Cell as examples of multiple platform titles that succeed despite being "hobbled".

    I also wager KOTOR will also succeed at multiple platform success. It would be difficult to mess that title up.

    I'm sure that Ion Storm would prefer to build for one platform, but the increased sales potential of multiple platforms allows for a much bigger budget than would be possible in the dwindling PC/Windows game market, especially when so many FP games will be competing for customer dollars on that platform (HL2, Doom2, DX2, Max Payne 2).

  6. Massively ironic statement by PeteyG · · Score: 2, Funny

    From the article: and to be honest, most of my gaming is done on the console, especially since that seems where most of the innovation seems to be.

    Warren Spector said that. Warren fucking Spector! One of the greatest innovators in electronic gaming period! All his tremendous innovation has been on PC so far. So this is a VERY ironic thing for him to say.

    --
    no thanks
  7. Disappointed. by Kwil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sad to see this from Warren.

    It seems he's completely neglecting one of the major differences between the X-box and the PC, namely, the UI.

    I mean, having a keyboard makes a difference. It allows more options, more diversity of control in a rapid manner. Unless the game is undergoing some kind of *insane* level of menuing, you can guaruntee that the game will not approach the complexity or detail possible using a PC. If the UI didnt make a difference, would Capcom have bothered to make a controller like this for one of their games? Considering that it added to the cost and made people less likely to buy the game, there must be some reason they felt it was important enough to include.

    And to say that all the innovation is happening on the console side is completely ignoring the plethora of small, independant developers working on the PC platform. It's also ignoring the *history* of PC games, which are a mine of innovative material that often failed not because of a lack of quality, but because of a lack of marketing.

    Of course, then you look at the games Warren has put out and realize that he doesn't really do a whole helluva lot in innovation anyway. He does a lot of refining of ideas, but not much for anything that's actually new.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Disappointed. by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      It seems he's completely neglecting one of the major differences between the X-box and the PC, namely, the UI.

      Umm, didn't he say right near the beginning of the article that the UI would be different between the two versions?

      hmm here's the first paragraph of his first response in the interview:

      Spector: We started right at the outset wanting to make a game simultaneously for both the Xbox and the PC. So, what we did was we set the bar at the Xbox level -- the PC version is going to be different only in that it will support a different UI. It will support the mouse and keyboard and higher resolutions. Other than that, our goal was really to design one game, with one experience, and then let players go for it.

      OK, so, he's not restructuring the game around the input available on the given platform, but there's definitely a different UI, definitely mouse + keyboard considered here.

      I mean, having a keyboard makes a difference. It allows more options, more diversity of control in a rapid manner. Unless the game is undergoing some kind of *insane* level of menuing, you can guaruntee that the game will not approach the complexity or detail possible using a PC.

      Having a keyboard means you can do that. Having a game pad with 10 or so buttons on it means that you find a way not to do that. What is a series of keys across the top of the keyboard to change to specific weapons becomes a cycle on one or two buttons on the controller to cycle through the weapons, possibly in an on-screen menu rather than cycling the weapons in and out of the character's hands.

      The first Deus Ex, imo, seemed rather heavily bound to a point & click interface, and it really seemed hindered by it rather than empowered by it. They really needed to rethink it, and hopefully that's what they did here. Although they've already stated they simplified the gameplay for various reasons, I don't think it was because of the controls, and I really hope they took the time to make the interface better because of the controls on the XBox limiting their options. Sometimes people need limitation to really express themselves fully, it puts the brain in motion thinking of new ways to do things.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    2. Re:Disappointed. by Kwil · · Score: 1

      It's a superficial difference really, all he's doing is restructuring the, by neccesity, simplified X-box UI to make use of a keyboard mouse combination.

      Innovation is a lot more than simply cycling through weaponry, and true, if that's the extent of Warren's "innovation", then it's probably perfectly suited for the X-box.

      But by constraining himself to the limitations of the X-box first, he obviously prevents certain things.

      As an example, even staying within the FPS genre, what about creating a game that allows you full martial arts capability. With a PC, you can set it up in such a way that each side of the keyboard represents each side of the body, and then do away with the Virtua Fighter style of having a set number of moves. Instead, you give each limb certain moves that it does on a certain keypress. Combine keypresses to come up with the most effective types of combos.

      With the Xbox, you're limited to a series of pre-programmed moves that happen if you press the right combination. (the classic Up Left B,B,B Left+A type thing)

      In my opinion, your interface will dictate your design. If you then modify your game to simply use a different interface, you still haven't changed the basic design of the game.

      If Warren truly wants to be innovative, shouldn't he choose the interface that would allow the most freedom?

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    3. Re:Disappointed. by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      I was simply trying to point out that limitations often spark innovation. My examples are, of course, quite poor, mostly because I write these posts very quickly ;)

      As for your idea of a fully-mapped interface to each half of the body for a martial arts style game, I believe this idea was began with Tekken, when each button represented each part of the body. Additionally, previous games, such as Die By The Sword, had different control schemes that still played out better on gamepads than on the keyboard + mouse (in this particular case, it was one of the first games to make movement and swordplay completely independant, and controlled best with a dual-analog type control system imo).

      Sometimes the keyboard and mouse are more limiting than people believe, other times it just gives people room to be sloppy, and constraints could make them come up with something much simpler (to the user) that is innovative.

      That being said, I don't believe that Spector's going to be completely innovative on any sequel he ever makes anyway, though he may have sparks of minor enhancements to the basic ideas here and there, whether he designs the games for a console or a PC.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  8. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    consoles are d4 suX0r for innovation.

  9. Warren Spector doesn't innovate!? WTF!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ultima Underworld was proper 3D before Wolfenstein's and even Doom's fake 3D. Texture mapping and all.

    Look at his rap sheet before you shoot yo' mouth off...

  10. Another recent interview with him. by twifkak · · Score: 1

    On IGN.

    --
    I know you were joking, but I want my Karma, so I'm going to reiterate your post in a serious tone.