Spector Talks Deus Ex Sequel

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.")

Comments

eureka!

[noitalever]

("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...

Re:eureka!

[ziggles]

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.

It's Sarah Paestch, not Page...

[Dimwit]

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?

Cost of doing business

[trajano]

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.

Re:Cost of doing business

[bigman2003]

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.

Re:I'm still pissed

[bigman2003]

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.

Re:I'm still pissed

[noitalever]

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-)

Re:I'm still pissed

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:I'm still pissed

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:I'm still pissed

[DaveCBio]

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

Massively ironic statement

[PeteyG]

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.

Disappointed.

[Kwil]

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.