Barrow_Bug said:
I agree with a lot of what you are saying Rosh, I really do. So, I don't really have any witty replies. I'm interested in something though, did you ever work in game design?(I imagine that you did, do).
Yes, I have, and I'm still working (though on indie projects now).
I have worked with and discussed in depth CRPG design with the people who just about CREATED this genre (disregarding the mislabeled dungeon crawlers early on, as even D&D set differences between dungeon crawlers and a role-playing campaign in the 70s - the rules are just a guideline framework for the story and character interaction). A couple were on a couple of MUDs I worked on (I've been involved with more than a few over the years). I'd like to think some of my ideas inspired a few things, but maybe we were just sharing the same mental wavelength for a bit, and they were the ones who put the ideas into action. Some have regretfully left the industry, through willingness or not. Maybe they were just tired of playing crap after their own imaginative works?
Greenberg and Woodhead I kept in contact with through BBS systems and later Usenet. Sirotek I only talked with briefly.
Van Caneghem as well was a good contact of mine.
I even knew Dim Wit Bradley before he started drinking lead paint by the bucket and decided that action crap could replace decent quality or setting design, but he didn't have the hype or shiny effects to prop up his weak attempts outside of Sir-Tech. How he ever got Greenberg to work on Dungeon Tards is beyond me...
All of these folks went far past the stock fantasy crap most went for, STILL go for, and instead first had the audience expecting one thing as they played - which later opened up into a whole new level of lore possibilities when you consider the "medieval" setting was just a recent thing in the history of the world. The player's conceptions would be blown apart as they realized what they knew of the world was just barely covering the surface. As I once put it "The observation of one's world, one's surroundings, builds a bubble of familiarity to the player. Build it up, solidify it, then mercilessly POP it and leave their mind reeling. If their mind isn't flooded with questions about a whole new set of possibilities of the setting, then something is wrong with them or they are too ignorant in the first place." That is why "OMG, surprise! Your ally is now an enemy!" fails to impress me, as well as similar cliches. Kreia? Saw it coming from a mile off. Playing as the villain or a bad guy isn't new, either, Wizardry IV. Many of the ideas in "modern" games aren't remotely new or fresh compared to 20 years ago.
I worked at Origin first as an intern (apprentice, as Dr. Cat and others would like to call it) and then into some other areas that included design, mostly interface work. All the while, I studied how they created worlds. They created worlds. Then The Guardian...err, EA, destroyed them.
I also knew the Currie duo, though I never really knew if they were related or whatever. It wasn't important given the other information. I really don't give a shit about developer's personal lives for the most part when it comes to development, just game development. Oh, speaking of Jagged Alliance...
Hello. (No, I don't actually wear an earring, and the nose was toned down a bit...and my chin hair is about eight inches longer now.)
All of these, I have valued for their willingness to discuss game design ideas without slipping into some marketing speek or excuses. Well, except for Dim Wit (when it was original joked as Dude...Whoa...), and who the hell knows what's up with him lately. They talked about ACTUAL DESIGN instead of waffling around Design Theory. The more developers talk lately, the more common it is for them to talk in marketing speek, or give excuses as to why they won't even try anymore.
The difference between then and now is about as different as Ed Greenwood's work and the kiddy piddling around in D&D like Penny Arcade's little campaign that might be interesting for fellow D&D newbies and nobody else. One of my team linked that to me, who I've since threatened with leaving tied up bareass naked out on I-5, after I had to close the podcast before my brains started leaking out of my ears.
They agreed with me, but that wasn't the point. I don't voluntarily listen to shit, so to have it sprung on me like that was just...evil.
Since then, I have also been involved in game design by discussion with various developers, who have in turn given me nods (or pokes in return) for my efforts in guiding them into better work.
Fallout Tactics was meant to be simply a series of maps, one after another, with a break at the bases. Due to my inside information and talks with the developers, I could force their hand into releasing something better no matter how it pissed them off, and so they added in a world map and more detail to make the game more like Fallout than it already was with the time they had left on the project. Tony Oakden told me I both pissed off and helped out MicroForté, and yes I'm the proverbial old geezer that pisses in other people's punch (or Nuka-Cola, in that case).
I've done the same for Interplay and BIS for years, both giving critiques where something seemed a bit too cliche as well as catching Feargus at his dishonesty - in particular the dishonest SLAM DUNK! titles that inferred good quality CRPGs as BIS were known for, but were in actuality dungeon crawlers made cheaply to cash in on a full price tag. With Descent to Undermountain, I had a field day on it during its development and release. I like to think I keep them on track for the most part, though when I leave for awhile they tend to slip into following BioWare like a lost puppy. (I have long since found out that BioWare is a lost cause, in particular after the EA assimilation. Bethesda, too, after all the greats left or were reduced down to menial positions as content grinders, including the Father of TES.)
It is because of my efforts that I get game cameos, though nowhere near as unflattering as Cleve's, mainly because I do know something about game design and can make a decently coherent argument (most of the time, I'll admit sometimes I run into something that just PISSES me off).
I *AM* Eli(ezer) Havelock, jaded spymaster (PS:T).
Unless someone is being an utter fuckstain I don't normally get so vitriolic, but I can see that you are passionate. Note, the lack of quotes.
Everyone who wants quality should be passionate, in particular since publishers promise, offer, hype, and fail to deliver. You need to break through the noise:signal ratio of developer hype and fanboyism versus what is actually released. JE could take a page from Avellone's book. Hell, even Avellone himself lately could take a page from his own book:
We wanted a powerful story, and we didn't want to be afraid of it being too deep for mass market; we just wanted to make it good.
~ Chris Avellone - Planescape: Torment Strategies & Secrets
And that is why PS:T gets the recognition it deserves, despite being an Inbred Engine game with the combat engine being the most often listed downfall.
I guess I find it kinda amusing that people(especially here) are happy to have a real go at actual game designers.
Again, folks need to be passionate about what they want, because otherwise the industry will settle for the easy, superficial sales, for the sake of cashing in on easy, superficial people. They wouldn't believe that a "hardcore" audience exists, as they label us, while we're merely the old school who remembers good games and don't believe this "innovative" shit while they call certain game design concepts outdated, and prop up weak development upon hype (Dim Wit's Downfall). They would like to believe that, because otherwise how would they excuse their lazy cloning? They would get away with their lies and hype if we didn't catch them at it, and they do in part, while our efforts open the eyes of a few at a time. Some publishers simply don't care as long as the cash rolls in. That is why BioWare is hyping out their romances (also given the FAUX News publicity), and it's why those who have been sick of the same stupid shit since Baldur's Gate have been calling bullshit, while the kiddies make Imoen incest mods.
BioWare simply doesn't have anything to hype anymore given how almost everything about Ass Effect was ass but the sex scenes apparently went over well. Anything else, in particular gameplay complexity, is neatly excused by the "exponential" argument David Gaider pulls from his ass on a regular basis.
I knew the greats a long time ago, and those considered such now or in recent years seem to be coming up with excuses as to why they aren't going to try for exceptional work anymore. As long as it can be slapped out in a year, every year, for the loyal kiddies so their attention spans wouldn't wander too far.
Plus, I think blaming it on the console generation is getting kinda ripe, but that is something different all together.
Well, what do you call it when game designs are catered towards the X-Box audience almost wholesale, to the point of compromising game design integrity? Fallout 3 was a good example, with how it wouldn't run on some PS3s, completely throwing the argument so commonly used for consoles clear out the window - the variation of PC hardware. The PS3 has standardized hardware, so why wouldn't many copies work on PS3s unless they simply didn't care to fully QA the game in the first place?
Is there anything to indicate that Fallout: New Vegas won't be filled with the same problems, in particular with that short of a development schedule? My gut feeling, until I can get a hold of some design details through my sources, is rushed development would only make the already existing issues far, far worse.
EDIT: Damn typos, and some more info.
