Playing Deus Ex for the First Time

[Hassat Hunter]

By what criterium? Was Dungeon Siege actually open world or was it just a linear game that streamed its levels?
Either way it supports what I said - technology had to advance far enough for streaming to be possible.

2001 tech yes. Not modern like you implied.

They don't what?

Stream. They have a shitload of loading bars when traveling around the world.

Doesn't matter, still way easier than creating a proper open world game.

Freelancer HAS a proper open world. Elite does too. Or is open world in space not "proper", whatever that means...?

But they weren't open world... so what the hell are you saying?

Elite wasn't open world? Seriously?

That's not the point. In fact it's not remotely close to the point. You're saying modern technology makes games shorter. Yeah that genre of games had some long-ass installments back in the days, but now they have awesome new technology and they're still that long, entirely disproving your argument.

Because that's part of the genre. Ever other type does have reduced time. RPG's, RTS's, shooters, etc. etc.

[Jonas]

Well if you're going to only focus on FPS games, yeah, they're getting shorter, and it sucks that the genre is going in a direction you don't like if that's the only genre you're interested in. I don't know what else to say, I have broad enough horizons in my tastes that it doesn't matter.

I think medium sized teams can exist, and it'd be interesting to see more studios heading in that direction. It goes without saying there's an audience for AAA blockbuster games, and there's clearly an audience for smaller indie or casual productions too, but I wonder what sort of market there'd be for... you could call it an A game, I guess, instead of AAA.

Boiling Point is still a horrible example though, you do your cause no credit by picking a universally ridiculed game as your case study.

As for your generalisations... you will be hearing from my lawyer.

[Jonas]

2001 tech yes. Not modern like you implied.

Uh I believe you mistook my meaning. You also failed to answer my questions that you quoted, but fuck that. My point is this: technology used to not support open world games. Then it advanced, and open world games became possible. Every single element of the games you like is possible because at some point technology became advanced enough to make it happen. You can't have it both ways, you can't just freeze technology in 2005 and say "all right, that's enough! It's all good now, no more progress please." Technology will advance, and you might as well stop complaining about it because it makes you look quite the conservative, reactionary old codger.

Hm I got a little British at the end there, not sure why.

Stream. They have a shitload of loading bars when traveling around the world.

I no longer remember what we were talking about and I can't be bothered to go back and look, so you win by default. Savour your victory!

Freelancer HAS a proper open world. Elite does too. Or is open world in space not "proper", whatever that means...?

I don't know how to put this so you'll understand what I mean. Space is exceptionally easy to do, as demonstrated by the fact that Elite could exist all the way back in the 80's. Comparing that to a game that's set in an actual world (you understand that semantically and practically, "space" is not a world, right?) is just kind of silly to be honest.

Elite wasn't open world? Seriously?

♫ Seeee abooooooove ♫

Because that's part of the genre. Ever other type does have reduced time. RPG's, RTS's, shooters, etc. etc.

I powerfully suspect that by "etc. etc." you actually mean "those are the only ones". Also RPGs haven't gotten shorter, despite your continued insistence that they have. Don't know much about RTS's, pretty much stopped giving any real shit about them after StarCraft, though I've touched on Company of Heroes (far superior a game to anything old and easily longer than 30 hours) and StarCraft 2 which was admittedly rather short but mainly because it didn't have fifty generic filler missions like StarCraft 1 did.

I assure you despite the trials of modern technology, it would be no trouble at all to create 50 or even 100 generic build-a-base-and-destroy-the-enemy missions like StarCraft 1 was so full of. The problem is players want interesting stuff to do now a days instead of endless busywork. Go figure!

[DaveW]

Well if you're going to only focus on FPS games, yeah, they're getting shorter, and it sucks that the genre is going in a direction you don't like if that's the only genre you're interested in. I don't know what else to say, I have broad enough horizons in my tastes that it doesn't matter.

I think medium sized teams can exist, and it'd be interesting to see more studios heading in that direction. It goes without saying there's an audience for AAA blockbuster games, and there's clearly an audience for smaller indie or casual productions too, but I wonder what sort of market there'd be for... you could call it an A game, I guess, instead of AAA.

Boiling Point is still a horrible example though, you do your cause no credit by picking a universally ridiculed game as your case study.

As for your generalisations... you will be hearing from my lawyer.

Well I'm interested in other genres too, but I wouldn't say technology is affecting them as badly. RPGs, Racing Games etc. are largely the same as they ever were - I think there are still trade-offs but they win out. For example RPGs are still long enough and adding extra detail at the sacrifice of a few hours of gameplay is perfectly acceptable.

I would only say that the strive for better and more advanced graphics is having an overall negative impact on modern shooters. I'd rather feel a bit less immersed in the graphics if it meant I get more story out of them. I think in some cases it balances out, like Human Revolution - the extra detail such as better* facial animation improves the game significantly enough that I couldn't care less about the slightly shorter game length.

*(They're still utter crap)

Medium sized teams could probably exist but I don't think they could produce the same kind of games as they used to be able to. Or, at least, they'd stuggle a hell of a lot more. What used to take 3 artists probably now takes 10 - you used to be able to get away with things like modellers doubling as animators which you just couldn't do anymore. Again, it's unavoidable and it's not entirely a bad thing since quality has improved, it just seems a shame to me that there's a chance smaller game studios can't do what they used to be able to.

[gamer0004]

Look at what the devs of mount & blade did, that team consisted of very few people. STALKER was made by 25 people. And M&B looks, well, let's just say it does the job and STALKER (with complete mod) is even rather beautiful.

[DaveW]

STALKER was made by 25 people. And M&B looks, well, let's just say it does the job and STALKER (with complete mod) is even rather beautiful.

I wasn't aware GSC was that small, but STALKER did take over 5 years to develop. Though I played a multiplayer demo of it in 2004 and the engine and art seemed pretty much complete.

STALKER's graphics were amazing at the time of its release, though - especially when you consider that the lighting system was the most advanced of any game to that date. Even without Stalker Complete the graphical quality is pretty damn good.

[ggrotz]

The best example is the First-person-shooter revolution. It's been at the expense of 2D games which have become less prolific as 3D-games have become more and more prolific. This isn't necessarily a bad thing of course.
But, it does mean that there are 2D games out there that are not being designed that might have been a lot of fun if they ever made it to the market; the would-be designers for such games are now making other 3D games.

Actually it's amazing how myopic most people are in game discussions when they completely either forget or dismiss the Flash realm when it comes to gaming. I even see this in gaming sites and magazines where they talk about the industry as a whole and completely dismiss this area. This is a pretty damning omission when it comes to the gaming magazines since the last few articles of this nature I've read mentioned factors that are heavily shaped by this arena. That said, there are some pretty entertaining 2D games out there and evidently there are some that are making some good money producing them given what I've read regarding the venture capital that some of the groups are drawing.

Given the barrier to entry as regards to machine upgrades, internet capability (unfortunately this became an issue with most games, networked multiplayer or not, given the rise of Steam) and cost of the software versus verifiable benefit (you can't see how it plays or how it looks on YOUR hardware and you really have to given how variable performance is with these things), it's a viable option both to get noticed and to get a following. You don't need a ton of people or resources to produce them and distribution is not an issue since it downloads off a web page. The graphic capabilities are evidently decent since I've seen some Wolfenstein/Doom level games at one time or another. And the capabilities of what can be done with these things are only increasing given what HTML5 can evidently do.

Now given the ease of distribution and so on, there's a lot of garbage out there, but there's a few decent titles. The last one I've been playing is a (sort-of) racing game called Freeway Fury 2. It's been entertaining enough for the gaming forays I've made outside of Deus Ex.

[ggrotz]

And that said, if I were to wake up tomorrow and say that I want to start developing games, I'd probably lean towards the mobile device arena or Flash gaming, since there seems to be the most promise of innovation and growth there as opposed to what has happened on the PC the last few years or in developing for consoles. Just what I'm noticing in things anyway...

[paladin181]

Morrowind was released before DX. Daggerfall waaaay before that. Not to mention all spacesims like Elite.
"Open world needs modern technology?"
Nope, not so much. VGA can do that.

Wrong, Morrowind was released in 2002, two years after Deus Ex. Was Daggerfall seamless? No area divides, no level transitions at all?

Daggerfall was indeed seamless with no level transitions. It had quite a few bugs, but was an open world game in 1996. It was noted that unlike Arena, fast travel wasn't necessary in Daggerfall (on a purely technical level. Traveling the distances in game and managing to actually FIND your target within the given Cell would have had people STILL playing it today on their first playthrough). So Yes, I will say it is a completely openworld game released in 1996.

EDIT: Games are also getting shorter because of surveys conducted that left people feeling unfulfilled with longer titles because the players lacked the patience or attention span to finish them. People wanted to finish the games, but they didn't want to have to play ALL THE WAY through it. So they've started making these shooters more compartmentalized and compact to allow audiences to feel like they've accomplished something (which in turn leads to the customer to be satisfied, which will lead to more future sales) without the late level tedium of older shooters.

Also, many people are a little disappointed that with each successive Elder Scrolls game, they seem to remove another complexity that allowed the player customization of their characters, or made them think about how to play. It's getting streamlined in a bad way since Morrowind, which is what audiences are in need of. Appealing to mass market gamers often means cutting features because of complexity. You have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to meet sales quotas.

[ghostdog]

Let's not forget Ultima Underworld (1992) , one of the first games Warren Spector worked on, which also inspired him somewhat to create deus ex. (check his first proposal to Origin back in 1994). Ultima Underworld was 3D (before wolfenstein 3D) and had almost seamless open world structure. (although this open world was actually an underworld ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpuTbxkaZ94

[Jonas]

I'll give you those, but I daresay these are the exceptions that confirm my point. Neither Daggerfall nor Ultima Underworld really compare to the scope and detail of the open world games we have today, and while some of that is due to artistic advances and higher budgets, the importance of advances in technology itself cannot and should not be ignored.

[DaveW]

I'll give you those, but I daresay these are the exceptions that confirm my point. Neither Daggerfall nor Ultima Underworld really compare to the scope and detail of the open world games we have today, and while some of that is due to artistic advances and higher budgets, the importance of advances in technology itself cannot and should not be ignored.

Post 2000 I wouldn't say there were any technological limits to what is possible today in open world games, with the exception of graphics. Pre-2000, maybe, but I think a lot of games could have been open world if they'd wanted to - it just wasn't something people cared about.

[Hassat Hunter]

Daggerfall was way bigger than Morrowind, which in itself is bigger than Oblivion. Can't speak for Skyrim but most posts point to a similar or smaller size to Oblivion.

There goes scope. As far as details... that's probably in the graphics. Although Morrowinds dungeons are far more impressive than the technological superior Oblivion... among many other 'details'. So there it just depends on what details means.
Overall, I would still disagree though.

[gamer0004]

I always thought Morrowind was bigger than Oblivion too, but Oblivion is, in fact, bigger. Landmass in Morrowind spanned about 26 square kilometres whereas the landmass in Oblivion was more than 40 kilometres in size. The fact that Morrowind feels bigger is due to slower movement speed, no fast travel and more content. I think Skyrim is about as big as Oblivion.

[Jaedar]

I always thought Morrowind was bigger than Oblivion too, but Oblivion is, in fact, bigger. Landmass in Morrowind spanned about 26 square kilometres whereas the landmass in Oblivion was more than 40 kilometres in size. The fact that Morrowind feels bigger is due to slower movement speed, no fast travel and more content. I think Skyrim is about as big as Oblivion.

No, oblivion feels smaller because its completely devoid of content or environmental variety. And morrowind has fast travel.

Although Morrowinds dungeons are far more impressive than the technological superior Oblivion... among many other 'details'.

Skyrim's are probably more impressive than both of them though.