Interview Chris Taylor talks to FileFront

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Dungeon Siege 2; Gas Powered Games

<a href=http://home.filefront.com>FileFront</a> ran into <b>Chris Taylor</b> of <a href=http://www.gaspowered.com/index.php>Gas Powered Games</a> and <a href=http://www.gaspowered.com/ds1/index.shtml>Dungeon Siege</a>'s fame, and asked him a <a href=http://articles.filefront.com/1>few questions</a>.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><i>For this question’s sake, let’s say someone didn’t enjoy Dungeon Siege. How would you convince them to buy Dungeon Siege 2?</i>
<br>
<br>
Unfortunately I can’t answer this question yet either, as the feature list for DS2 is also still under wraps.
<br>
<br>
<i>What do you think went right with Dungeon Siege? On the other hand, what went wrong?</i>
<br>
<br>
We were very happy with Dungeon Siege as our first game from our new company, but clearly the next steps for us were to take a look at what we could do with a sequel that just wasn’t possible the first time around. Today we have a super talented group of people, an awesome base of technology, existing company infrastructure and processes built to handle the massive amount of content required to make an RPG game today.</blockquote> Still doesn't have a clue.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.bluesnews.com">Blue's News</A>

 

[Voss]

CT – The best part for me is the creative part. And being able to come up with crazy new ideas for the games we develop, pushing the limits of the medium and the art and science of making games in general. The worst part is dealing with all the business stuff, no doubt about it.

Wow. He believes his own hype... How sad.

By the by, there was creativity in dungeon siege? I didn't get far enough to tell.

My weakest points relate to how to mix the artistry of game making with the business side.

Yes... but not the way you think.

And by the way- people don't need to be feed a feature list for DS 2 to convince them to buy it. You just need to add content. Good content. Depth. Choices. Things for the player to do. A game. One thats fun. Look at it this way- there is an engine. Sure it needs polishing to make it look better, but its a starting point. Now build a game around it. [/code]

 

[Volourn]

Beh. *yawn*

 

[keeks]

Yes, Dungeon Siege sucked, but Total Annihilation was the proverbial shiznit! The fact that Taylor is making a spiritual successor to the innovative RTS makes me all tingly inside.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Total Annihilation is the best RTS to date, IMHO. However, after Dungeon Siege, it kind of makes me wonder if Chris Taylor's success on the lead design of TA wasn't a fluke. TA had so many options on how to play it, whereas Dungeon Siege basically had walk and watch.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Voss, I really don't think he believes his own hype, he's just good at making others think he is. He'd probably look stupid if he didn't at least act it. And Total Annhilation was the BOMB

 

[chrisbeddoes]

By the by, there was creativity in dungeon siege? I didn't get far enough to tell.

On the contrary my dear Voss Dungeon siege was the most creative screensaver that i have ever seen.

Singed __________
Sherloc Holms.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

I'm beginning to think the head honcho (Chris Taylor, Tim Cain, etc.) only provides the framework to build the game. The rest of the game relies on the quality of the team. I'm not willing to blame Chris entirely for Dungeon Siege, nor credit him entirely for Total Annihilation (which I loved, but thought The Moon Project and Starcraft were better).

 

[triCritical]

Well I think twitch and strategy are antonyms. Hence, RTS are self defeating games.

 

[Spazmo]

Well I think twitch and strategy are antonyms. Hence, RTS are self defeating games.

I'd say that your argument is self defeating given how popular, successful and good many RTSes are. Maybe it's a semantics thing and it should be RTT (strategy -> tactics) but it's stupid to say the whole genre fails because you feel the concept is a contradiction in terms.

 

[triCritical]

] but it's stupid to say the whole genre fails because you feel the concept is a contradiction in terms.

Where did I say that the whole genre failed. Let me elaborate,

I'd say that your argument is self defeating given how popular, successful and good many RTSes are. Maybe it's a semantics thing and it should be RTT (strategy -> tactics)

Yes it is semantics, but semantics are very important, especially if one has interest in the subject matter at hand. As for RTT, it all has to do with scope as well and most so called RTS game even micro-level deal with abstractions of actual combat where tactics takes a back seat to twitch. I would rather have the genre named SSPDF, Stupid Shit People Do for Fun, because just like smoking pot, it hugely fun and people do it for fun.

You can take strategy, and ask yourself, is what I am doing actually strategic, and intially I would say yes. However, upon closer inspection the strategy turns to frantic twitching and memorization of build orders, where only the genealogically deformed have a hand capable of becoming the true strategic champion. Given how simplistic and linear the strategies in games like WC, C&C as well as all their clones, one has to ask, what am I actually doing? The answer is obvious, I am playing something along the lines of a twitch arcade game, with a much higher learning curve.

Those games are a fucking insult to the word.

BTW, since when is this site based on whats fucking popular, and not on principle. Allow me to go play Dungeon Siege because according to your logic, they must got RPG'n right on the nose.

FInally, there is one game that has been called an RTS that I actually respect, but I don't even know if it is a RTS and that is Total War. Mainly because there is a strategic element and that is all handled in Turn Based. While the battles themselves are played in RT. However, the scope and timing and been tweaked so that you now actually have tactical control over your armies, and things like positioning, and how to attack actually have meaning.

 

[Spazmo]

You condemn the whole genre when you say that RTSes are self defeating. If you only mean certain specific games, it'd probably best to name them rather than lambaste an entire genre.

No, popularity has nothing to do with the quality of the game, but the point yet stands: there are many quality RTS games out there, so if the genre is self-defeating, it must be pretty bad at defeating itself.

To recap: tri doesn't like RTSes; I think they're okay. Ten pages later, we still disagree, I imagine.

 

[triCritical]

You condemn the whole genre when you say that RTSes are self defeating. If you only mean certain specific games, it'd probably best to name them rather than lambaste an entire genre.

I will not lambaste the entire genre, but instead a subgroup of the genre that includes games like SC, WC, C&C, AoE, AoM, TA and the list can go on, but I guess you get the idea of the games.

There are other games that are considered RTS, that are very strategic, such as EU, and if you consider it a RTS Total War.

The point is calling a game that resembles those labeled in the first group, a strategy game, is a crime against humanity. And the reason is because either there is no strategy element, its totally linear/memorization in that sense, or because the better strategy does not win the game, the twitchiest does.

I am not calling for an end to these games, or saying they suck. I am just saying that they are not strategy games.

 

[Spazmo]

Well, again, it's more of a misnomer than a bunch of crappy games. I agree that they're not strategy, certainly, but being twitch games doesn't make them bad. Loads of FPSes and other action games rely heavily on twitch reflex reactions and are still good.