I have very distinct feelings about this game:
1) When they first announced it, my initial outcry was the same as expecting a trash sequel to Deus Ex.
2) After announcing subsystems which seemed aligned, and even expounded, on the original game, my hopes expanded. No quest markers, no hand holding, was the litmus for me.
3) The promises seem overambitious for a limited budget and a small team, in the manner as radiant AI was overambitious, and findable runes imbalanced D3, forcing them to resort to zero customization.
4) Classes seem redundant, in the same manner as System Shock 2, in that your character is defined by your choices, not your archetype.
5) As I pointed out earlier, generic Tolkien-esque fantasy is a detriment to this game, as they are talking progressive, not retrogressive. Goblins are only scary until you are seeing them a million times. Cthulhoid monstrosities are more interesting, and I hope they do not resort to bipeds, as we are talking an underground ecocology. The generic fantasy cliches seem a detriment to this game, moreso than an advantage, as they detract from an underground ecology, and add in an element of the expected to that of the unexpected, in an ecology that evolved entirely separate from the surface world. Refinement is necessary, as this is like sewing a blanket to another blanket, and calling it a new blanket. In a game that promises innovation, throwing in Tolkienesque cliches is like throwing a carrot in a banana smoothie. It detracts from the originality of the setting, and should be cut, as it not only throws out the element of surprise, it is a detriment to discovery when you walk a thousand miles to find something new and find a dwarf instead. It also causes unnecessary programming.
6) I hope there are survival mechanisms, not only in terms of food and water, heat and frost, but poisons and diseases, and also phobias. Fear of Darkness and Claustrophobia, and Paranoia, serve a purpose in this type of game, and should be managed. If paranoid, you might start swinging your weapon wildly, drawing attention, or throwing spells. Not just surface visual effects, but fleeing from darkness if you spend too long, thus making fire not only serve a survival purpose, but also essential for your own sanity.
7) I hope this game takes a page from Dark Souls, in limited narrative and story, and telling most of the story in narrative symbolism, or unraveling choices as you go.
8) Emergent gameplay is not only defined by choices, but by limitations. If you burn a bridge, you can no longer cross it. How you define your character is based on choices. If you can burn a bridge only to cross it, then you have limited choices, as 'all roads lead to one destination.' Choices mean consequence. In the same manner as killing an NPC in Dark Souls, or allowing potential game breaking combos in Dishonored, you are allowing innovation. Your choices make or break you, and potentially you could screw up your own game, or stumble on a substantial, but game breaking combo. Balance can be tweaked after alpha, and even further, but screwing up your own game should not be out of the question. Even in Dark Souls, you could do that. Like in real life, if you break the law, you end up in jail. If you jump off a cliff, you die. If you find a way to break the stock market, you get rich. This is the true nature of emergence.
9) Otherside is essentially Looking Glass under a new name.
10) +For Warren Spector, if he does not compromise for consoles or 'streamlining,' which ruined sales. There is a reason Deus Ex 1 was successful, and it was certainly not fumbling around, or dumbing down. I hope he has learned his lesson. You expand upon systems, not strip them. 'Streamlining' makes you less of what you are.
11) +For voice of Garrett and SHODAN. VERY plus!
12) I hope you save as you go, in the same manner as Diablo, but can revert to an earlier save checkpoint if you ruin your entire game. Thus, you cannot take back your choices, but you can redo an entire game segment if you fuck up your game beyond all repair. This limits choices, while forcing you to define yourself based on them.
13) Use of physics. Period. Any multisolution > linear puzzle design, period. It opens up options. Allows creative solutions, such as stacking crates, or burning a bridge, but defines your game. Also, telekinesis and flying. *COUGH*
14) Interactive elements, such as fire and wind, are a MUST. Physics = Combo spells.
15) Character advancement should be tied into exploration, as in findable runes, spell tomes, et cetera.
16) No obvious puzzles. Finding them is their own reward.
17) In the same manner, no didactic speech. It is superficial when someone tells you their back story, and unlikely in real life.
18) Providing explanation is banal, as none is necessary. I am trapped in a cavern, I need to escape. It is a detriment, as it detracts from the mystery. Survival and advancement are compelling enough. Less is more.
In summary, the game needs refinement, seems to contain obvious tropes, and superfluous elements that detract, and are easily cut. I have high hopes, but they are tempered by time and budget.
Most of all, DO NOT commercial--success is defined by customers, not by sales.
Thanks,
James,
DCLXVI.