I would support it if it was PC only, this way there would be no issues with everything being ported TO the PC… latter it can go to consoles so it would suffer being ported to them.
I can’t help but think developing for console gimped the magic system. That or I just suck at drawing >.>
It didn’t gimp Okami, thus shouldn’t gimp Arx.
Arx was PC-first and then once released the work on the port begun some time thereafter, where some things were unfortunately dumbed down…unnecessarily in my eyes – only necessary if you want to optimize sales, which is understandable given PC gamers as a whole had already not taken well to the Immersive Sim (or whatever explains its lack of financial success and insane fanfare it deserved) so fat chance many console gamers would given the age group differences.
Its one of the better Immersive sim ports though.
Anyhow, the console version had no impact on Arx’s development. Development on the port begun after release, a quick look at the game’s wikipedia page could have answered that for you.
So the answer is I suck at drawing. Good to know =b
Well, it is notably difficult with a mouse…and easier with a controller. the opposite results were no doubt assumed, given the rune drawing is one of the things that was dumbed down in the port. Just turns out the inferior precision of a controller actually helps you stay in a straight line, as there’s less angular resolution so it (the cursor) stays steady rather than wavering.
But that’s probably not what you wanted to hear. I posted some tips to help with mouse rune drawing, in one of these arx threads somewhere.
Edit: ah it was one of your threads, so you’ve already seen it. Well I hope you stick with arx either way. It’s a great game.
I am still waiting for Arx Fatalis 2, I am alive! 8)
Numero uno fan of all times is still waiting for Arx Fatalis 2!
That would be great, but Arkane doesn’t make PC games anymore unfortunately, they seem to have adopted the ways of their owner and develops for consoles as their main SKU now - with all the implications that follow from that. If their recent games are going to be indicative of a new Arx Fatalis, then it’s probably best they just leave it alone imo. But of course I’m hoping for a miracle too
I came to play Arx Fatalis when the game engine became open source. I started playing it on my Linux boxes. It is a great game, but had the engine not been open sourced I would never have heard of it.
If they were to make an Arx 2 I sure hope they again make a Linux port. And, for all it is worth, I hope that any developer studio will release their game engines into open source after a decade or so – not the game data such as graphics, sound, story etc., just the engine. So people like me can then buy the full game to play it on the (possibly ported and/or enhanced) open source engine!
Anyway, I wonder where an Arx 2 stands in relation to Underworld. I once read that Arcane Studio originally tried to make Arx an official Ultima Underworld 3, but they didn’t get the rights, so they changed the story. Some people still see Arx as Underworld 3. Where would Arx 2 take place then?
One big surface hub connected with other tunnels, travelers guild! Akbaas Cult, Noden Corrupted, options are many!
Still alive and waiting!
Well now that Arkane’s founder Raf Colantonio left, took a temporary retirement, and started a new company, maybe he can get something going, especially since he’s disappointed with industry trends. He may have given up the IP ownership, but he might have some clout.
I have yet to experience Arx Fatalis, will most likely play it this year, but I can assure you any good game will sell at least decently. You may happen to like some indie game that has something you really dig, but you have to remember, if it hasn’t sold good at all, it is most likely a sucky game. We can speculate if an immersive sim or a dungeon crawl will sell or not, I’d say they will always sell, but if you develop it to suck, then it’s no game.
As an example Underworld Ascendant is an interesting experiment, but it majorly sucks because it’s not an Underworld game. Prey (2017) is a good game, but it doesn’t have the greatest graphics so it sold nicely, but not “as expected”. If you would release Prey 2 now with better graphics, it would sell better. Graphics do matter in this way, the better your game looks the more it will likely sell. Arx Fatalis though, doesn’t look that nice, because the art design is wonky. I can already tell without playing myself that it is not that cohesive experience and I know the story is bland, so it includes many sucky aspects, which equal in low sales.
I admit though, sometimes not that good game can sell very well if it’s simple enough, which is nothing new, since the world is full of simpletons. In fact, this is the world of simpletons where simpletons rule and prosper. They decide what sells gold and what is labeled as “sucky”. They have the brains to understand that video games are just button pressing, so anything will do like a toned down version of Fallout which is called Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is not a bad game by any means, but it sucks as a Fallout game and gets boring before you explore even half the map. I was disappointed by that game, but the simpletons enjoyed it and I’m happy for them.
The bottom line: Good games will always sell, sucky game like Underworld Ascendant will not.
Another example of how games with low-end graphics, wonky art design, and – believe it or not – no story at all are certain to sell very poorly is this game that came out a few years ago that only let you remove and place cubes. It definitely did not become very popular with many different people, and its creator certainly did not sell it to Microsoft for over three billion US dollars.
If such a critically and commercially successful (i.e., sucky) game ever were made, naturally anyone who enjoyed it would, miraculously, instantly become a simpleton incapable of appreciating the nuanced genius of the particular games we enjoy playing.
You have so many misconceptions it’s not even worth to correct them.
Some nice trolling here.