RoSoDude. Interesting post that goes to show how much people can differ on opinions.

I sort of agree on bringing hardcore options like getting rid of quick saves but bringing restrictions to what players can do sort of depends on what kind of immersive sim we’re talking about. Restrictions in thief sort of make sense since the game is a stealth simulation that is giving you a specific role so harder modes restricting the player specifically to the role of a thief and nothing else makes sense.

Things get different when we’re talking about immersive Sims that let players choose what kind of role they want like deus ex or system shock 2. This is a big distinction To make. There are Two types of Immersive Sims. The kind that give you a role and the kind that lets you choose a role. A big part of these games were letting the player choose how they want to play. Restricting what the player can do and forcing them into fight sequences(whether by designer choice or by level design) is contradictory to this and does not allow for the type of improvisation you are describing. There’s a reason why the boss fights in deus ex HR were hated because they forced you into a fight and there wasn’t much to do to improvise besides using combat head on.

I also disagree about system shock 2s levels being brilliant. Now I’ve already argued before that system shock 2 is not perfect and not even close to perfect and that it’s biggest problems are the extremely linear map design and that the only really useful skills in the game are combat skills whether by guns or with space magic. Also Most tech skills are either useless or there to supplement guns or weapons. System shock 2 was trying to let the player play their own way but all they did, because of all this i listed, was force the player to play a certain way that did not allow for much improvisation or clever thinking besides using combat skills to kill the other things as quickly as possible. So as you can see restrictions in these types of immersive Sims are just contradictory to what they are trying to accomplish.

Deus ex on the other hand is the game in my opinion that is close to perfect.The map design is non linear and makes sense, there are actually useful skills besides combat skills, and the restrictions in the game and even in the hardcore mode of gmdx do not force the player to play a certain way and allows them to do what they want for the most part thus not being contradictory to the game.

So restrictions can be in these games but it has to be done in a way that doesn’t force the player to play a certain way. Why even create this kind of immersive sim in the first place? You might as well just create the thief kind of immersive sim where you give a specific role to a player, an action game or a hack and slash RPG.

Until there is an immersive sim that allows even more ways to play and more interactive and physics based environments and destructible environments and more storytelling choices and a more persistence world over all then I would consider it breaking new ground. preys mooncrash doesn’t seem like much.


The worldbuilding, exploration and sidequests in Prey is great, but not so much on the gameplay and the main story. My biggest gripe was how every enemy that wasn’t a base mimic or cystoid was a bullet sponge even on normal difficulty. I find it a chore as a fan of Dark Souls.


Welcome, Palladium! Please excuse me if my response to your first post here is to express a different viewpoint. :wink:

What if the design vision for Prey 2017 wasn’t to make another Dark Souls?

The more I think about it, the less I mind the lack of variation in Prey’s enemies. I certainly wouldn’t have minded more variation in forms and abilities. But for the kind of game that I’m suspecting Prey was intended to be, it’s actually not a defect that enemies are pretty simple.

What if the main kind of fun Prey is supposed to deliver isn’t mechanical challenge after all, but (as I’ve suggested in my posts above) the fun of exploring a broken world to discover how it got that way?

That’s basically System Shock. And System Shock 2. And Prey 2017. The enemies in these games aren’t much of a challenge, if you’re careful in movement and efficient in weapon use. But that’s OK if the shooting is not the point; if it’s just there add a bit of spice to the real fun of hoovering up the remains of this busted place and using them to defeat SHODAN (in SS/SS2, anyway). These aren’t Dark Souls kinds of games. But I believe they’re not meant to be.

I unreservedly endorse making Dark Souls-type games for those who enjoy that kind of fun.

I think it’s also entirely OK to make games that emphasize more exploratory fun for the gamers who enjoy that sort of thing. And I think Prey 2017, emulating System Shock, is meant to be this latter kind of game.

I could wish that the world of Prey were more dynamic and detailed. But even as it was, it’s fine that enemies weren’t very interesting, because the world itself was interesting. There’s nothing wrong with that, IMO.


The lack of variety in enemies didn’t bother me that much, more the lack of scaling in difficulty of fights… except for the legion of level 4 operators that take over every section right near the end. You are such a demi-god by that point that even then it doesn’t matter that much.

I thought the game overall was ridiculously good overall. The world of Talos I was probably my favourite one to have explored in a game, including the original Deus Ex. Just the way it fit together was brilliant, and the outdoor sections set it off perfectly.

Bad endings don’t bother me (thought both Shock 2 and Deus Ex had awful endings and they’re two of my favourite games ever). I don’t really hold that against Prey.