SAQ - Skeptically Asked Questions


#1

There are alot of skeptical people out there nowadays… you simply don’t know which devs you can trust and which you can’t trust. Gaming has changed so much over the years that alot of us feel “let down” by the devs/publishers that they once trusted. Hence why I think this type of thread is a good idea.

I saw some negativity/skeptical responses on social media the other day and I thought that it might be a good idea to get things out in the open about SS3. Hopefully a dev might be able to answer them or put up some sort of sticky up in the future so that others can see the general direction OtherSide is openly taking while also being on display permanently for all to see. Altho the thread is mostly negative in construct I still think it’s better to get things out in the open and to turn it into a positive… rather than let any sort of negativity fester.

So here are a small bunch of skeptical questions for the developers that I personal think are swimming around in most people’s minds.

  1. Is SS3 being made for console?

    • If yes, will the game have simplified GUI and restricted/specific gameplay changes to accommodate for it?
    • If no, will you abstract the gui/control setup based upon controller selection or platform/editions? or will this be merged into one designed setup?
      (I realise this is probably too early. But OtherSide can still use this as a good feedback question.)
  2. Will it be “dumbed-down”/aimed for mass market appeal? As in produced less so in keeping with the tradition of the previous games and more inline with mass market monetary gains? Example: Quake Champions/Doom Multi-player.
    (not my question; I think you’ll never do this myself due to the crowd funded nature but some might think this.)

  3. Will there be any DLC for SS3? If so, will it be available after release or at release?
    (probably too early, but still.)

  4. Will you allow/support the modding of SS3?

If anyone has any major skeptical type questions they can think of, add it here. I also realise that some questions might not be up for answering just yet but it’s mainly to give the devs some feedback as to what sort of questions are swimming around in peoples minds and perhaps answer/put them at ease sooner rather than later and in some sort of an offical capacity if that makes sense?


#2

They’ve already talked about the possibility of a console version, and from the comments by devs, I can guarantee they are not dumbing it down.

My main questions would revolve around storyline, so I’m going to save them for a future interview.

From what I’ve gathered on these forums, Otherside has a lot of prior members from Looking Glass Studios, and they are looking to expand on the simulation-based gameplay LGS pioneered.

I should probably let a dev answer the rest of the questions.


#3

It’s weird to think about “dumbing down” System Shock. I know a lot of people think Bioshock is dumbed down compared to SS2 because it has no skills or classes, but SS1 never had those in the first place. So if SS3 doesn’t have them, would people take that as the series being dumbed down or a return to its roots?


#4

Bioshock wasn’t dumb because it lacked RPG elements. It was dumb because it was dumb. Dumb by design.

There isn’t a single Immersive Sim since Arx Fatalis that’s on that old Looking Glass standard level of design intelligence.


#5

Yeah, Bioshock felt closer to a run and gun arcade shooter than what we had with games by LGS. Bioshock has more linear map design, no inventory system, just grab all the loot that comes your way and eat every snack, maybe smoke a cigarette by mistake, but, on top of all that, it still had some cool skill based tricks and a great combat system altogether. Bioshock’s a pretty shallow experience for someone wanting something like System Shock, they may look alike, but the feeling you get of freedom while playing System Shock is incomparable to Bioshock.


#6

I also prefer the aesthetic, and villain, of System Shock.


#7

I’m replaying Bioshock right now and while I’m enjoying it for what it is, it’s so frustrating to see what it could have been with just a few changes. If they’d shipped it with mod support, I’m sure we’d have some amazing fan patches right now that would add back all the missing 'Shock features.


#8

If by aesthetic you mean cyberpunk, count me in! Not that I don’t like the Victorian style from Bioshock, but it doesn’t come even close to System Shock. And SHODAN’s too iconic to be surpassed. I would say Levine did a great job at Bioshock’s villain, if you take all the ideas he put in there, it’s a better villain than SHODAN, with all the philosophical speech and such, but he lacks her charisma. With the new game they may even give her some more character richness, with the Deus Ex’s writter on the team I really want to see what she’ll become.

Exactly, it’s sad to see that the game was so simple while being labeled as a spiritual successor to System Shock. Had they maintained the design philophies they would have had a much better game. But may haven’t sold as much as it did.


#9

By mere chance I started replaying SS1 after buying the Enhanced version on GOG.com.

Boy it’s still an enthralling experience! yeah- it aged, in some way pretty badly too- but I love it.
Only thing I’d add would be a little “Immediate Objective list”.
With all the log sorted only by Level It’s easy to forget what you’d to do.

But boy the sound design was something else! :smiley:


#10

It’s bad as a simplistic arcade shooter too. I’d rather play Doom, Nukem 3D, Blood, or even a large handful of console shooters over it.

I don’t intend to play it again. I don’t think it is notably good in anything except art direction. I get more enjoyment out of bashing it than playing it, but I’d rather we all just forget it even exists.
Spector thinks Lollipop Chainsaw should not exist? At least that game is not pretending to be something that it is not.


#11

80s style cyberpunk. But I concur.


#12

I enjoyed Bioshock a lot. I don’t understand, if you don’t like it because it’s dumbed down why then you also enjoy 90’s shooters which are dumber in comparison.


#13

They’re not dumber. Simpler, yes, dumber, no. Those 90s shooters were average Joes just being what they wanted to be, and featured good synergistic game design. Bioshock is a smarty pants knocked on the head and suffering severe brain damage, and could no longer produce anything truly coherent. Just sits there looking pretty.


#14

Im just a little skeptical and worried about what plans Warren might be cooking up. If you follow his twitter you notice he tends to hang around people who think Gone Home is a game. Im a bit worried that he might try something “completely different” from the previous two games and instead of making an rpg-shooter hybrid hell make a “high-brow” walking simulator unless his team brings him back down to earth. And since his picking his own seperate team for the project im a little worried that even if warren is actually making a game that his team won’t question some of his decisions because of his demigod game designer status and it could be a similar situation to Lucas and the prequal films.


#15

I’m right there with you, ArtemisWyrm. There are plenty Spector quotes from recent years that should have us all concerned. He’s still the same legend, yet he has certainly changed his mindset and preferences some.


#16

How is Gone Home not a game?


#17

There’s one right here!

In all seriousness I meant it as a hyperbolic way of saying it is not very compelling as a game.


#18

There was an interview with Spector where he said the likes of Telltale, David Gage stories and such do not qualify as games. I can’t be bothered to back that up by digging for it though.
Gone Home is only the next step up from that, but it probably qualifies in that it features all the core components of what defines a game. Just about.


#19

Lets not forget issue B) If the team around warren will speak up to give constructive criticism and not be afraid to question the superstar director. Imagine how different invisible war could have been if someone pointed out how bad an idea universal ammo is.


#20

I’m betting there was a lot of internal conflict behind Invisible War. Devs are gamers too, and most don’t like dumbing down or artistic disingenuity. Ultimately though those higher up the hierarchy have the final word.

You can bet if I were on the team I would have kicked up a fuss…to the extent I could get away with without getting kicked out the door. :slight_smile: