So basically the Dead Space franchise is now as dead as its original developer since it's built around linear gameplay.
Well, at least I can start ignoring any game with "Dead Space" in the name the same way I'm ignoring games with "Sacred" in the title after Sacred Citadel 2, er I meant Sacred 3 of course >_> , launched.
How do we flag articles for being off-topic? I mean the site's name is *Game*Spot, and this seems to have jack all to do with *games* making it off-topic...
@brightamethyst: While you might not be able to completely recapture the original spirit, you can get a lot further than you'd think possible with players who are open-minded enough. Players who can go in, accept the game as it is, and avoid comparing it with anything and everything they've ever played will have a much better chance of (re)capturing the original spirit and joy of playing.
At the risk of using an offensive, dirty word, the players who are best able to immerse themselves in the game are the players most likely to (re)experience the feelings and emotions that people did when the game was new. Players for whom immersion isn't plausible are going to be in for a rough ride though.
Personally, I'm wondering what sort of client is going to be used. A game's client can have as much an effect on players' perception of and reaction to a game as the gameplay and content themselves can. In this case using the first generation client will lead to a more "authentic" experience, but at the same time it's going to have various issues such as performance on/with modern hardware and APIs. On the other hand using a modern client would avoid many of the age-related issues but could leave to a cognitive disconnect of sorts for old-time players.
On the gripping hand, a modern client with an "old school" UI would probably be the best choice, but even there there will need to be changes made so that the "old school" UI can properly interface with a modern engine.
Another point to ponder is whether or not they should use the original or modern art assets. If they use a modern client engine then it would almost beg that they use the modern assets as well, at least where applicable, in order to make best use of the client's capabilities. At the same time this will negate some of the "authenticity" of the project even if all the core game mechanics make a comeback verbatim.
Hell, Blizzard's put out store-bought mounts and pets since the game launched. How will those be integrated into the "classic" environment? From what I've heard it could be a real pain in the ass to acquire "epic" mounts in Vanilla World of Warcraft which means that store-bought mounts will provide a significant advantage for early players.
Personally speaking, as much as I wouldn't mind playing through a "real, authentic Vanilla" experience, I feel that I would be much more inclined to stay if some of the more egregiously outdated aspects were updated. This doesn't mean that I feel that the dungeon/raid finder mechanics should be incorporated, as I don't, or that Hunters should be able to hot-swap pets as easily as they can in the current game. At the same time, however, having the expanded pet storage for Hunters that modern games have would be a useful addition, and increasing the durations of buffs, while *not* expanding on their scope/power, so that some of the old "buff bot" nightmare can be dissipated would be of great benefit to raiders.
After what Blizzard did with full control over a Diablo game I'm rather glad that "Diablo 4" wasn't announced. I like their Diablo game in and of itself and for the gameplay, but it would have been much better off as the lead game in an entirely new IP as it's not a very good "Diablo game." Hell, had it had a different name like "War for Sanctuary: A Diablo Adventure" people would have been expecting something Diablo-related while not necessarily expecting a True Successor To The One And Only ARPG as they did with a game titled "Diablo 3." A different enough name would have given all but the densest gamers a clue that there were going to be some significant changes to "the Diablo formula."
If, however, they make the mistake of releasing a "Diablo 4," and it's almost certainly going to be a mistake given that what they've done with the current game even since the expansion released shows that they still haven't learned enough about what Blizzard North did right to make a good "Diablo game," I do sincerely hope they completely divorce risk and reward as Runic did with Torchlight 2. The current system makes for a ton of build diversity as it pertains to end-game content, but with it still only being a half-measure all too many players crank the numbers up, forget that numbers aren't content and that they're not required to play at T13 or grind out GR200, and after painting themselves into a corner start complaining about "lack of end-game build diversity."
Would've been nice to see all six methods actually described in a written article instead of an imbedded video that I can't watch because none of the five sites I have scripting enabled for let the video show up as more than a black box. Would've been almost as nice if the article's author had included which sites need scripting enabled for in order to watch said video.
As it is, I guess I'll never know what whoever did the video says since I don't care to screw around with trying to figure out which one or combination of the two dozen or more sites this site has cross-site scripting from are the ones that enable the video.
Marikhen's comments