System Shock 2?
Elaborating on the last point, games of the genre almost always had bad controls, a horrible camera or more often than not, both of those.
I don't think that there's many first person games that can fall under genre, Penumbra is probably one of the few.
System Shock 2?
Apparently there's some new footage up over at IGN.
Looks like an expanded version of the footage they've been showing for the last month or two.
Pretty cool to hear Mr Shalebridge Cradle (Jordan Thomas) do the play by play
But I have to admit - I don't think I will like playing as a Big Daddy much - as it was my least favorite part of Bioshock.
Looks really quite dull. I also find minimal appeal in playing as a big daddy. You killed too many of the brain-dead lumbering oafs in 1.0 to really feel all that sunny about BEING ONE.
I didn't think the core shooter gameplay was quite good enough for the arena type battles either, there was something about the guns (IMO) and many of the plasmids that just wasn't that satisfying.
I'll still probably buy it though, depending on reviews.
Do you have to have an account there to download that? I keep getting a Forbidden error.
And that's the problem with BioShock 2, it looks so far more like an expansion pack than a new game.
EDIT: Looks like I'm not alone, either
However, I still disagree with your statement, and this is why:
Check the definition.
Until quite recently most videogames did not really have "stories" at all! Pac-Man, Doom, Quake, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. did not have stories so compelling they needed to be extended in any way whatsoever. People wanted more of the game, and so developers expanded upon the gameplay of the originals in their sequels.
Stories in games have always been afterthoughts, backdrops to justify the actual game mechanics. The story is never the "primary reason" for anything the developer or the player wants.
Last edited by Silkworm; 27th May 2009 at 17:09.
The Silver Lining. This collaborative effort was made in order to bring a more fitting close to the King's Quest series than King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity did. In other words, they wanted to give a fitting end to the story. Sounds like the story is pretty darn important to me. Saying that the players never want another game simply to continue the story is absurd. I would have been perfectly happy with The Silver Lining if it had been made in VGA with the traditional Sierra-style point-and-click interface. It's most certainly not a steo forward technologically, but it's bringing a fitting close to a wonderful story spanning 20 years.
Look, I'm not saying that improving gameplay isn't important. I'm also not denying that some games were made simply to improve gameplay. But I am saying that your idea that gameplay improvement is always the most important motivation behind a sequel is simply not correct. There are plenty of references that prove otherwise.
That can't be true. Paganitzu 2-4 played exactly the same as Paganitzu 1. There were different enemies and objects, sure, but the actual gameplay and graphics were the same. King's Quest II was also exactly like King's Quest I. Different setting and a continuation of the original story, but the graphics and gameplay were exactly the same.
Well, I never played Paganitzu, so I can say nithing about it. But I'm absolutely confident that we got all these seqels not just because of the story.
Especially with adventure games, there usually isn't much change in the game mechanisms between a game and its sequel. Then again, the adventure genre is pretty fossilised.