View Full Version : OXM's Project Ego article... what were they thinking???

Master Gracey
04-24-2002, 09:47 PM
It seems that our friends at OXM are becoming rather hypocritical in their old age! In the same magazine (June 2002) they can't seem to stop mentioning the fact that games need to have new content and shouldn't be short. Then, when you think you understand their point, along comes the Project Ego article.

At the end of the article, they have this little blurb called "Game Potential" where they give you a rundown on all these different points. Project Ego has 2 points in the "Needs Work" category:

Too ambitious?
Dauntingly open-ended gameplay

First off, how can a game be too ambitious? The more the merrier, I say! Ambition spawns creativity, the one thing that this issue says Xbox games need. Yet they say the game may be too ambitious... for whatever that means.

And second, it seems the article's author doesn't know much about RPGs... who likes a short, linear RPG? Those of us easily distracted citizens NEED open-endedness to break the monotony of playing out a long storyline. It seems people would rather see the end of the game than savor it's intricacies. I, for one, like to mess around and see how clever the programmers were... something that's not possible with a linear game.

04-24-2002, 10:59 PM
I agree, the more features in a game, the better it will be, the more replay value it will have.

Take GTA3 for example. You can roam free, steal cars at will, get the cops after you, shoot people, pick up hookers, beat people up, collect cars at the garages, run the taxi/firetruck/police/etc. mini-missions to earn more stuff...Grand Theft Auto 3 is oozing with replay value, so it has to be a great game...and it is. I just cant wait until it comes out on Xbox.

But im waiting for Project Ego more...

04-24-2002, 11:01 PM
I think a game can be too ambitious. Jurassic Park: Trespasser is a prime example. The makers tried to do so much that they bombed on the parts that were essential to making the game work well. IMO, a well polished game with limits is better than an open ended game that has problems because the makers didn't focus enough on the essential parts of the game due to wanting to try so many things.

04-24-2002, 11:04 PM
The only reason I would ever say too ambitious is if the devs bit off more than they could possibly chew and were having a hard time getting a bug free game because of the shear scope of it. But I am totally with you on open ended rpg's linear ones just don't really make you feel like you are in the game and in total control of your destiny.

Man this is making me want to play Morrowind more!


04-25-2002, 04:59 PM
i agree w/ goku...i think they were trying to convey that a negative point could possibily be...that their trying to bite of more then they can chew and will end up ruining the whole experience......this moleynex (didn't bother to look for correct sp)..better bew careful....hes making some pretty big claims...his mouth might be writing some checks this game can't cash

but all and all i'm very optimisitic

04-25-2002, 05:03 PM
i cant wait until BC comes out, peter molyneux said that its gonna be like the bloodiest, goriest, and most brutal game ever made:D :D

04-25-2002, 05:05 PM
Perhaps...but I could care less how ambitious a game is if it's a good game. If it sucks...then its a bad game. Take RAW for example. They had alot planned, and focused on some parts way more than others...the fact that you can be hit with a ground move while standing, hit if your are anywhere near the guy who is swinging, reversing grapples is horrible, etc...they should have said "Hey, that sucks." instead of saying "Lets attack opponents on the way to the ring". Which is a good idea, but theres not much to it really. It just saves you the time from going from the ring to the ramp...wow. I think No Mercy is the best wrestling game ever made. Xbox needs a wrestling game just like it.