2 ms·

I remember so many of the games of that time made the exact same mistake: they would focus so heavily on a piece of technology that often just wasn't-quite-ther

I remember so many of the games of that time made the exact same mistake: they would focus so heavily on a piece of technology that often just wasn't-quite-there-yet, and yet since that was the game's "thing" (especially since games were hyped so early in magazines), they could never really let it go. With Tresspasser, if they had gone with the initial vision of it being a survival-horror dinosaur game, but they had designed it more like a contemporary like say Half-Life, it's an idea that totally could have worked. Remember how scripted Half-Life was, especially some of those early levels that were almost like standing in a movie? (A new experience back then). I could totally imagine a dinosaur game working with that kind of model and tech. You can imagine showing a JP-style scene where the dinosaurs do something very clever in a controlled environment, and maybe having player's project more into the AI based on that; which would have been a much better investment than a state machine they ended up just having to mostly disable. (I remember people were very complementary of Half Life's AI, but I think it really boiled down to clever level design more than anything). The problem was that while the physics were really interesting, there just wasn't enough there to actually build a game on, and a lot of things that were interesting were awful gameplay wise (the weird floppy arm for instance). I do have a lot of nostalgia for it though. I remember playing it when I was 13 or 14 on something like a K6-2 300mhz, and as disappointing as it was it was also really interesting.

nmfisher 7y ago
I've never actually heard of this game until now, even though it was released during my "prime" teenage gaming years. Reading the retrospective, though, I get the distinct impression that "gameplay" was left as an afterthought. The person being interviewed practically says as much at one point. A lot of developers make the same cardinal mistake - assuming that some technical point of differentiation is enough to succeed. The game, first and foremost, has to be enjoyable. It doesn't matter how realistic your physics engine is, how many sound blends your Foley system can create, or even how good your artwork is. There has to be some core, accessible gameplay mechanic that drives the whole game. It's not something you can just throw into the "we'll figure that out later" basket.
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  There is gameplay actually, but it is more of an adventure game where you are trying to solve environmental puzzles than an action shooter. Action shooters were incredibly popular at the time and anything remotely first person with realtime 3D graphics had the expectation to be one, so that also played a role (remember that even System Shock released earlier was often criticized for essentially not being a Doom clone). These days there are more games that have similar gameplay where you are trying to solve puzzles with physics and i'm certain a remake of Trespasser that was mostly the same but with more robust subsystems would play great. The main issue was really that the subsystems that the gameplay relied on were very janky - physics kinda worked (though they worked much better than what the article seems to imply), player control was wonky, IK/animations often spazzed out, etc.

nmfisher 7y ago

I've never actually heard of this game until now, even though it was released during my "prime" teenage gaming years. Reading the retrospective, though, I get the distinct impression that "gameplay" was left as an afterthought. The person being interviewed practically says as much at one point. A lot of developers make the same cardinal mistake - assuming that some technical point of differentiation is enough to succeed. The game, first and foremost, has to be enjoyable. It doesn't matter how realistic your physics engine is, how many sound blends your Foley system can create, or even how good your artwork is. There has to be some core, accessible gameplay mechanic that drives the whole game. It's not something you can just throw into the "we'll figure that out later" basket.

badsectoracula 7y ago
There is gameplay actually, but it is more of an adventure game where you are trying to solve environmental puzzles than an action shooter. Action shooters were incredibly popular at the time and anything remotely first person with realtime 3D graphics had the expectation to be one, so that also played a role (remember that even System Shock released earlier was often criticized for essentially not being a Doom clone). These days there are more games that have similar gameplay where you are trying to solve puzzles with physics and i'm certain a remake of Trespasser that was mostly the same but with more robust subsystems would play great. The main issue was really that the subsystems that the gameplay relied on were very janky - physics kinda worked (though they worked much better than what the article seems to imply), player control was wonky, IK/animations often spazzed out, etc.