2 ms·

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

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.