PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Malice Through The Looking Glass
May 28th 2000, 16:51 CEST by andy

Last week's closure of Looking Glass Studios was a terrible loss for gamers, but there could be more bad news ahead...



Part of the clean-up operation for any dead company is for salvage teams to sell-off anything and everything that can help to pay debts. That could be desks and chairs, computers or even the company's premises, but in the case of Looking Glass the sale will extend to intellectual properties and trademarks.

This means that another company, or an individual, could buy the rights to LGS brand names, probably at a price way below what they are actually worth.

In an interview on GameSpy, ex-Looking Glass employee Tim Stellmach acknowledged that this sell-off is an unfortunate necessity:

The trademarks that belonged to Looking Glass, such as Thief and Flight Unlimited, are part of the company assets that will have to be liquidated for the benefit of the creditors. Who picks them up, if anybody, remains to be seen.

In a recent thread here at the 'Crap, someone suggested that when Looking Glass was at death's door it could have licensed a popular property such as Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and quickly churned out a best-selling game to finance their other projects.

Ironically, the situation now exists where another company can snap up some of the Looking Glass properties at a bargain price and churn out sequels that are likely to sell reasonably well, regardless of quality. After all, when you buy the Thief property you also buy the Thief reputation.

Suppose a less-than-reputable company with some experience of FPS development did this. It could even go so far as to keep its own logo off the box, slap on a Looking Glass logo with some microscopic text saying "the sequel to the original games by", and some people aren't going to realise that they're being tricked until it's too late.

The question is, will it happen? The other question is, who will do it?

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Malice Through The Looking Glass

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-05-28 17:02:30
sgt_hulka@yahoo.com http://www.hulka.com
I am not going to do it, I can't................... Okay, I can.. FIRST POST!!! Bwahahahaha!  I'm a total geek, I admit it...
#2 by "Karl Palutke"
2000-05-28 17:03:57
palutkek@asme.org
Will it happen?  Probably.

Who will do it?  GT or Eidos.

Wanna hear my conspiracy theory?  Eidos didn't have any interest in bailing out Looking Glass, because they knew they'd be able to snap up LG's properties cheap once they folded.

I can imagine GT cranking out 'Thief Hunter' where you sneak up on deer and whack them in the head with a blackjack to kill them.
#3 by "BarneyQue"
2000-05-28 17:37:09
BarneyQue@hotmail.com http://N/A
Hmmm, well from what I read on gamespy, Eidos already has put some cash into them, and they just happen to own a team of guys who are between projects.  I understand this team could really use a nice little hit of cash, and some work.

Yep.  Johnnyboy "The Hair" Romero is the one.  He helped destroy it, now he has a chance to build it up again.  :)





AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...


<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#4 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-28 17:43:12
fourth!


if someone buys the title (I doubt it will happen, as it seems to be fairly uncommon)  they would probably hire at least a couple of the key people who were working on it.
 

But, If they put Romero on the project, I'm sure you would see hordes of angry game fans outside the fancy skyscraper with pitchforks and torches,


________________________________
<b>dumb·ass</b> <i>(Düm-èSS)</i> n. - Anyone who doesn't agree with me.
 
<a href="http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/Bad_CRC.gif"></a><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#5 by "Andy"
2000-05-28 18:05:04
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#4</b>, Bad_CRC:
<QUOTE>
if someone buys the title (I doubt it will happen, as it seems to be fairly uncommon)
</QUOTE>
Surely it's uncommon because it's rare for a games company with such a strong brand name to go out of business?

Generally when development houses close it's because they didn't have anything that people wanted to buy. Thief is a fairly attractive property, so we don't really have any previous examples to work with here.
#6 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-05-28 18:34:21
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
<quote>Surely it's uncommon because it's rare for a games company with such a strong brand name to go out of business? </quote>
Hasbro bought the Atari brand for a rumored $500K, which gave them the IP rights to Frogger/Missile Command/etc. They didn't get any actual games, just the names. They sorta cleaned up...

But Thief isn't a mass-market brand like Atari, so I seriously doubt someone would swoop in and buy it. The exception would be, as Bad_CRC noted, former employees, or Eidos buying it to give to former employees who wanted to work on a new game.
#7 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-28 18:48:55
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
<b>#2</b> "Karl Palutke" wrote...
<QUOTE>Who will do it? GT or Eidos. </QUOTE>

Well...it won't be GT, since they no longer exist...my guess is Eidos will buy the Thief property (I was definitely surprised they didn't own it already). As for Flight Unlimited...who knows? I don't even remember who published FU3.

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#8 by "Jeremy"
2000-05-28 18:55:42
jnthornh@eos.ncsu.edu
<b>#4</b> "Bad_CRC" wrote...
<QUOTE>But, If they put Romero on the project, I'm sure you would see hordes of angry game fans outside the fancy skyscraper with pitchforks and torches, </QUOTE>
One would think Eidos is already used to that by now...

If one of those companies does try to turn a profit on LGS titles without using LGS people, then it isn't a big deal to me; I simply won't buy the game.  Granted, using the names like that would be a low, lame, greedy thing to do... but hey, this is capitalism after all.

Honestly, though, I don't think these labels were big enough hits for a company to use them that way, so I rather doubt we'll see a Thief 3 at all.

Jeremy<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#9 by "erik"
2000-05-28 19:07:45
erik@oldmanmurray.com http://www.oldmanmurray.com
"This means that another company, or an individual, could buy the rights to LGS brand names"

Like when Irrational licensed the System Shock rights from EA and the Thief codebase from LGS to make System Shock 2?
#10 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-28 19:21:31
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
<b>#9</b> "erik" wrote...
<QUOTE>Like when Irrational licensed the System Shock rights from EA and the Thief codebase from LGS to make System Shock 2? </QUOTE>

Well, that's not entirely true. First of all, Irrational is made up mostly of ex-Looking Glass people. Second of all, EA contracted Looking Glass to do SS2, which they then brought in Irrational to work on. Also, apparently SS2 was published entirely by Looking Glass, and distributed through EA.

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Jeremy"
2000-05-28 19:35:31
jnthornh@eos.ncsu.edu
<b>#9</b> "erik" wrote...
<QUOTE>Like when Irrational licensed the System Shock rights from EA and the Thief codebase from LGS to make System Shock 2? </QUOTE>
I'm still a bit blurry on the relationship between LGS and Irrational in SS2...

I got the game a few days ago because of all the good things I heard here (and it's VERY good so far as I've gotten).  On the box is the LGS emblem, and when the game starts it says "a production of Looking Glass Studios and Irrational Games."  If you take time to look at the credits, you'll notice that there are more people from LGS than Irrational (I think).

On a side note... what is Irrational doing now?  Are they in any position to pick up LGS people... maybe even reform the company as it was before?  It's obvious that the two had a good relationship at the time of SS2...

Just a thought...

Jeremy<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#12 by "Mike"
2000-05-28 19:41:47
mike@pcgn.com http://pcgn.com
GT no longer exsists? What happened? How am I so in the dark? =)
#13 by "Mike"
2000-05-28 19:43:19
mike@pcgn.com http://pcgn.com
I kan allmost spell. Anyways, about the aquisition of the names; it wouldn't surprise me. It seems with every game that hits the shelves that's of great quality, ten other half-baked jobs with nothing more than a title and a pretty box clutter the area surrounding the game.
#14 by "Andy"
2000-05-28 19:45:54
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#12</b>, Mike:
<QUOTE>
GT no longer exsists? What happened? How am I so in the dark? =)
</QUOTE>
The scary Infogrames monster gobbled it up. <a href="http://www.gtinteractive.com/ch5/press/infogrames.html">Click!</a>
#15 by "Mike"
2000-05-28 20:05:59
mike@pcgn.com http://pcgn.com
Wonderful, more competition bites the dust. Where's Reno when you need her? How long until these games start costing $60US and up?
#16 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-28 20:12:36
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
<b>#11</b> "Jeremy" wrote...
<QUOTE>On a side note... what is Irrational doing now? Are they in any position to pick up LGS people... maybe even reform the company as it was before? It's obvious that the two had a good relationship at the time of SS2... </QUOTE>

Irrational licensed the LithTech engine to create "The Lost" for the Playstation 2 platform.

Press release: <a href="http://www.irrational-games.com/webpage/newsnavb.html">http://www.irrational-games.com/webpage/newsnavb.html</a>

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#17 by "Naked Exposition"
2000-05-28 22:41:29
samuelbass3000@hotmail.com
From what I read, Irrational pulled out of a game-dev deal with LGS and Microsoft, which was one of the reasons LGS went kaput. As such, I would imagine there is little love lost between the two houses right now...
#18 by "Doormat"
2000-05-28 22:55:27
doormat@somethingawful.com
I can't believe LGS are gone.. They were pure class! Lowtax put forward an interesting theory on SA - Eidos bailed out Daikatana for so long they could not finance LGS.... thus thanks to that bastard Romero, a quality games producing company goes under, whilst a bunch of monkeys (and that's being nice about it) with cynical grins on their faces release a game with frogs in.. AND in the same week the Pumpkins split!!! And my exams are in 2 weeks... what a great week!!!!!!!! aaaargh
#19 by "erik"
2000-05-29 00:46:24
erik@oldmanmurray.com http://www.oldmanmurray.com
"I'm still a bit blurry on the relationship 'between LGS and Irrational in SS2..."

In the <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19991207/chey_01.htm">gamasutra postmortem</a> Irrational's Johnathan Chey describes the relationship:

<quote>System Shock 2 was truly a cooperative development between Irrational and Looking Glass. Looking Glass provided the engine and a lot of infrastructure support (such as quality assurance), while Irrational handled the design, project leadership, and the responsibility for marshaling resources into the final product.</quote>

To me, this says that lgs handled the technology while Irrational handled the "creative" design end.  SS2 did not earn its reputation as a great game on the strength of its technology.  If anything, the general concensus among smarty pants gamers seems to be that the technology is specifically what kept it from reaching the wide audience of stupid people interested in flash over substance.

Here's another point brought up in the gamasutra article under "What went wrong":

<quote>Motivated by the dramatic scripted sequences in Half-Life, we attempted to introduce similar elements into System Shock 2. In doing so, we broke one of our rules: we tried to step outside the bounds of our technology.</quote>

According to some of the Half-Life detractors in the original LGS thread (such as Happy Cow and others), one of the strong points of SS2 was the lack of scripted sequences.  It's interesting to note that their absence was not a premeditated design choice, but a necessary reaction to the limitations of LGS's borrowed technology.

Erik
#20 by "flamethrower"
2000-05-29 01:14:25
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
<b>#19</b> "erik" wrote...
<QUOTE>According to some of the Half-Life detractors in the original LGS thread (such as Happy Cow and others), one of the strong points of SS2 was the lack of scripted sequences. It's interesting to note that their absence was not a premeditated design choice, but a necessary reaction to the limitations of LGS's borrowed technology. </QUOTE>

A classic game is one part art, one part science, and one part luck. Because the small and poor id Software coulnd't afford an Aliens licence they used Hellspawn instead and made Doom.

SS2 needed no scripted sequences, and I'm glad it got none, but I have an idea if ANYONE could have done them well, Irrational could have.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#21 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-29 04:20:39
Darkseid-d@planetcrap.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
No scripted sequences ?


Uhmm .. thats kind of wrong

what would you call the woman running past the blast window only to get shot down ..

or the 'Ghost' backing off then pulling a gun, putting it to his head and firing

or the whole *trys not to spoil*  'get to the science officer' bit

or the flyby of the many

or the shodan sequences


youre telling me that SS2 has no cutscenes

Im telling you it does :)


Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "BarneyQue"
2000-05-29 04:27:55
BarneyQue@hotmail.com http://N/A
<b>#21</b> "Darkseid-[D!]" wrote...
<QUOTE>No scripted sequences ?


Uhmm .. thats kind of wrong

what would you call the woman running past the blast window only to get shot down ..

or the 'Ghost' backing off then pulling a gun, putting it to his head and firing

or the whole *trys not to spoil* 'get to the science officer' bit

or the flyby of the many

or the shodan sequences


youre telling me that SS2 has no cutscenes

Im telling you it does :)


Ds</QUOTE>


Must...play...SS2...now

Getting to the science officer was how should we say it: interesting, yes that's it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#23 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-29 04:35:25
Darkseid-d@planetcrap.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
/me takes Spore cannon and beats himself over head


Argh ...

Scripted sequences ABOUND in system shock 2

I _urge_ you to go play System Shock 2 (go buy it) you WONT regret it ... heck getting to Science officer Politico has some nice twists

if you enjoy adventure games, role playing games, horror movies (trust me on this), being systematically creeped out, then scared out of your skin, then cackling with glee as you crack a puzzle .. SS2 is the game to try

if you liked Half LIfes 'world'  youll like System Shock 2


oh hell, just go and play it !

then it may become clear why so many people are mourning TTLG...

heres hoping EA commissions Irrational games (the design/content) to make part 3 .... (as TTLG were implementation/engine)


Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#24 by "Happy cow"
2000-05-29 06:41:53
happycow30@hotmail.com http://happycow.home.icq.com
When I read System shock 2 had no scripted sequences I was kind of upset. I'm glad someone pointed out it did. What this probably shows is the game is not about scripting. But about game play and atmosphere. In half life, take away the Scripted scenes all you really have is a scientist doing the space marine stuff.

I have never said the Half life was a bad game. But I do think it's over rated. It may well be the best FPS ever. But since I can't see anything in that genre as art (just my opinion mind you) I'm no really impressed with Half life.

As to Looking glass only dealing with the technology , well the Med sic and engineering decks were designed by a LGS employee. If you look at the credits you notice a good number of LGS'ers elbow deep in the creation of this game.

Happy Cow<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#25 by "sprayNwipe"
2000-05-29 09:01:48
spraynwipe@optushome.com.au http://about:this_is_not_the_webpage_you_are_looki
From the FatBabies messageboard
---------------------
---------------------
RE:LGS no more
Rob
05/27/00 11:29:37 AM
 
Good sales require good marketing, good production quality, good accessibility (ie, easy to learn) and either a good license OR good gameplay. Pretty much everything that is ripping up the charts does a good job of meeting that formula. Note that only one, and an optional one at that, is gameplay. Still, for most of the developers in the biz, that's the one (maybe along with production quality) that we care about the most.

I was the lead programmer on Shock 2, and was a contributing programmer on Shock, Thief, Flight Unlimited, Terra Nova, and BOCG (to differing degrees), so I pretty much know LG well, even though I haven't literally been there for a few years (first at Irrational Games, and now with Ensemble Studios). LG really was a magical place in a lot of ways -- brilliant people trying to do some really revolutionary stuff. I think we nailed the gameplay and production quality elements down pat. It wasn't really until Thief that we started to understand the importance of accessiblity. In our most dramatic cases, Terra Nova and BOCG, a complete 100% lack of marketing assassinated the game -- both of those games sold no more than a 2-3 THOUSAND units, TOTAL. Hard to recover form that, really, yet somehow LG kept doing it -- and the other games (Underworld 1-2, Shock 1, and Flight Unlimited, most notably) actually turned a fair profit for the company. I definitely agree with some of the earlier posts that mismanagement made a serious contribution to the decline, though it can hardly be solely blamed.

Thief 2 was actually selling pretty well, from what I undersand, but the problem is (as it always is, seemingly) CASH FLOW. LG was well on the way to being bought out by (or in some sort of major deal with) Eidos, and had assumed a lot of debt to stay alive until then. When it was clear that wasn't going to happen, and there wasn't resources to stay alive until another deal could come through, well, you know the rest.

Many of the core people that built up LG to where it was over various eras like Dan Schmidt, Doug Church, Art Min, Austin Grossman, Jon Chey, and Ken Levine (and I'll egotistically include myself on that list) had already left the company before this happened, and are making excellent contributions elsewhere in the industry. Some of the other really great people that are still there are definitely planning on staying in the biz, though whether they'll form a new company or just go to other developers it's hard to say. Those people will continue to make great contributions to our industry, I'm sure -- I hope they can all find environments capable of exploiting their talents.

-- Rob 'Xemu' Fermier
(ex-LG and ex-Irrational)
www.ensemblestudios.com
#26 by "Prodigy"
2000-05-29 14:42:45
prodigy@gamedata.com http://www.gamedata.com
<b>#24</b> "Happy cow" wrote...
<QUOTE>In half life, take away the Scripted scenes all you really have is a scientist doing the space marine stuff.
</QUOTE>

That's what I meant when I compared the atmosphere of SS2 and the scripted universe of Half-Life. Thief II even have a few scripted sequences ("The sheriff is dead, the sheriff is dead!!" :P) and they fit very well into the game.

Have finished mission 8 last night, can't seem to find one single flaw in this game. Awsome & creepy mood...<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "Tom (cyberfart)"
2000-05-29 17:35:51
tom187@dingoblue.net.au http://www.rtsplayers.org
Go hire Event Horizon. Watch it at night time, by yourself. When its finished, get up, and go play SS2.

;)

Boo!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#28 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-05-29 22:01:21
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Prodigy
<quote>Have finished mission 8 last night, can't seem to find one single flaw in this game. Awsome & creepy mood...</quote>

I'm currently playing Thief2 as well ... I don't know what mission # it is, but I'm on "Life of the Party" ... anyway ...

I absolutely love the game to death, but there IS one flaw in this game.  I really don't like how the guards have this amazing ability to find you no matter what you do.  It doesn't happen all the time.  But sometimes I'll run a long way away, and wedge myself behind some boxes somewhere and sure enough, that guard will find his way there, and find me.  I find that somewhat irritating.  Of course, the solution is to not let them see me in the first place, so really, the fault is mine.  :P
#29 by "None-1a"
2000-05-30 00:26:54
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
Odd statement Warren, kind of makes me a little curuois as to how your running from them. Since if they can see you along the way, or at least see where your ran they will find you, try tricking them into turning around before running (noise makers work well) the running and hideing, that should prevent them from finding you (I've done this and simply hid in a shadow and they've never been able to tell I was there, hiding your weapon also helps).
#30 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-05-30 00:53:07
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
It's not every time, like I said.  But sometimes they have this uncanny ability to track me no matter where I go.

I can normally get away ... I don't totally suck.  ;)
#31 by "Pete Closs"
2000-05-30 03:23:19
<b>#9</b> "erik" wrote...
<QUOTE>"This means that another company, or an individual, could buy the rights to LGS brand names"

Like when Irrational licensed the System Shock rights from EA and the Thief codebase from LGS to make System Shock 2? </QUOTE>

Yes, but that company was formed from ex-LG guys (or was it just one ex-LG person), they worked partially with Lg to make it and most importantly it was actually good. Damn good.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "Pete Closs"
2000-05-30 03:31:04
<b>#22</b> "BarneyQue" wrote...
<QUOTE>#21 "Darkseid-[D!]" wrote...

Getting to the science officer was how should we say it: interesting, yes that's it.</QUOTE>

A little predictable but still interesting. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Prodigy"
2000-05-30 12:52:38
prodigy@gamedata.com http://www.gamedata.com
<b>#28</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote...
<QUOTE>Prodigy
I'm currently playing Thief2 as well ... I don't know what mission # it is, but I'm on "Life of the Party" ... anyway ...

I absolutely love the game to death, but there IS one flaw in this game. I really don't like how the guards have this amazing ability to find you no matter what you do. It doesn't happen all the time. But sometimes I'll run a long way away, and wedge myself behind some boxes somewhere and sure enough, that guard will find his way there, and find me. I find that somewhat irritating. Of course, the solution is to not let them see me in the first place, so really, the fault is mine. :P </QUOTE>

Hmm, just like in UT, when the bots spot you even when you're invisible... ;)

I never encountered the problem so far. Of course I try to be very discrete, but if a guard becomes to suspicious, I either use a noise arrow (great tool to distract many ennemis at once and sneak in a room that was full of them) or drop a flashbomb and knock him out. They do have a tendency to spot you even in the most hidden places, but I think it's more a matter of noise that sight. I find them very sensitive to noises, more than in the first episode (but I guess that's why you can call it a sequel :).<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#34 by "Jafd"
2000-05-30 15:07:22
jafd@whatthefuck.com
<b>#32</b> "Pete Closs" wrote...

<QUOTE>A little predictable but still interesting. :)</QUOTE>

I think you mean, "foreshadowed." ;)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "Pete Closs"
2000-05-30 17:01:54
<b>#34</b> "Jafd" wrote...
<QUOTE>#32 "Pete Closs" wrote...


A little predictable but still interesting. :)


I think you mean, "foreshadowed." ;)</QUOTE>

Hehe, well, partially. How can I put this without spoiling it. "Initially conspicuous due to absence". :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#36 by "Darkseid-D"
2000-05-30 17:08:21
Darkseid-D@planetcrap.com http://www.clanvvv.co.uk
Irony

Johnny Longhair bleats about design being king

his design turns out to be Daikatana


TLLG/Irrational.... their 'design' spawns Terra Nova (hello tribes), Flight Unlimited, System Shock(2) and Thief(2).....



anyone else find this DEEPLY ironic ?


Ds
#37 by "flamethrower"
2000-05-30 18:36:10
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
Ironic? No. Sad? Yes.

What did Raven say? JR's taking WAY too much credit...
#38 by "Chris (kanaeda)"
2000-05-30 20:30:23
kanaeda@planetquake.com http://www.freshteam.co.uk
[#20] flamethrowesaid:
<quote>Because the small and poor id Software coulnd't afford an Aliens licence they used Hellspawn instead and made Doom. </quote>

If you read up enough on the development of Doom (the stuff that came our arround the aniversary if you can find it), you'll find that isn't true. They were entering into negotiations with Fox for licensing the Alien universe and such. They soon realized that the people at Fox would never let them have the kind of creative freedom they demanded, they pulled out and began developing a different background for what became DooM (which is still quite a ways off from Romero/Hall's original design doc).

It had absolutely nothing to do with $$$. I doubt they would have paid Fox a flat fee, up-front, for the Alien license. No doubt Fox would have been taking home a decent percentage from the resulting game if id did license the property.
#39 by "Andy"
2000-05-30 21:13:36
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#38</b>, Chris (kanaeda):
<QUOTE>
If you read up enough on the development of Doom (the stuff that came our arround the aniversary if you can find it), you'll find that isn't true.
</QUOTE>
No, he'll find that it isn't the version of events described by Id Software. I'm sure Fox and Id would recall things differently.

Me, I wasn't around in the pre-Quake days so I'm not passing an opinion one way or the other.
#40 by "Darkseid"
2000-05-30 21:19:34
Darkseid-D@planetcrap.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
quote #38  Me, I wasn't around in the pre-Quake days so I'm not passing an opinion one way or the other.


MY GOD!  its all TRUE!!


andy WAS cloned !!!!!!!

AHHHHHHHH

instead of Dolly the Sheep .. we have Andy the *shudder* Critic!


RUN FOR YOUR LIVES !!!


Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#41 by "|SnappY|"
2000-05-30 21:38:05
snap@nwlink.com
I simply hope that EA decides to go ahead and finish up Jane's Attack Squadron...

LGS said it was only about a quarter out from being finished... and it looks to be extremely promising... hoping EA does the right thing for once...

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#42 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-31 02:17:14
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
<b>Topic:</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>churn out sequels that are likely to sell reasonably well, </QUOTE>

Possible...but considering the sales numbers for the LGS games weren't enough to keep them around, it probably won't do anyone else much good.

What I'd <b>like</b> to see is a creative, dependable team continue the SS and Thief games.  Since these were some of my all-time favorite games, I'm really depressed by the thought of them slipping away for good.

Although it <i>would</i> suck to see someone ruin either series.

-Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#43 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-31 15:20:40
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net/
<b>#42</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>What I'd like to see is a creative, dependable team continue the SS and Thief games. Since these were some of my all-time favorite games, I'm really depressed by the thought of them slipping away for good.

Although it would suck to see someone ruin either series.
</QUOTE>

Exactly, methinks it would be much better to have the good memory of LGS classics without some other company spoiling them with the ugly sequels. Lets just hope the guys resurface somewhere and do something kickass, or, even if the team dissolves in the industry, lets hope that this would improve the quality of other games and maybe would initiate some more classic games with different names / genres. (I am waiting for a long time to see someone actually create an awesome RPG game; some change in RTS world would be cool as well, and not WarCraft3-kind of change, something real).<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "flamethrower"
2000-05-31 17:01:05
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
#38, cost condiderations WERE a factor, or so I'm lead to believe. You are right, however, there was a hole host of other factors invovled. Creative freedom being one, the difficulty in getting Fox on board one too. But isn't that itself cost related too?

If you're willing to pay a million bucks, you're much likelier to convince a corp like Fox than a mere percentage. If you go in loaded and licence, you're much more likely to bargain creative freedom too.

Who cares? Going Doom was for the best. :D
#45 by "euplastic epistasis"
2000-06-11 14:57:53
mindgame@blackvroom.com
firstly, I have to say that I don't usually make a habit of posting on forums such as this, but after reading Looking Glass Studio's poignant letter, I have to leave a memento moriam of sorts, to honour one of the greatest game developers I have ever known as a game player for over a decade. From the moment they threw me into the Stygian Abyss as a breathtakingly, 3d-RPG(GOD, I remember how it seemed so weird in those days, using the words 3d and RPG in the same sentence) game as a gaming alternative when everyone was racking up frags on Doom, to the joy of using a laser rapier to perforate the cyborg Diego in System Shock 1 - right up 'til breathing heavily in the shadows of Soulforge Cathedral waiting for that damn Iron Beast to walk past just so I could wash out it's boiler with a couple of well-placed water arrows...(the darn memory leak bug notwithstanding:)...

In my culture, it is traditional to wear white for funerals, and to have professional mourners as well as saffron-robed monks say prayers for the soul's reincarnation into a better, purer form in the next life. The mourners have been out in force, all over the net - now let us pray the spirit of Looking Glass Studios reincarnates into a better form, but the same spirit - innovative, brilliant, pushing the envelope, and willing to take chances in an industry where clones and derivations seem to be the meal ticket. And here's to us - the gamers - the only people who have a chance to show the corporate publishers and the second-rate game-ripoff hacks what we really want: content, quality, and innovation - rather than hype, marketing, big knives(heh), and above all, *playability*. It doesnt' matter whether it's an FPS, or an RTS, or even turn-based PBEM games - what matters, to my mind, is quality, playability, and innovation - something that the gaming industry as a whole seems to have lost, in the rush for funkier graphics engines and mass appeal.

It seems an absolute travesty that Looking Glass should be dealt such a mortal blow, for mistakes that, as the excellent article in TTLG.com noted, was due to a combination of factors in the gaming industry that is no single person's fault, not even Eidos, or Romero's(as loath as I am to defend him). It is up to the gamers, with our purchasing power, to ensure that Looking Glass' demise is not in vain - that games and developers who provide innovation, playability and quality are rewarded with our gaming dollars - whether it's Ion Storm, Blizzard, or even (god forbid if he produces something worth playing)Derek Smart.

The alternative is a generation down the line where every major developer takes the Molyneux route and hightails it for consoles while the remaining developers do the Ron Gilbert thing(producing for niche markets - I think Putt-Putt is as niche a market as any you'll find), or just produce second-rate ripoffs of established formulas, or simply watch their entire vision go to hell in a handbasket(can anyone say LB?)
#46 by G-Man
2004-09-23 08:10:01
I am an asshole.
#47 by Squeaky
2004-09-23 08:14:16
moron

UAC will be like the Far Side of webcomics, if Gary Larson hadn't been such a pussy about rape humour.
#48 by "Anonymous"
2006-01-18 15:25:39
http://www.monsitexxx.com/fetiche/astromag/beast/faad/index.html currentmontgomerypause
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Malice Through The Looking Glass

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]